|
Thursday May 16, 2013 |
The examination of the proposed Bell acquisition of Astral
Communications took place last week in Montreal with the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing from a wide
range of supporters and opponents of a deal that only last year was
rejected as contrary to the public interest.
As Bell and Astral sought to defend their plan, a familiar enemy emerged
- Netflix. What does a U.S.-based Internet video service with roughly
two million Canadian subscribers have to do with a mega-merger of Bell
and Astral?
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that for the past few years, it has become standard operating procedure at
CRTC hearings to ominously point to the Netflix threat. When Internet
providers tried to defend usage based billing practices that led to
expensive bills and some of the world's most restrictive data caps, they
pointed to the bandwidth threat posed by Netflix. When cultural groups
sought to overturn years of CRTC policy that takes a hands-off approach
to Internet regulation, they argued that Netflix was a threat that
needed to be addressed. So when Bell and Astral seek to merge, they
naturally raise the need to respond to Netflix.
Read More ...
This is an age-old strategy that seems to resurface every decade. In
the 1980s, it was the effort to keep large U.S. specialty channels
such as ESPN and MTV out of the market that led to the creation of
TSN and MuchMusic. In the 1990s, the U.S. satellite television
providers were branded the "death stars" and kept out of the market
to allow for Canadian entries. In the 2000s, it was U.S. satellite
radio services that were denied entry until acquiescing to minimum
Canadian content requirements.
In this decade, it is the Internet's turn as over-the-top video
services such as Netflix are viewed as threats to established
Canadian broadcasters, broadcast distributors, and content creators.
To date, the CRTC has largely skirted the issue by pointing to
studies that suggest that Netflix and other over-the-top video
providers have only had a minimal impact on the consumer market. But
that won't last. Whether Netflix or the myriad of other online video
services - from YouTube's forthcoming subscription services to the
National Film Board's documentary film Netflix competitor (scheduled
to launch in 2014) to sports leagues offering season packages for
Internet distribution to film studios launching their own services -
the online distribution model is only going to increase in
popularity.
Rather than claiming limited impact, the CRTC should embrace the
trend by concluding that the services are a boon to both consumers
and content creators consistent with its policy mandate that does
not require regulatory change or protection for established Canadian
broadcasters.
For consumers, the benefits are obvious with more choice, greater
convenience, and lower prices.
Creators also benefit from the proliferation of these services by
virtue of the heightened competition for their content. In years
past, the competitive landscape in Canada was limited to a handful
of broadcasting organizations. The entry of new competitors means
there will be a larger ecosystem of distributors, intermediaries,
and original producers all vying for enough content to make a
compelling offering to consumers.
The established players unsurprisingly view the new entrants as a
threat since they offer competitive content at a fraction of the
price of a typical cable or satellite bill, increase acquisition
costs, and free consumers from being locked into a small number of
service providers.
Broadcasters and some content creator groups may be comfortable with
a highly regulated system that provides a steady stream of revenue,
but the new environment creates a more competitive landscape and the
promise of increased demand for new creative works. Viewed in that
light, the shift toward a robust online video market should be
welcomed by the CRTC with open arms, not viewed warily as a threat
in need of regulatory intervention.
astral, bell, netflix Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday May 16, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
|
Wednesday May 15, 2013 |
Appeared in the Toronto Star on May 11, 2013 as Bell and Astral Merger: Netflix Isn't the Enemy
The examination of the proposed Bell acquisition of Astral
Communications took place last week in Montreal with the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearing from a wide
range of supporters and opponents of a deal that only last year was
rejected as contrary to the public interest.
As Bell and Astral sought to defend their plan, a familiar enemy emerged
- Netflix. What does a U.S.-based Internet video service with roughly
two million Canadian subscribers have to do with a mega-merger of Bell
and Astral?
For the past few years, it has become standard operating procedure at
CRTC hearings to ominously point to the Netflix threat. When Internet
providers tried to defend usage based billing practices that led to
expensive bills and some of the world's most restrictive data caps, they
pointed to the bandwidth threat posed by Netflix. When cultural groups
sought to overturn years of CRTC policy that takes a hands-off approach
to Internet regulation, they argued that Netflix was a threat that
needed to be addressed. So when Bell and Astral seek to merge, they
naturally raise the need to respond to Netflix.
This is an age-old strategy that seems to resurface every decade. In the
1980s, it was the effort to keep large U.S. specialty channels such as
ESPN and MTV out of the market that led to the creation of TSN and
MuchMusic. In the 1990s, the U.S. satellite television providers were
branded the "death stars" and kept out of the market to allow for
Canadian entries. In the 2000s, it was U.S. satellite radio services
that were denied entry until acquiescing to minimum Canadian content
requirements.
In this decade, it is the Internet's turn as over-the-top video services
such as Netflix are viewed as threats to established Canadian
broadcasters, broadcast distributors, and content creators.
To date, the CRTC has largely skirted the issue by pointing to studies
that suggest that Netflix and other over-the-top video providers have
only had a minimal impact on the consumer market. But that won't last.
Whether Netflix or the myriad of other online video services - from
YouTube's forthcoming subscription services to the National Film Board's
documentary film Netflix competitor (scheduled to launch in 2014) to
sports leagues offering season packages for Internet distribution to
film studios launching their own services - the online distribution
model is only going to increase in popularity.
Rather than claiming limited impact, the CRTC should embrace the trend
by concluding that the services are a boon to both consumers and content
creators consistent with its policy mandate that does not require
regulatory change or protection for established Canadian broadcasters.
For consumers, the benefits are obvious with more choice, greater convenience, and lower prices.
Creators also benefit from the proliferation of these services by virtue
of the heightened competition for their content. In years past, the
competitive landscape in Canada was limited to a handful of broadcasting
organizations. The entry of new competitors means there will be a
larger ecosystem of distributors, intermediaries, and original producers
all vying for enough content to make a compelling offering to
consumers.
The established players unsurprisingly view the new entrants as a threat
since they offer competitive content at a fraction of the price of a
typical cable or satellite bill, increase acquisition costs, and free
consumers from being locked into a small number of service providers.
Broadcasters and some content creator groups may be comfortable with a
highly regulated system that provides a steady stream of revenue, but
the new environment creates a more competitive landscape and the promise
of increased demand for new creative works. Viewed in that light, the
shift toward a robust online video market should be welcomed by the CRTC
with open arms, not viewed warily as a threat in need of regulatory
intervention.astral, bell, netflix Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday May 15, 2013 |
|
|
Tuesday May 07, 2013 |
|
Industry Minister Christian Paradis appeared before the Standing
Committee on Industry, Science and Technology last week and was
asked what he thought Canadians would say about wireless pricing.
Paradis instead indicated what he would tell them:
I would tell them that when we compare with our peers, we are
in the middle-average, we dropped down by almost 20% and this is
a work in progress. We will continue. We are dedicated to have a
fourth player and we will do whatever we can in terms of policy
to achieve this. Frankly, so far time gave us reason.
If this is a work-in-progress, is the government prepared to do
more? Apparently it is, as Paradis also told the committee:
When you talk about the roaming and the tower
sharing, we announced broader measures, and if we have to
intervene more we will.
paradis, wireless Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday May 07, 2013 |
|
|
Thursday April 25, 2013 |
|
This week's CRTC mandatory distribution hearing has placed the
spotlight on a fascinating disconnect between the Commission and the
Canadian broadcast community. Despite months of telegraphing its intent
to promote consumer choice over broadcaster revenues, the first two days
of the hearing have featured repeated presentations from groups who
have not gotten the message. CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais could not have
been clearer in a speech last October:
In our decision, we noted that consumers increasingly expect to be
in control of what they watch. It makes sense that consumers and the
distributors who serve them should have more flexibility in packaging
choices. While we acknowledged the value of predictable revenues to the
programming services, we decided that the days of guaranteed wholesale
rates are over. Programming services cannot expect to remain completely
insulated from the growing demand for greater choice by Canadians.
He followed that up in March by telling the production community that it "will need to compete, just like any other sector."
Despite the messaging, many of the groups seeking mandatory distribution evidently don't get it.
Read More ...
I wrote
yesterday about the parade of failed broadcaster business
models hoping to hit the jackpot with mandatory carriage, but it
was an exchange
between Commissioner Molnar and Sun News that best illustrates the
disconnect:
Molnar: I just want you to tell me right now why you think it
is fair and equitable that every Canadian cable subscriber
should pay for you today.
Teneycke: Well, I think the simplest answer is I think it's
the law in the sense that the Broadcast Act itself which is why
we're here, it's why the CRTC exists, it's why the CBC exists
and sort of the foundational core of all the rules around
broadcasting and to have the privilege to have access to
Canadians' homes and who is going to be distributing and who
isn't.
Wrong answer. Despite some suggestions that the Broadcasting
Act obligates the CRTC to order mandatory distribution for
some channels, the provision in the law is very general. It merely
states that the Commission may "require any licensee who is
authorized to carry on a distribution undertaking to carry, on
such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate,
programming services specified by the Commission."
It is therefore the CRTC that interprets the law and it falls to the
applicants to demonstrate why their proposals fall within that
interpretation. As Blais emphasized
at the start of the hearing, the CRTC has set a very high
threshold, providing yet another signal that broadcasters
should not be relying on regulatory mandates:
Given its exceptional nature, the CRTC has set the bar very
high for obtaining a mandatory distribution order on digital
basic service pursuant to section 9(1)h). The CRTC’s policy
requires that a service seeking such an order must clearly
demonstrate its exceptional nature and that it achieves
important public policy objectives under the Act.
Each applicant must therefore demonstrate, with supporting
evidence, that its service:
- meets a real and exceptional need within the broadcasting
system
- contributes in an exceptional manner to Canadian expression
- contributes in an exceptional manner to all the objectives
of the digital basic service and specifically contributes to
one or more objectives of the Act, and
- makes exceptional commitments to original, first-run
Canadian programming in terms of exhibition and expenditures.
All four of these requirements must be met. Broadcasters have
largely emphasized the fourth criteria, citing their commitment to
Canadian content. Yet the CRTC requires far more. In a
world of almost unlimited choice available through the
broadcasting system and from unregulated Internet-distributed
voices, it is worth asking whether any service can meet the
standard of contributing in an exceptional manner to Canadian
expression. The very definition
of exceptional is to be the exception, uncommon or extraordinary.
Given the ready availability of programming alternatives, few
broadcasters will ever meet this standard.
The Sun News response was reminiscent of Bell's attitude in the
Bell-Astral hearing, where the Commission was focused on the
public interest and Bell paid scant attention to the issue. The
Commission rejected the Bell deal and I suspect it will similarly
reject the new proposals it has heard thus far (the big question
will be about Starlight, the proposed Canadian movie channel that
is better suited as an Internet-based Netflix competitor).
Indeed, the entire process feels dated as if a decade of
disruptive technologies from YouTube to Netflix never happened. As
I noted
yesterday, the CRTC can and should use the high standard it
has set within the law to put an end to the steady procession of
poorly developed broadcast proposals that depend upon regulatory
mandates for their very survival.
broadcasting act, crtc, mandatory distribution Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday April 25, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday April 23, 2013 |
|
The CRTC kicked off its two week broadcast hearing on mandatory
distribution yesterday with a steady stream of proposals hoping to hit the jackpot by winning mandatory distribution (and
guaranteed millions) from cable and satellite distributors. I've written
(here and here)
about why mandatory distribution should be dropped altogether, but
yesterday's hearing provided the best evidence yet. CRTC Chair
Jean-Pierre Blais started the hearing by making it clear
that the Commission would establish a very high threshold - consistent
with the Act - before forcing any Canadians to pay for channels they may
not want. Over the course of the day, no one came close to meeting even
a low threshold.
As the hearing veered from proposals backed by studies suggesting
consumers weren't interested in their product to claims that broadcaster
costs were "totally retarded", it became apparent that the mandatory
distribution process is a last gasp for many failed, failing or never
started broadcast proposals. The Commission heard from channels that broadcast
distributors won't carry, that advertisers won't support, that few subscribers pay for, and that don't
have any content (user generated content was the answer for two such
proposals leading one Commissioner to ask why people wouldn't just watch
YouTube). Even the Sun News Network, the headliner of the day, acknowledged that its complaints about undue preference by
other distributors would not meet the legal standard, that it is already
available to 70% of cable subscribers, and that Videotron, which shares the same parent
company, has not placed the channel on basic service, even though it
is seeking an order from the CRTC requiring everyone else to do so.
Read More ...
No one wanted to acknowledge they could try competing in the
marketplace for subscribers or could launch an unregulated over-the-top
Internet-based service. Instead, the preferred model is to have
the CRTC require millions of Canadians to pay for their service
through mandatory distribution. All of this leads to a
broadcast catch-22. If consumers want your service, there is
seemingly no need for mandatory distribution since there is the
prospect for marketplace success. If consumers don't want
your service, forcing them to pay for it is rightly viewed as
unfair (no matter what the Broadcasting Act might say about
encouraging Canadian content).
The CRTC should use this hearing to put an end to this bad
version of Regulatory Dragon's Den (with consumers' money at stake). For the new proposals, it
should affirm that broadcasters need to convince
consumers, not commissioners, that they have something worth buying.
For broadcasters seeking renewal of mandatory carriage, it should
send a message that the gravy train is over by rejecting price increases and limiting any
renewal to three more years with notice that no further extensions
will be granted. If the service is a necessary public service, the government should support it. If not, the market should decide. Either way, by the time Blais' term concludes in 2017, the
CRTC should be out of the business of being the last hope for
uncompetitive broadcast business models.
broadcasting, crtc, mandatory distribution Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 23, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday April 23, 2013 |
Last month, Jean-Pierre Blais, the chair of the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, delivered a
much-discussed speech at the Canadian Media Production Association's
annual conference. The CMPA is Canada's leading organization for the
production of Canadian film and television programming and Blais'
message was intended to both congratulate and challenge the industry.
On the congratulatory side, Blais noted the Canadian film and television
production had a record year in 2012, growing by over $500 million over
the prior year, by far the highest total and fastest growth in over a
decade. Canadian television production led the way, increasing 21.3 per
cent in 2011/12, for a ten-year high of just under $2.6 billion. Most of
the increase was due to English-language programming, with fiction
production growing by over 41 per cent.
Blais' challenge came in several forms, but my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the comment that attracted
the most attention was his remark that "under my watch, you will not see
a protectionist. I'm a promotionist." Most observers took the comment
to mean that the CRTC will not focus on mechanisms such as Canadian
content requirements and foreign restrictions as a means to advance
Canadian culture. Rather, with billions being spent on the creation of
Canadian programming, it is better to concentrate on marketing and
promotion of those works.
Yet there was a second comment that garnered less attention, but that
may ultimately prove more important. After encouraging the industry to
become more innovative and entrepreneurial, Blais warned "you will need
to compete, just like any other sector." Read More ...
That may sound unremarkable, but to an industry that has often
focused on creating rather than competing, it represents a potential
sea change.
For example, most of the funding for the record amount of
Canadian English-language television programming came from
taxpayers and broadcasters, not the original producers of the
content. According to Profile
2012, an annual report on the state of the industry, only
ten per cent came from private funding such as production
companies and private investors. Canadian distributors covered 18
per cent of the total costs, with foreign distributors kicking in
an additional nine per cent.
That still represents less than half of the total financing costs
for Canadian English-language television programming. Federal and
provincial tax credits provided the largest chunk of funding,
covering 29 per cent of the cost, while broadcaster licence fees
constituted another 25 per cent. The Canada Media Fund, which is
jointly funded by the taxpayers and cable and satellite providers,
covered the remaining ten per cent.
The notion of competing in the market should take centre stage
this week as the CRTC conducts its hearing on whether Canadians
who subscribe to cable and satellite television packages should be
required to pay for channels such as Sun News Network and
Starlight, a proposed all-Canadian movie channel. The regulatory
process has been likened to winning the lottery, since channels
selected for mandatory carriage are guaranteed millions in revenue
regardless of whether Canadians watch or even want the channel.
The best approach would be to scrap the mandatory carriage rules
altogether. Instead, the Commission could require cable and
satellite companies to offer all licensed channels to their
customers. That would enable consumers to decide what they want to
pay for and assuage broadcaster concerns that some distributors may
withhold access to their programming altogether.
That shift in approach would represent a significant change in
Canadian broadcast policy, effectively establishing a framework
that requires the industry to compete for subscribers. As CRTC
Chair Blais would say, just like any other sector.
blais, crtc, mandatory carriage Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 23, 2013 |
|
View
|
|
|
Tuesday April 23, 2013 |
Rogers Communications held its quarterly results call
yesterday, leading to a question on its expectation with regard to an
Industry Canada decision on its proposed acquisition of spectrum from
Shaw. Industry Minister Christian Paradis has signalled his concern
with the proposal. Perhaps hoping for a delay in the decision, Rogers
indicated that it does not expect Industry Canada to decide until
roughly September 2014 (or well after the spectrum auction later this
year). According to Ken Engelhart:
The
5-year limitation period for Shaw to sell the spectrum to an incumbent
does not come up until September of 2014. So I don't expect a decision
from Industry Canada until September of 2014 or thereabouts. Obviously,
it's very useful spectrum for us to provide LTE services, so if we're
not allowed to buy it, we'll need to figure something else there.
When asked in a follow-up whether there wouldn't be some clarification
of that prior to the spectrum auction, Engelhart responded that he did
not expect that to happen.paradis, rogers, shaw, spectrum Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 23, 2013 |
|
|
Monday April 22, 2013 |
Appeared in the Toronto Star on April 20, 2013 as CRTC Should Force Broadcasters to Compete
Last month, Jean-Pierre Blais, the chair of the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, delivered a
much-discussed speech at the Canadian Media Production Association's
annual conference. The CMPA is Canada's leading organization for the
production of Canadian film and television programming and Blais'
message was intended to both congratulate and challenge the industry.
On the congratulatory side, Blais noted the Canadian film and television
production had a record year in 2012, growing by over $500 million over
the prior year, by far the highest total and fastest growth in over a
decade. Canadian television production led the way, increasing 21.3 per
cent in 2011/12, for a ten-year high of just under $2.6 billion. Most of
the increase was due to English-language programming, with fiction
production growing by over 41 per cent.
Blais' challenge came in several forms, but the comment that attracted
the most attention was his remark that "under my watch, you will not see
a protectionist. I'm a promotionist." Most observers took the comment
to mean that the CRTC will not focus on mechanisms such as Canadian
content requirements and foreign restrictions as a means to advance
Canadian culture. Rather, with billions being spent on the creation of
Canadian programming, it is better to concentrate on marketing and
promotion of those works.
Yet there was a second comment that garnered less attention, but that
may ultimately prove more important. After encouraging the industry to
become more innovative and entrepreneurial, Blais warned "you will need
to compete, just like any other sector."
That may sound unremarkable, but to an industry that has often focused
on creating rather than competing, it represents a potential sea change.
For example, most of the funding for the record amount of Canadian
English-language television programming came from taxpayers and
broadcasters, not the original producers of the content. According to
Profile 2012, an annual report on the state of the industry, only ten
per cent came from private funding such as production companies and
private investors. Canadian distributors covered 18 per cent of the
total costs, with foreign distributors kicking in an additional nine per
cent.
That still represents less than half of the total financing costs for
Canadian English-language television programming. Federal and provincial
tax credits provided the largest chunk of funding, covering 29 per cent
of the cost, while broadcaster licence fees constituted another 25 per
cent. The Canada Media Fund, which is jointly funded by the taxpayers
and cable and satellite providers, covered the remaining ten per cent.
The notion of competing in the market should take centre stage this week
as the CRTC conducts its hearing on whether Canadians who subscribe to
cable and satellite television packages should be required to pay for
channels such as Sun News Network and Starlight, a proposed all-Canadian
movie channel. The regulatory process has been likened to winning the
lottery, since channels selected for mandatory carriage are guaranteed
millions in revenue regardless of whether Canadians watch or even want
the channel.
The best approach would be to scrap the mandatory carriage rules
altogether. Instead, the Commission could require cable and satellite
companies to offer all licensed channels to their customers. That would
enable consumers to decide what they want to pay for and assuage
broadcaster concerns that some distributors may withhold access to their
programming altogether.
That shift in approach would represent a significant change in Canadian
broadcast policy, effectively establishing a framework that requires the
industry to compete for subscribers. As CRTC Chair Blais would say,
just like any other sector.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can
reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.
blais, broadcast, crtc, mandatory carriage Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday April 22, 2013 |
|
|
Monday April 22, 2013 |
Appeared in the Toronto Star on April 13, 2013 as Deep Divisions Surface in Canada's Wireless Industry
The Canadian wireless sector was shocked last week by the abrupt
departure of the three major new entrants - Wind Mobile, Public Mobile,
and Mobilicity - from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications
Association. The new entrants took the CWTA by surprise, issuing a stern
release claiming the association has shown consistent bias in favour of
Bell, Telus, and Rogers, the three incumbent providers. Moreover, the
companies pointed to a blatant disregard for new entrants and alleged
that the CWTA had failed to honour repeated promises of fair
representation.
The move is a major blow to the CWTA, which has long promoted itself as
the voice of the industry. For example, during the recent CRTC consumer
wireless code hearing, it opened by telling the commission that it
“represents virtually all of the major companies in Canada's wireless
telecommunications ecosystem.”
No longer.
While analysts searched for a specific incident that led to the
departure, the more likely explanation lies in the ongoing battle over
the state of competitiveness of the Canadian wireless sector. The
question is not a mere academic debate since key government policies,
including the framework for the forthcoming multi-billion dollar
spectrum auction, the creation of an enforceable consumer wireless
protection code, and the rules on much-hated three-year wireless
contracts, all hang in the balance.
The CWTA has long argued that the Canadian market is competitive and
that no government intervention or additional regulation is needed.
Indeed, as far back as 2000, the association told officials “the
Canadian wireless market has been competitive from the outset.”
As study after study pointed to high consumer prices and comparatively
low subscriber rates, the government began to entertain the possibility
of a set-aside in a spectrum auction to pave the way for new entrants
into the market.
Once again, the CWTA argued against the approach, claiming that the
market was already competitive and that no intervention was needed. The
government rejected the CWTA’s position, leading to the 2008 set-aside
and the eventual entry of Wind Mobile, Public Mobile, and Mobilicity
into the market.
The new entrants succeeded in providing lower-cost alternatives, yet the
incumbents did little to alter their approach, hoping that the new
competition would be short-lived. Provincial governments became involved
with several proposing new wireless consumer protections. The CWTA
first argued against provincial involvement in the issue and later
against immediate implementation of a national code being crafted by the
CRTC.
For the new entrants, an association committed to fighting efforts to
enhance competition and consumer protection was an association fighting
against their own interests since their long-term viability depends on
maintaining policies designed to promote further competition. While the
CWTA and the new entrants may have been able to paper over their
differences on technical issues, the competitiveness issue was too
important for compromise.
At the recent CRTC hearing on a consumer wireless code, Wind Mobile openly broke with the CWTA, telling the commission that
“The CWTA has elected to take certain positions over the express
objections of WIND Mobile (on the basis that such positions are not
"industry positions" but rather those of a BRT-dominated CWTA board).
Accordingly, without needing to single out positions taken by the CWTA
which align with those of WIND Mobile, WIND Mobile simply states that
WIND Mobile does not support the CWTA submission.”
Moreover, Mobilicity had already publicly differed with the CWTA on
consumer issues back in 2011, stating that it was “exceptionally
disappointed with the CWTA's lack of foresight in continuing to act only
in the interests of the Big Three wireless oligopoly.”
Viewed in this light, the only surprising thing about the decision to
abandon the CWTA is not why, but rather what took so long. The move
sends a strong message to the government and the CRTC that there remain
deep divisions within the industry with many legitimate concerns about
competitiveness of the Canadian wireless market.
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and
E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can
reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.
cwta, wireless Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday April 22, 2013 |
|
|
Monday April 22, 2013 |
The debate over the state of wireless competition in Canada continues to rage. Last week, I appeared on CBC's The Current,
as part of a 30 minute segment devoted to the wireless industry. The
issue was also discussed during Question Period at the House of Commons,
with Industry Minister Christian Paradis focusing on competition and consumers:
We want to enhance competition and investment in this country, and
this is why we adopted this policy back in 2008 for the AWS spectrum.
Let me say that the price went down by an average of 11% since then, and
we will continue this way with the 700 megahertz spectrum. We launched
consultation with the industry to make sure that we enhance competition
and provide better choice and better rates for our consumers.
cbc the current, paradis, wireless Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday April 22, 2013 |
|
|