Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Court quashes Tory cabinet’s Globalive decision (overturned) Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
2011-07-12 02:16 AM
TorontoColin That's definitely not true. I'm not sure about the Mobility call centres specifically, but many of Bell's call centres are overseas.
2011-07-11 11:15 PM
kav2001c What are you talking about?
All the call centres are in Canada for Bell as well
2011-06-11 10:40 AM
57 Well, not all incumbents. I don't know what happens outside Bell and Rogers, but Rogers support is in Canada - Toronto, New Brunswick and perhaps other locations.
2011-06-11 10:19 AM
recneps77 And that was my point.
Moving work overseas argument is not valid in opposition to foreign investment.
The incumbents have already done so.
2011-06-10 06:53 PM
robsaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by recneps77 View Post

Err.. isn't that precisely what the "100% Canadian" incumbents have done? (at least some of them)
They have their call centres outsourced overseas, formerly done in Canada.
A company could meet the Canadian control requirements of the Telecom Act and not have single Canadian-based employee (other than a couple of executives and Board of Directors). Control has ZERO to do with jobs and everything to do with capital share structure and control of debt.
2011-06-10 06:51 PM
robsaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesK View Post
What we need is competition with strong backing. That isn't possible under the CRTC rules because there isn't enough available capital in Canada. Canadians need to be protected from the CRTC and it's bizarre rules that protect incumbent business at the expense of consumers.
They aren't CRTC rules, they are rules contained in the Telecom Act. The CRTC is just one of several agencies and departments that are under the jurisdiction of the telecom act. This isn't a regulatory authority matter, it is a matter of legislation and political will to change it. However, with the latest Federal Court of Appeal ruling, it potentially opens up investment to more foreign capital presuming that the same structure used by Wind/Globalive will be seen as meeting the "control in fact" test of the Telecom Act as (re)interpreted by the Cabinet.
2011-06-09 04:52 PM
recneps77 Haven't visited this thread in while - I just had to comment on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugh View Post
They might argue that by lowering foreign ownership rules, the telcos may be taken over by foreign firms who would lay off a large percentage of the Canadian workforce and take those jobs to the U.S. or overseas. Unemployed Canadians can't pay cell phone bills.
Err.. isn't that precisely what the "100% Canadian" incumbents have done? (at least some of them)
They have their call centres outsourced overseas, formerly done in Canada.
2011-06-09 09:19 AM
mr weather And the SCC much just grant leave on this one. Questions relating to public policy are often fodder for the Court.
2011-06-08 07:27 PM
djino
Public Mobile Plans to Seek Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

http://www.marketwire.com/press-rele...da-1524636.htm

Quote:


June 08, 2011 17:52 ET

Public Mobile Plans to Seek Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - June 8, 2011) - Public Mobile is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada. The company plans to continue its pursuit for a level-playing field on the issue of foreign ownership and control of wireless carriers in Canada. Public Mobile's decision comes following today's ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal overturning a Federal Court decision by Justice Hughes earlier this year.

The question sparking the debate is whether foreigners should be allowed to control Canadian wireless carriers. The CRTC decided that WIND was in fact controlled by non Canadians. When the government overturned the CRTC it caused many to question why some wireless carriers should be allowed to have all their capital from foreign sources while others cannot. Public Mobile's view is that having access to foreign capital is an advantage that it would also like bestowed upon it.

"There have been five different decision makers in this process with a flip-flopping of the decision each time," said Public Mobile CEO Alek Krstajic. "Industry Canada, the CRTC, the Governor in Council (Federal Cabinet), the Federal Court and now the Federal Court of Appeal have reached conflicting verdicts. Today's decision shows us just how clouded this issue has become and demonstrates more than ever the national importance for consistent rules that should be applied equally to all Canadian wireless carriers. If you're going to change the rules, change them equally for everyone, not just for WIND."

Bob Boron, General Counsel for Public Mobile, notes that in today's decision for the Federal Court of Appeal, The Honourable Justice Sexton acknowledges that "In seeking to challenge the Order in Council, Public Mobile has clearly raised serious issues relating to the interpretation of the (Telecommunications) Act as well as the application of the control in fact test in this case."

Public Mobile has never been opposed to WIND's presence in the marketplace so long as the same rules are applied to everyone. When Public Mobile first decided to challenge the government's decision on WIND in January 2010, Krstajic said, "We are simply asking that all wireless providers be treated equally with the same rules applied and be given the same access to capital."

Public Mobile continues to stand behind the decision of Mr. Justice Hughes. In his decision for the Federal Court he states: "…the Governor in Council (inserted) a previously unknown policy objective into section 7 (of the Telecommunications Act); namely, that of ensuring access to foreign capital, technology and experience. Secondly it erred by limiting its Decision to Globalive only." Mr. Justice Hughes also states that: "…the Governor in Council misdirected itself in law by interpreting the Canadian ownership and control requirements of the Telecommunications Act,… "in a way that ensuresaccess to foreign capital, technology and experience is encouraged". …There is no policy objective in the Act that encourages foreign investment. …It is for Parliament not the Governor in Council to rewrite the Act. ..."

Public Mobile has instructed its Counsel to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
djino
2011-06-08 05:58 PM
peano Good news. And I wager there will be a lot more pleasant suprises in the telecom sector to come.

Robellus must be shaking in their boots. And their CRTC minions.
2011-06-08 04:57 PM
JamesK What we need is competition with strong backing. That isn't possible under the CRTC rules because there isn't enough available capital in Canada. Canadians need to be protected from the CRTC and it's bizarre rules that protect incumbent business at the expense of consumers.
2011-06-08 04:31 PM
djino
Globalive (WIND MOBILE) wins crucial court battle

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2051910/

Quote:
Globalive wins crucial court battle

Globalive Wireless Management Corp. can continue to operate as one of the upstarts that have changed the landscape of Canada’s telecommunications industry, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday.

The federal regulator and many established wireless players have argued that Globalive’s structure meant that it was effectively controlled by its Egyptian financial backer.

The battle over Globalive and its Wind wireless brand has been running since the fall of 2009, when the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ruled that a foreign backer exerted too much control.

But the federal Cabinet, eager to juice competition in the sector with the entry of several players, overturned the CRTC ruling, allowing Globalive to launch Wind Mobile in December 2009.

Shortly after that, Public Mobile, another new wireless player, appealed to the court for clarity on the Cabinet decision and, effectively, Canada's foreign ownership restrictions.

More to come
I guess WIND MOBILE is good to continue business as normal?

djino
2011-06-08 04:18 PM
TorontoColin Canadian Federal Court of Appeal rules in favour of Globalive: WIND can officially stay in business.

Hopefully this is over with.
2011-06-08 03:45 PM
Dioneo Well, Wind won the appeal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2051910/
2011-05-30 12:26 AM
Rockjock
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugh View Post
They might argue that by lowering foreign ownership rules, the telcos may be taken over by foreign firms who would lay off a large percentage of the Canadian workforce and take those jobs to the U.S. or overseas. Unemployed Canadians can't pay cell phone bills.

Not saying I agree with the argument but that is likely to be the one that has the most resonance.

Having said that, lets avoid the politics and stick to the court decision and the court proceeding since that is what this thread is about.
Hugh they need to have the rules removed. Wind was funded 90% by Orascom so lower the rules would not help them. But I have asked this time and time again.. WHY lower the rules so 1 malcontent can prosper? Does not seem logical.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

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