Court quashes Tory cabinet’s Globalive decision (overturned) - Page 5 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #61 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:35 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,981
The fact that they were building something bigger is what makes them so special. It is (I assume) why the government gave them the exemption. A judge said this was wrong and I agree and support that decision.

You can also make a philosophical argument that this was wrong, that nobody should get an exemption. If that's your argument (and I think it is) then I can't and won't say you're wrong. However, that is a subjective argument. It's your opinion, and I disagree. I don't disagree that they weren't compliant, but, like the government, I want to see more competition so I support the exemption. That said, I'd prefer the rules were changed for everyone instead. You can disagree with my opinion, but it's still my opinion.

To be clear though, the judge made no comment on whether Wind's compliant, just that Clement cannot overturn the CRTC decision in the manner he did.

Ken's NDA applies unless he is subpoenaed to testify about Wind, which seems unlikely and unnecessary at this point.
TorontoColin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:39 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Winterpeg
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockjock View Post

Back to the question. What makes wind so special that the laws do not apply to them? Colin please be clear here. The argument that they had bigger plans, or that the business plan was not attractive to homegrown investors is moot.

BTW nothing personal I am just asking you a honest question.

No one's saying the law doesn't apply to them. The point is that Industry Canada and the Cabinet interpreted the law in such a way that Wind was compliant with the law. The CRTC and the court interpreted it the other way. The law is rarely ever so clear cut that someone couldn't argue the other side of it. Wind interpreted the law themselves, rolled the dice and it's been working for them so far.
sk1d is offline  
post #63 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:42 PM
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
If I can put it succinctly, I think TorontoColin's argument is that the end justifies the means.

(P.S. I highly recommend Niccolo Machiavelli's book "The Prince" as his is a very Machiavellian argument!)



hugh is offline  
 
post #64 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:50 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,981
In this case, this end justifies this means. If the means was assassinating the CRTC head, I hope it's obvious that I wouldn't approve of that.

I would have preferred to see Wind follow all the investment rules, but I think it's clear that in order to build what they want to build that would not be possible. As such I'm willing to hold my nose and approve of an exemption for Wind. Others may not be and that's fair too.
TorontoColin is offline  
post #65 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:56 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Hugh is spot on it seems. IC and the CRTC have different standards. IF I am going to start a new business I had better know what I am in for. Clearly the other 3 entrants knew and understood this. Clearly this was unfair for them. Lets say for a moment that they all could have had the benefit of getting foregin funding what would the auction been like? Could the other entrants have gotten more spectrum? They could have..

Colin the Government got what they wanted. More competition was just what they have now. So if they are not compliant why do you feel the law needs to be changed to benefit them? They alone got the benefit here. Not public, not mobilicy or videotron .
reward them from failing. Punish the others for passing.

Hugh I will buy you a beer. Colin you too!
Rockjock is offline  
post #66 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:59 PM
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
If anyone cares to read post #13 and #15, you will understand how I feel about this.

I am glad the SC did what it did and I look forward to a vigorous PUBLIC debate over it and if the public decides that its okay, then I will accept the decision.



hugh is offline  
post #67 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 08:03 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Colin the argument you just posted makes no scene at all to me.. " but I think it's clear that in order to build what they want to build that would not be possible " So some could say they dreamed too much, illusions of grandeur, eyes too big for ones stomach, living beyond ones means.. I could see your logic IF they were only able to raise say 200 million and know they could not be as big as they wanted.. but they knew they were not compliant and they knew they could not satisfy the rules.. and now lets reward them . Much like a boxing match and one boxer had plaster in his glove, or a after school footie league with Beck as one of the players while all the rest were weekend warriors. as long as the end result is that I cheat I win then I am all for it right?
Rockjock is offline  
post #68 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-10, 12:54 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 103
What's all this talk about "exemption" for WIND. The legislation does not provide for an exemption so no exemption is possible. Either the legislation is interpreted so WIND is compliant or it isn't, which may end up being appealed to the Supreme Court, which will settle that specific question. The only alternative is changing the legislation.

If the Cabinet could rule and make exemptions for whomever for whatever Act or Regulation we wouldn't have ANY law at all.
robsaw is offline  
post #69 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-10, 05:33 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Rob " The only alternative is changing the legislation. " thats it? thats the only thing you can come up with? Really? So let me grasp this you break the rules get told a few times then get a gimme, the gimme is sealed , it comes to light the gimme was not legal so lets change the laws.. OR lets make the offender compliant. Now there is a novel idea! Make them accountable. hmmm
Rockjock is offline  
post #70 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-10, 05:45 PM
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
You can't hold a company responsible for mistakes by the government.



hugh is offline  
post #71 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-10, 06:23 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Hugh thats true. BUT since they knew they were not compliant they did nothing to remedy that situation. If you are told several times that you are not compliant and then you are passed somehow, the details may or may not come to light, and you know there is an appeal filed. Well then you get your house in order. If all was well then why try and find more funding? Why were they saying they were in talks for more funding. True you can not be held responsible nor can you profit from the mistake. There has to be a balance. I think the simple solution is to be compliant. That way no one can cry foul.
Speaking to someone today she had a interesting comment. Globalive could be shout out and they could file a tort.. or they could pass and have the new 3 entrants and the big 3 file a tort for the special treatment they got. What I do find interesting is the Tony in cabinet maybe ready to fall on his sword for this one.

But Hugh I do agree that it is a difficult situation what I have issue wish is the ridiculous notion that changing the law is the only option. benefit the cheats and punish those that played by the rules. All this would be moot had Globalive just lived up to the rules. In Egypt this I expected, here no..
Rockjock is offline  
post #72 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-10, 08:21 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,981
You're assuming it was feasible for them to become compliant and they chose not to. I think it's far more likely that they tried and couldn't.
TorontoColin is offline  
post #73 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-11, 03:07 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockjock View Post
Rob " The only alternative is changing the legislation. " thats it? thats the only thing you can come up with? Really? So let me grasp this you break the rules get told a few times then get a gimme, the gimme is sealed , it comes to light the gimme was not legal so lets change the laws.. OR lets make the offender compliant. Now there is a novel idea! Make them accountable. hmmm
The only alternative that isn't based on a reality and not on a emotional rant, yes.

If the law is stupid then the law should be changed - not enforce a law to hold someone "accountable" (whatever that means).
robsaw is offline  
post #74 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-11, 05:00 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoColin View Post
You're assuming it was feasible for them to become compliant and they chose not to. I think it's far more likely that they tried and couldn't.
Colin I must agree with you on this.. maybe they can not become compliant.. maybe they should never have tried to make this work. The point in nothing has changed from the day they began to offer the service. Which begs the question. Why is no one interested in funding Wind? Who knows.. but it still begs the question did they dream too big, did they believe their own hype? The laws are more then fair. As I have said many times it gave the other new entrants no problems.. Time will tell if Wind gets another gimmie.. I doubt it will be so easy.
Rockjock is offline  
post #75 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-11, 05:06 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by robsaw View Post
The only alternative that isn't based on a reality and not on a emotional rant, yes.

If the law is stupid then the law should be changed - not enforce a law to hold someone "accountable" (whatever that means).
Rob the law is stupid. Great legal defense. Your Honor.. The law is stupid. We at Wind rest.

The stupid law works for countless companies.. this stupid law has employed far more people than you know. The stupid law as you call it works just fine. Maybe the stupid Wind dreamed too much, maybe Stupid Wind did not read the rules, Maybe the stupid owner in Egypt thought that he could just buy compliance, Maybe stupid wind is just stupid.

Really now Rob That is all you have? It is a stupid law.
Rockjock is offline  
Reply

Tags
globalive , wind , wind mobile

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome