Canada Decides That Canadian Ownership Is More Important Than Real Telco Competition

from the regulatory-failure dept

The biggest problem in the telco world is the lack of competition. Most of the worst abuses by various telecom providers is because there really isn't enough competition to make it worthwhile to treat customers better. The best thing that governments can do to encourage better broadband/telco services is to encourage competition. Apparently, Canada has different priorities. A new mobile firm was set to open up shop in Canada, called Globalive. However, Canada apparently has some rules about how telcos need to have Canadian ownership. And while Globalive was originally judged to meet the criteria in bidding on spectrum, a different government bureaucracy has now said that it doesn't meet the Canadian ownership requirements. In other words, to the Canadian government, having local ownership is more important than real competition. This is basically a form of protectionism that (like most forms of protectionism) ends up harming consumers.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iPhone To Be Offered From Multiple Carriers, eh

from the in-God-Phone-We-Anti-Trust dept

Given all the talk in DC lately about anti-competitive exclusive cellphone distribution arrangements, it's very interesting to see a rumor broken by the Globe and Mail about the iPhone in Canada. According to The Globe, Rogers will soon lose its iPhone exclusive as both TELUS and Bell Mobility add the iconic device to their Christmas line-up. Bell and TELUS are migrating away from the CDMA technology they have used up to 3G, towards the more globally compatible GSM evolutions. To minimize costs, the two carriers are building a single shared-infrastructure network, on which they will both sell services. While Rogers, the long-time GSM user, will have the wider network footprint and offer iPhones fall-back to their 2G data networks when out of 3G coverage, that advantage is countered by TELUS and Bell offering 3.5G HSPA+ speeds to Rogers' 3G. Under current coverage conditions, iPhone urbanites might prefer the new entrants, while sub-urbanites may prefer Rogers.

What is most interesting here is the break from Apple's conventional one-country-one-carrier strategy, which has attracted the attention of more than a few countries' regulators. The Canadian case will be the first market where competing carriers offer the iPhone, without a regulator forcing Apple's hand. Perhaps Germany will follow Canada: there are rumors that T-Mobile will lose their exclusive deal with Apple by year's end, and British/Spanish carrier O2 will enter the market with preferable iPhone plans. In the USA, most of the hot water Apple is swimming in is because the FTC isn't happy with the iPhone app approval process, which nixed the Google voice app. But while the FTC branch is focused on the App Store, some Congressional Reps are voicing their displeasure at the exclusive iPhone deal with AT&T. Governments around the world aren't sure what to make of exclusive phone distribution deals - which, strangely, never seemed to raise an eyebrow until the iPhone. In France, the Orange-Apple 5-yr exclusive was smacked down by the feds who argued that an exclusive arrangement would add "a new element of rigidity in the sector which is already suffering from a lack of competition." But here's where I'm not so clear.

I agree that exclusives, when examined in isolation, are anti-competitive. But overall, I'm not clear on how a 2007 new entrant (Apple), with a disruptive device that lit a fire under the incumbent vendors, could be perceived as "anti-competitive" in terms of net results. In fact, the exclusivity has undeniably forced the competing carriers to work their butts off to come up with a comparable device, seeking it from the likes of Nokia, Samsung (which are scrambling to respond, though they'd never admit it), or newer players like HTC or INQ. The exclusive deals seem to be spurring competition. In contrast, in a world where every telco carries the iPhone, the telcos actually can worry less about offering something else that's equal or better. I suppose someday it could make sense to go after Apple exclusives, but why not wait until the net effect on society is actually negative in some measurable way? A good rule for government should be, "When in doubt, leave it alone."

Meanwhile, the Canadian case will certainly offer Canadians more choice among iPhone providers, and most notably iPhone plans. Canadians tasted the bitter flavor of inadequate competition when iPhone data plans were first announced there in mid 2008. Three-year contracts, no unlimited data plan, high per-MB pricing, and a triple lock-in. Yes, Canada may soon see more service competition around the iPhone -- but will Canada see more or less device competition?

Derek Kerton is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Derek Kerton and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Judge Says No To Cameras In The Courtroom... But Okays Twitter

from the connecting-to-the-outside-world dept

It seems like a popular topic in 2009 is how modern technology is opening up public access to courtrooms... if only judges would allow it. We've had numerous stories about things like Twitter and webcasting from a courtroom. To date, most stories are about judges banning as much as possible, but Michael Geist points out that in a case up in Canada a judge has barred television cameras, but allowed Twitter. Of course, since the specifics of the ruling do allow mobile devices to gather and disseminate news... what about someone using the camera on their mobile phone to stream the proceedings? That's not the same as a full sized TV camera that the judge rejected...

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Dispute Blocks iPhone Skype In Canada

from the progress? dept

There's been a lot of buzz this week over a version of Skype finally being released for the iPhone (though, the fact that it's limited to only WiFi connections, rather than cellular ones is annoying, if expected). However, it turns out that Canadian iPhone users are discovering that their iPhones are blocked from using the new iPhone Skype, apparently due to some sort of "patent-licensing issue" related to the codec that Skype uses. The company isn't revealing much (and the link above includes a workaround for Canadians desperate to use Skype on their iPhones), but that's what you get when you end up using patented technology in your products. It makes it that much more difficult to actually offer your product in a variety of markets.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Bell Canada Going To Purposely Screw Up GPS Signals To Harm Competitors?

from the get-lost dept

It's good to have market power, apparently. Remember how Bell Canada started throttle bandwidth to its reseller partners without telling them? And then told them to shut up and take it when they complained? Oh, right, and then tried launching its own video download store just as it was making it more difficult for anyone else's to work? Apparently, the company may be doing that again... Michael Geist points us to reports that Bell Canada is looking to purposely degrade the GPS signal on certain Blackberrys for anyone using third party mapping programs, such as Google's. However (wouldn't you know it?), Bell is promising to allow the GPS to work properly if you pay the company $10/month and use Bell's own mapping solution.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Telus Kicks Customers Off Of Unlimited Plan It Sold Them Not Too Long Ago

from the how-dare-you-use-what-we-sold-you! dept

For the last few years, various connectivity providers sold "unlimited" data plans when the reality was the plans weren't unlimited at all. Many providers are now changing the plans and instituting more clear caps, but it still seems a bit ridiculous to have marketed unlimited data plans and then pulled the rug out from under those who bought exactly what you sold them. Up in Canada, it seems that TELUS is taking it a step further. Not only did it sell people "unlimited" plans that it now regrets, it's exercising some vague language in its contract that allows them to simply cancel the plans of those who had bought into the "unlimited" plan even just a short while ago. The company is forcing users to switch from a $75 unlimited plan to a $65 plan that is limited to just one GB per month, and dumping anyone who won't switch. That would seem to be a pretty strong bait-and-switch claim. Sure, perhaps the telcos oversold these unlimited plans, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be required to live up to what they sold.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Rogers Tries (And Fails) To Appease Angry iPhone Buyers As Belgians Contemplate $1,000 iPhones

from the ain't-so-cheap dept

Part of the supposed appeal of the new 3G iPhone when it was announced by Steve Jobs a few months back was that it was going to be much cheaper than the old iPhone. That was true until you actually looked at the fine print. The $199 pricing only applied in the US to those who signed a long-term contract with AT&T -- for which you had to pay higher service fees. In other countries the story was also questionable. Up in Canada, the only national GSM provider, Rogers, caused a stir with ridiculously high service plans. After a rather loud protest, Rogers has pretended to relent by having a limited-time offer for cheaper data rates, though still not offering an unlimited plan. This has potential customers still pretty ticked off:

So, all early adopters that will ever be interested in the iPhone will have to buy by August 31. It's a ridiculous idea, and an obvious attempt to turn a concession demanded by the market into a cudgel against its customers -- not only can you not have an unlimited plan, but you can't buy at your leisure -- for example, waiting a few months to see if users reports overcharge horror stories from Rogers' miserly plans. You have to "buy now!!!, this offer is **limited**" What nonsense. If the plan is a bona fide effort to respond to a recognized customer need in a responsible manner, it should not be time limited.

Meanwhile, folks over in Belgium have a different problem. Due to laws forbidding the entirely reasonable practice of bundling goods together with subsidized pricing, you can only buy the phone at full price: which works out to nearly $1,000. On the good side, this has highlighted how dumb the "no subsidized bundling" law is, and politicians are looking to toss it out this fall.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

It's Good To Be A Monopoly: Rogers Prices iPhone Service At 2 Arms And 2 Legs

from the what-else-are-you-gonna-do? dept

There's been a fair amount of complaining about the pricing of the new iPhone 3G over the last few weeks. While plenty of people were initially enamored by the cheaper price for the actual phone in the US (and in some other countries), this subsidized low price often hid higher service fees (with a locked contract) that came with it. However, it appears that the folks at Rogers Communication up in Canada really went overboard in its service pricing: offering very expensive service fees that have excessively limited data amounts (and no unlimited data offering). Users also get less talk time. Basically, these service plans make the iPhone a hell of a lot less appealing -- but since Rogers is the only carrier offering the iPhone in Canada, it feels it can get away with such high prices. But, the impressive thing is that people are trying to fight back, putting together a petition against Rogers' decision. While online petitions are notorious for their ineffectiveness, this one seems to be getting an awful lot of attention -- creating a ton of negative publicity for Rogers. If the company has any sense of the harm negative publicity can do, perhaps it will rethink its pricing strategy.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wi-LAN Sues RIM: Two Canadian Firms Duke Out Patent Fight... In East Texas, Of Course

from the ah,-east-texas dept

Turns out that Canadian patent holders love East Texas just as much as American companies. The news today covers how Canadian wireless patent holder Wi-LAN has now sued RIM in East Texas, concerning patents on mobile handheld devices. RIM is also a Canadian company (and also heavily involved in patent disputes). Isn't it great to see two Canadian firms choosing East Texas as the best place to fight over patents?

Wi-LAN is a company that we've discussed in the past. It worked on some technologies for wireless networks, but was unable to successfully market products commercially. In other words, it failed in the market. So, instead, it started focusing on aggressively enforcing its patent portfolio, suing a ton of companies who did anything wirelessly. As with so many public companies that turn into patent hoarders these days, it also has a very vocal and active set of day traders who will defend it to no end (see the comments on that link above).

RIM, of course, is also a well known company that we've written about many times. The maker of the super popular Blackberry wireless device, it became an aggressive filer of patent infringement lawsuits. That, in turn, led some patent holders from a non-practicing entity called NTP to sue RIM over some other patents -- eventually leading to a $612.5 million payout by RIM (despite the fact that NTP's patents were found to be invalid).

This latest case seems like it ties together so many different stories. You've got a failed business trying to use its patents to hold back the company that won; it's got Wi-LAN who has been aggressively trying to tax just about every wireless innovation with its patents; it's got RIM, who has been on both sides of a ton of questionable patent lawsuits; and it all takes place in East Texas. Who could ask for anything more?

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Doctors: Let Us Drive While Talking On Mobile Phones!

from the it-saves-patients dept

Bans on using mobile phones while driving are pretty common these days, so there's not much to talk about in hearing about another such ban. However, up in Calgary, some folks are fighting back against such a ban. The Calgary Health Region has banned staff from driving while talking on a phone, but doctors are arguing against the ban, saying they rely on pagers and mobile phones to respond to emergencies -- and that banning the use of mobile devices while driving could put patients at risk. Of course, that leaves out the potential of putting other drivers on the road at risk -- but at least a doctor would be present following any such accident (for the sarcasm impaired, that's a joke). Still, given all the calls for banning driving-while-yakking for safety's sake, it's amusing to see doctors claim safety reasons for allowing the practice.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..