Canada Courts Quash Gov't Decision On Globalive 104
sitkill writes "A Canadian Federal Court ruling has rejected the Tory Cabinet's decision to overturn a CRTC mandate not allowing Globalive (which is more commonly known in Canada as the mobile carrier Wind) to operate in Canada. This is a small vindication to the embattled CRTC, which has been recently in the spotlight for its decision on usage based billing, drawing criticism from the Tory Cabinet. The CEO, Mr. Lacavera, stressed that this would not result in Globalive's Wind Mobile being shut down, simply that it would require another round of wrangling with the regulator over how much foreign influence is acceptable in a Canadian telecommunications company."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Vindication of the CRTC? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's ridiculous. It's a condemnation of the Harper government's attempt to circumvent the foreign ownership laws on behalf of one particular company, without actually bothering to amend the law first.
Re:So many people to hate (Score:4, Insightful)
Once that's done, abolish the CBC (Canada's socialized TV station, which is funded to the tune of $1B+ in tax dollars and largely airs Simpson's re-runs while unable to even keep the content flowing 24 hours a day). It is shocking that anyone should argue in favor of every worker spending a part of his or her day working such that TV shows which cannot survive on their own merit can be produced with the resultant tax revenue. It is bad enough that Canada should subsidize and encourage crimes against nature like Celine Dion, but did the world really need Tommy Hunter?!?
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
O hell no. I think it's high time the carriers in Canada need to be taught a lesson.
I have a Wind Mobile phone at the moment. I LOVE the service. I've shopped around, and no other company can even come remotely close to touching my plan. Last time I shopped around, other carriers either wouldn't even carry that kind of quality service, or the price was 2 to 3 times as much. If letting foreign companies own telecoms in Canada means Canadians stop getting charged absurdly high prices for phone service that would cost half as much anywhere else in the world, then I'm all for it.
I've been with the other major carriers here. They keep saying there's competition for cell service in Canada, but all the companies keep treating their customers as if there's a monopoly, so up till now even if we switch carriers things never get better. Wind is a great start, but when it comes to phone and internet service in Canada, the market is sick with protectionist corruption.
Re:I read the decision last night (Score:5, Insightful)
(For those interested in where our scummy telcos (Bell, Rogers, Telus) lined up, they all, of course, favoured less competition, so wanted to get Globalive out of business regardless of the merits of the case, though only Telus spoke at trial. We know they're hypocrites because their execs have all publicly lobbied for opening up telcos to foreign ownership and financing, while arguing against it here.)
It's actually not hypocritical at all. What the major telecoms are saying is that they are in favour of relaxed foreign ownership rules, but they are NOT in favour of selective enforcement of the rules. Currently Globalive is allowed to operate as essentially a foreign company on Canadian soil, meanwhile nobody else is allowed to raise money overseas. How is this fair? If Globalive can do it, so should everyone else.
The problem here isn't the decision to allow Globalive to operate, it's the inequality of allowing them to do this while preventing anyone else from doing the same.
The court ruled (sensibly) that the government can't have it both ways, they need to either make Globalive play by the rules, OR change the rules (they're the government, they can do that.) The major telecom companies, while not overly wanting the competition, DO want a level playing field, and would prefer the government fix the rules.
Honestly, I don't see Wind Mobile shutting down. What I see as most likely in this case is for the government to relax foreign ownership rules, theoretically enabling more competition. But doing so in a fair way such that everybody works from the same rule book, which is the only fair way to do this. One time exceptions just aren't the way things should be done.
Re:Vindication of the CRTC? (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations, you're the first person to post that actually seems to understand the issue. This has nothing to do with whether the foreign ownership rules are "right" or "fair" this is entirely about making exceptions to laws for specific people/companies.
The only way a civilized society can function is if everyone is playing from the same set of rules. You can't allow one company to circumvent the rules while prohibiting anyone else from doing the same.
The judge in this case sensibly ruled that the government has 2 choices, make Globalive follow the rules, or change the rules to be the same for everyone.
Now the ball is back in the government's court, and they can decide what to do with our foreign ownership rules, and they can decide what to do for EVERYBODY this time.