Search Results for: calvinball

On October 3, the CRTC concluded the oral hearing portion of its “Review of wholesale mobile wireless services” with a statement: “as stated in the Notice of Consultation, we expect to issue a decision within four months of the close of the record.”

The record closed October 20, which would have made February 20, 2015, last Friday, the self-imposed deadline for the CRTC – coincidentally, the one-year anniversary of the original Public Notice.

When will the CRTC release its decision?

There are a number of issues being reviewed:

• Should the CRTC regulate wholesale roaming rates?
• If so, at what level?
• Should the CRTC mandate resale to enable MVNO – mobile virtual network operators?

On this last point, the CRTC’s work should be pretty easy. Consistently, Industry Canada has rejected calls to mandate resale as a “condition of license” for mobile operators.

In the original AWS spectrum auction that gave rise to today’s competitive entrants such as Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, Videotron and Eastlink, Industry Canada created license conditions that stated: “Roaming as provided for in this condition does not include resale.”

Since that time, Industry Canada has had a number of reviews of its license conditions and associated network infrastructure sharing rules, each time remaining consistent. For example, in its March 2013 “CPC-2-0-17 — Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements“, Industry Canada determined:

A carrier must therefore be offering service on its own network before its subscribers may benefit from roaming on another network, thus it does not include resale.

At the same time, Industry Canada’s perspective has been that “Nothing in the policy, however, is intended to limit the ability of carriers to conclude commercial agreements that are not mandated by this policy.”

Next Tuesday at noon, just one week from now, Canada’s wireless industry will be placing multi-billion dollar bids on spectrum, having built business plans under the December 18, 2014 Framework released by Industry Canada. At that time, Industry Canada reaffirmed the “conditions of license” with no mandated resale.

The CRTC’s wholesale wireless decision should have been released already (it was promised to be out by last Friday), allowing carriers to adjust their business models in advance of the single bid submission deadline.

A fundamental change in the regulatory framework, such as the CRTC mandating resale, could mark the return of Calvinball to Canada’s wireless sector.

There is already lots to talk about at The 2015 Canadian Telecom Summit, June 1-3 in Toronto. Early bird rates are available through Saturday February 28. Have you registered yet?

As I have explained before, Calvinball is a game that has rules, but the rules keep changing.

Here is how Wikipedia describes the game, which was introduced about 20 years ago in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes:

The only consistent rule is that Calvinball may never be played with the same rules twice. Scoring is also arbitrary, with Hobbes reporting scores of “Q to 12″ and “oogy to boogy.” The only recognizable sports Calvinball is similar to are the ones that it emulates (i.e., a cross between croquet, polo, badminton, capture the flag, and volleyball.) Equipment includes a volleyball (the eponymous “Calvinball”), a soccer ball, a croquet set, a badminton set, assorted flags, bags, signs, and a hobby horse. Other things are included as needed, such as a bucket of ice-cold water, a water balloon, and various songs and poetry. Players also wear masks that resemble blindfolds with holes for the eyes. When Rosalyn asked Calvin what the reason for the requirement was, Calvin responded, “Sorry, no one’s allowed to question the masks.”

For the past 4 years, I have used Calvinball to describe Canada’s communications policy, such as here, here, here and here.

The government has been advertising that it welcomes foreign investment in telecommunications; foreign investment apparently forms a key part of the government’s strategy to encourage competition in the sector. Yet, this evening, the government turned down the sale by Manitoba Telecom (MTS) of Allstream to Accelero Capital for “national security reasons,” having taken four and a half months to make a decision. According to MTS, the government “rejected an offer from MTS and Accelero to take whatever actions are necessary to address the government’s concerns.”

Keep in mind that the principals of Accelero are well known to the government. These are the same people that were permitted to buy spectrum and operate WIND Mobile. Indeed, the government seemed to bend over backwards to approve their entry into the market, overturning a CRTC decision that denied WIND Mobile’s right to operate (prior to the liberalization of foreign investment rules).

The Government says:

The Government of Canada has concluded its review of Accelero Capital Holdings’ proposed acquisition of the Allstream division of Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. (MTS) under the national security provisions of the Investment Canada Act. The result of this review is that the transaction will not proceed.

MTS Allstream operates a national fibre optic network that provides critical telecommunications services to businesses and governments, including the Government of Canada.

Just last December, Allstream announced that it had been awarded a multi-year contract to manage theMPLS network, for Shared Services Canada, the Government of Canada department responsible for providing telecommunication services, email and data centres. Allstream also appears to be a major supplier to Canada’s civil aviation navigation services provider, NAV Canada, among other government sector clients.

This evening’s government press release seems to be saying that foreign companies will not be permitted to acquire telecom companies that are providing services to the Government of Canada.

As MTS states,

the transaction would have, among other things:

• contributed to increased competition in Canada’s telecommunications sector;
• sent a strong message that Canada’s telecommunications sector is, in fact, open to foreign investment;
• enabled Allstream to accelerate the introduction of innovative products to increase the productivity of Canadian businesses;
• provided MTS the capital necessary to increase its investment in Manitoba’s telecom infrastructure, such as fibre-to-the-home for rural Manitobans; and
• resulted in $165 million of funding for MTS pension plans benefitting more than 10,000 Plan members.

Will MTS still be in a financial position to bid in the 700 MHz auction? Will it be able to continue its FTTH program, introducing some of the world’s most advanced services and competitive TV distribution in small rural Manitoba communities? What will become of Allstream and its need for continued capital investment? Accelero said that it had planned to inject an additional $300M into Allstream “to increase Allstream’s competitiveness and accelerate the introduction of innovative new products to increase the productivity of Canadian small, medium and enterprise businesses”.

The government’s “Fact versus Fiction” page talks about concerns that Canadians might have dealing with foreign owned telecommunications companies. One of its “Fictions” is “Your privacy is at risk if you choose a foreign cell phone provider” with a response “FACT: Canada has strong privacy laws to ensure our citizens’ personal information is safeguarded. These laws apply equally to all organizations that collect such information in Canada. The laws prevent any provider from disclosing personal information except with consent or when permissible by Canadian law.”

Maybe the government doesn’t have as much faith in dealing with foreign owned telecom service providers as it wants you to have.

Industry Minister Tony Clement gave parties until today to submit comments on the CRTC’s finding last month that Globalive does not comply with Canadian ownership requirements under the Telecom Act.

Why do I keep thinking of Calvinball when I read about the continuing twists and turns regarding the rules for the licensees from our last mobile spectrum auction?

Here is how Wikipedia describes the game, which was introduced about 20 years ago in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes:

The only consistent rule is that Calvinball may never be played with the same rules twice. Scoring is also arbitrary, with Hobbes reporting scores of “Q to 12” and “oogy to boogy.” The only recognizable sports Calvinball is similar to are the ones that it emulates (i.e., a cross between croquet, polo, badminton, capture the flag, and volleyball.) Equipment includes a volleyball (the eponymous “Calvinball”), a soccer ball, a croquet set, a badminton set, assorted flags, bags, signs, and a hobby horse. Other things are included as needed, such as a bucket of ice-cold water, a water balloon, and various songs and poetry. Players also wear masks that resemble blindfolds with holes for the eyes. When Rosalyn asked Calvin what the reason for the requirement was, Calvin responded, “Sorry, no one’s allowed to question the masks.”

When asked how to play, creator Bill Watterson said, “It’s pretty simple: you make up the rules as you go.”

Calvinball is not the kind of game that the investment community will want to play. The government agencies (CRTC and Industry Canada) can’t be seen making up the rules as we go. That is why I told the Canadian Press that I don’t think the CRTC decision will be overturned.

Still, there is one aspect that the CRTC left a door open for policy guidance in its decision, as I suggested last month. There was an ambiguity in Paragraph 118 of the Decision in respect of the allowable amount of debt that could be held by a non-Canadian company.

The Industry Minister might pronounce on this particular point – providing clarity and flexibility – without tearing apart the integrity of foreign ownership restrictions.

Globalive is one of a number of new mobile spectrum license holders. Industry Canada needs to ensure that the rules are clear for all of the industry participants so that we can get on with the game.

The public interest for telecommunications is multi-dimensional. Although some lobbyists seem to focus solely on lower prices, government policy needs to balance other factors, like investment in increased coverage, new technology and services, and quality.

Last Thursday, when Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced a new policy direction, there were 3 “associated links” in the press release:

• Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on a Renewed Approach to Telecommunications Policy
• Backgrounder: Summary of the Government of Canada’s new proposed policy direction to the CRTC
• Backgrounder: Renewing Canada’s approach to Telecommunications Policy: Context for Action

Much of the focus of media coverage was on the proposed Policy Direction as well as the disposition of the wholesale rates appeal:

We recognize the important balance that must be achieved between the need to invest in our networks and the need to promote continued competition and affordability. The wholesale rates decision made by the CRTC in 2021 is an attempt to correct errors made in 2019, and it makes permanent the rates that have been in force since 2016. The decision provides stability, and the government has determined that it will not alter this decision.

My initial impressions were captured in a blog post, “A new direction for Canadian telecom”.

I noticed that many of the news articles cited language that appeared in the Policy Direction Backgrounder, as opposed to the more moderate language found in the actual draft Order.

There seemed to be less attention on the Context Backgrounder, and as has become usual, that is where I like to focus.

I have talked about a theme of balance that I think continues from Minister Navdeep Bains era 5 years ago, balancing Quality, Coverage And Affordable Prices. A few weeks ago, I observed, “In its rejection of an appeal on the CRTC’s Review of Wireless Services, just last month Cabinet said: “the Governor in Council considers that the Commission’s decision appropriately balances investment incentives to build and upgrade networks, and sustainable competition and the availability of affordable mobile wireless prices for consumers”.”

Nearly two years ago, Minister Bains said Canada’s Future Depends on Connectivity. Generally, last week’s telecom policy announcement promises a framework that continues to balance consumer interests, including the incentives for service providers to make investments that deliver quality services, available to all Canadians.

Policy consistency is important. The context backgrounder leads with details of how these policies have delivered benefits for Canadian consumers:

Canada has benefited from very high investment levels over time, with the private sector investing $11.4 billion in 2020. Canada has consistently been above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. For example, in Canada the share of telecommunications revenues invested in capital expenditures over time was 30-50% above the OECD average. This has led to high quality telecommunications networks. For example, according to Ookla’s March 2022 Global SpeedTest, Canada ranked 16th out of 142 countries for median mobile speeds, ahead of all members of the G7, and 17th out of 182 countries for median fixed broadband speeds ahead of all members of the G7, except the USA and Japan.

When it comes to the household availability of full fibre networks, in 2020 the household coverage in Canada (49%) was ahead of the US (42%), Australia (16%), UK (18%), Germany (11%), and Italy (34%) and the EU average of 43%. Similarly, when factoring in cable networks, coverage of the faster speeds of 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps are available to 87% and 76% of homes compared to 76% and 51% in European Union countries. Data from OpenSignal shows strong speeds for new Fifth generation (5G) services with Canada ranking 4th in 2021, strong historical coverage of 4G services, and for more specialized application metrics Canadian operators were not among global leaders but above the sample average. Fibre and new 5G services continue to roll out and ongoing investments will ensure Canadians benefit from these and future technologies as they are introduced and deployed.

The subsequent paragraphs, talking about rural service gaps, demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of the challenging aspects of business cases to build in parts of Canada.

The background document provides a market overview and helps to understand the context in which policies are being formed, “promoting more competition, universal access and a more consumer-oriented telecommunications sector in Canada.”

Minister Champagne said “We recognize the important balance that must be achieved between the need to invest in our networks and the need to promote continued competition and affordability.”

This reference to balance, coupled with the Policy Direction’s requirement for predictability, provide important messages of policy consistency.

Have we seen the end of Calvinball in Canadian telecom regulation?

In its recent rejection of a Cabinet appeal of the CRTC’s Review of Wireless Services, Canada has maintained consistency in its approach to telecom policy, balancing the often competing objectives of extending the reach of networks, delivering world-leading service quality, and affordable prices.

We read “the Governor in Council considers that the Commission’s decision appropriately balances investment incentives to build and upgrade networks, and sustainable competition and the availability of affordable mobile wireless prices for consumers”.

It hasn’t always been that way. Over the past ten years, I have referred to Canada’s telecom policy environment as being like “Calvinball” at least a dozen times. “The only permanent rule in Calvinball is that you can’t play it the same way twice.”

That is hardly the way to provide policy leadership for an economic segment at the core of the digital economy.

In a dissenting opinion a few years ago, former CRTC Commissioner Candace Molnar wrote “Citizens and regulated entities alike deserve a Commission that is fair, predictable, and transparent.”

In upholding the CRTC’s decision, the determination was consistent with an Order in Council from August 2020, which declared, “Canada’s Future Depends On Connectivity”.

At that time, Cabinet said:

On the basis of its review, the Governor in Council considers that the rates do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the policy objectives of the wholesale services framework and is concerned that these rates may undermine investment in high-quality networks, particularly in rural and remote areas. Retroactive payments to affected wholesale clients are appropriate in principle and can foster cooperation in regulatory proceedings. However, these payments, which reflect the rates, must be balanced so as not to stifle network investments. Incentives for ongoing investment, particularly to foster enhanced connectivity for those who are unserved or underserved, are a critical objective of the overall policies governing telecommunications, including these wholesale rates.

Recall that CRTC Chair Ian Scott’s welcome letter, the Ministers of Heritage and of Innovation, Science and Economic Development said “The Government’s objectives are to improve the quality, coverage, and price of services.” At the time, I wrote “It is a delicate balance. Quality and coverage require significant levels of capital investment, especially in a country like Canada.”

Consistency in policy and regulation is critical for the investment community. “Citizens and regulated entities alike deserve a Commission that is fair, predictable, and transparent.”

Canadian telecom policy appears to be clear. Canada’s future depends on connectivity.