Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

61 - 80 of 124 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
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.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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!)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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!
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
You can't hold a company responsible for mistakes by the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Rob the law is stupid. Great legal defense. Your Honor.. The law is stupid. We at Wind rest.

Really now Rob That is all you have? It is a stupid law.
First of all, it was not WIND that was the subject of the court case it was the Governor General in Council (aka the Cabinet and in particular the Industry Minister). WIND does not need to make any defense; at least not yet. It is the gov't that believes the law is "stupid" or they might use some more politically-correct language and call it "no longer appropriate". This is not a point for challenging the law in court, it is a point for political justification to amend the Act.

Of course there is another alternative - the government steps back, does nothing, in 45 days WIND is out of time and must have new investors or stop operating. That is almost certainly not going to happen.

The reality is that the gov't is firmly on the side of opening up foreign investment and competition in the wireless telco market and has clearly implied their position with the Cabinet decision on WIND (the CRTC ruling, really). So, the only realistic alternatives are the ones the gov't will seek to have its policy become law. Appeal and have their decision upheld, or change the legislation because they (the Cabinet) believes the law is "stupid".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
If this is not a court case for wind why is it Wind has to file an appeal? seems to me it is all about Wind. It is the government that thinks the law is stupid? I have said it several times there is no Foreign ownership law for the telcos it is for all industry. You can not change it for one and not the others. And since it works just fine, evidence of the other 3 entrants having no issues getting to market, why change it? No one seems to address that simple fact. The only ones that seem to think the law stupid are those that are on wind and hope they can keep the cheap plans they have. Government wanted competition and they have it. 4 entered 4 are in market 1 does not comply.. that to me is more competition.. By your definition there is more competition now. The excuse they should be exempt because they had bigger plans is silly. They need to become compliant. If they can not. They need to face the consequences. It is just that simple.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,996 Posts
Wind's appeal is about whether cabinet can overturn the CRTC decision, it is not directly related to their compliance. Robsaw is correct, they do not (at this time) need to defend themselves with regard to their compliance. They're appealing because this ruling directly affects them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
If this is not a court case for wind why is it Wind has to file an appeal? seems to me it is all about Wind. It is the government that thinks the law is stupid? I have said it several times there is no Foreign ownership law for the telcos it is for all industry.
WIND does not have to file an appeal. The gov't itself, or any affected party, can file an appeal. I think the gov't itself is the most likely to appeal.

You can repeat it as many times as you want - you are incorrect. The specific law in question here is for Telecom only and it arises specifically from the Telecom Act - no other industry is in question here with this court case. There are similar laws for broadcasting, publishing, and certain forms of transport (aviation and some rail, shipping) but those are irrelevant with respect to WIND.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Rob I am sorry you are mistaken. Simply put. The law is the one for ALL businesses. It has been stated time and time again.. There is no specific telecom law, that is why the CRTC sighted the canwest ruling If I remember right. I know I am correct about the law because I have had some direct dealings in a different field. The decision to quash the previous ruling is interesting but you mistaken if you think Wind has nothing to do. The only reason there needed to be a decision was because of the noncompliance eliminate that and you have no need for an appeal. No one then looks the fool. But Colin does raise a very interesting point.. maybe they can not become compliant.. in that case they have to hope the law is changed. This is highly doubtful because all of the new players can cry foul.. as well as the big 3.

interesting times ahead gentlemen..
 
61 - 80 of 124 Posts
Top