Post Tagged with: "rogers"

Rogers’ Changing Tune on Fully Opening Canadian Wireless to Foreign Investment

Rogers’ executive Rob Bruce in 2012 on changes to Canadian foreign investment rules that removed restrictions for companies with less than ten percent of the market: “Our view is ‘bring it on. As far as competition goes, we’ve always been a full-speed-ahead competitor and we’re ready to go with whoever […]

Read more ›

January 24, 2014 11 comments News

Rogers Tries to Distance Itself From Spectrum Battle But It Can’t Run From its Record

The Globe and Mail reports that Rogers Communications is trying to distance itself from this summer’s spectrum auction/Verizon battle. Edward Rogers apparently told an investor conference: “It’s been like watching a bit of a soap opera. Rogers has tried to be not as engaged in the dramatics of it and […]

Read more ›

September 19, 2013 7 comments News

James Moore on Wireless Lobbying: Canadians Know Dishonest Attempts to Skew Debates

Industry Minister James Moore came out swinging yesterday against the incumbent’s campaign against Verizon’s entry into the Canadian market and a letter from BCE director Anthony Fell. Moore may have been particularly angered at suggestions that the big three were disrespected after a 30 minute meeting with him when few […]

Read more ›

August 14, 2013 29 comments News

Why the Canadian Plan to Encourage Wireless Competition Is Consistent with Many Developed Countries

As the lobby onslaught from Bell, Telus, and Rogers bears some fruit – editorials from the Globe and Toronto Star calling for the government to reverse its position on a set-aside as well as support from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and from a leading telecom union – it is worth considering whether the Canadian policy differs significantly from other developed economies. The Canadian policy boils down to the two issues: opening the door to telecom foreign investment after years of restrictions and creating a spectrum set-aside to ensure that new entrants (whether domestic or foreign) have a reasonable shot at winning sufficient spectrum to offer competitive wireless services in Canada.

While the big three argue for a “level playing field”, the reality is that Bell, Telus, and Rogers already enjoy enormous marketplace advantages. As I’ve previously discussed, these include restrictions on foreign ownership for broadcast distribution, extensive broadcast assets that Verizon could not touch, millions of subscribers locked into long term contracts, far more spectrum than Verizon would own, and shared networks that saves the companies millions of dollars. In the absence of a set-aside, the incentives for the big three would be to pay far above market price for the spectrum in order to keep competitors out of the market. In other words, Bell, Telus and Rogers will massively over-pay for the spectrum to keep out Verizon unless the government establishes a policy that precludes them from doing so.

The incumbent talking points might lead some to believe that the Canadian policy is dramatically different from other countries (Bell has been talking about how the U.S. would never grant equivalent access, while the Globe speculates  that perhaps the policy is “the result of a drafting error”). Yet a review of recent spectrum auctions in other OECD countries indicates that the twin policy of encouraging foreign investment plus establishing set-asides to facilitate competition is very common. The biggest difference between Canada and many other developed economies is that Canada is late to opening its telecom market and is therefore doing both at roughly the same time. In other countries, foreign investment restrictions in the telecom market were removed years ago.

Read more ›

July 30, 2013 11 comments News

A Closer Look at How Bell “Welcomes any Competitor” to the Canadian Wireless Market

Bell was in full lobby mode yesterday with major advertisements and a new website arguing against a spectrum set-aside that could open the door to Verizon entering the Canadian market. CEO George Cope’s starting point is that “Bell welcomes any competitor, but they should compete on a level playing field.” Both aspects of this statement merit closer scrutiny.

Of all the incumbent telcos, Bell has been the most persistent in trying to limit or delay the removal of foreign investment restrictions that would open the door to new competitors. For example, Bell Canada’s July 2010 submission to the government’s consultation on changes to the foreign investment rules for telecommunications argued that no changes were needed since there were no problems in the Canadian market:

Read more ›

July 26, 2013 15 comments News