• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

maharg
idspispopd
(03-06-2012, 11:44 PM)
maharg's Avatar

Originally Posted by lacinius

How it works is... basically "Anonymous" is a bunch of unknown people from who knows where, but exist somewhere out there on the interwebs, and have nothing to do with Parliament, but have made "general threats" of releasing already public and available records about Vic Toews less than private life (him being a public official), and this undefined group have somehow violated Mr. Toews Parliamentary privilege.

But to contrast that... the Conservative Party that sits in Parliament on the governing side, was NOT violating Liberal Irwin Cotler's Parliamentary privilege with their deliberate robo-call campaign of disinformation in Mr. Cotler's riding, falsely telling his constituents that he was going to resign. In fact the Conservative Party dismissed that as being a mere matter of freedom of speech!


And that is how Parliament works in Canada these days. :\

While I think the Cotler ruling was kind of dumb, he did cite precedent for it at least. But I think these three rulings are all fairly reasonable, to be honest.

I'm particularly happy that the letter-drive aspect was ruled not a breach of privilege. He's a minister, so he must be considered responsible to the people of Canada as a whole and not just his riding, and there's no way he was interfered with in responding to the needs of his riding -- which is also in line with the Cotler ruling.

As for the ruling on Anonymous, they were threatening a member of parliament. While the threats may not have much teeth, I don't think that should be an acceptable form of political discourse in this country. And a breach of privilege ruling isn't exactly the most deadly thing to them anyways.

The vikileaks things is the most questionable, as I don't think use of house internet should really be considered use of house resources in the way the ruling claims. But it's in a grey area, so meh.
lacinius
Member
(03-06-2012, 11:46 PM)
lacinius's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zzoram

Harper's government has been suppressing information heavily at the expense of the transparency required for an accountable democracy.


Conservative majority turns down Elections Canada request for verification power
gabbo
Member
(03-06-2012, 11:54 PM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by BladeWorker

I hate to quote an American show when it comes to Canadian politics, but we'd all do well to remember what's happened to liberalism in the past couple of decades. Sorkin was bang on, imo.

Bruno on why liberals lose

Liberalism and Liberals/liberals are not always one in the same, especially here.
And while that character is right, liberals need to stand up for their principles more publicly, it would end in nothing but shouting matches. I'd rather not have all of Parliament become like the televised sections of Question Period in the House.

Originally Posted by lacinius

Conservative majority turns down Elections Canada request for verification power

...fuck
Last edited by gabbo; 03-06-2012 at 11:57 PM.
DreamMachine
Member
(03-07-2012, 12:25 AM)
DreamMachine's Avatar
I figure this video is fitting now that Bill c-10 has passed the senate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qGHF5IzfaE

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...rime-bill.html
Zzoram
Member
(03-07-2012, 12:30 AM)
Zzoram's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

Liberalism and Liberals/liberals are not always one in the same, especially here.
And while that character is right, liberals need to stand up for their principles more publicly, it would end in nothing but shouting matches. I'd rather not have all of Parliament become like the televised sections of Question Period in the House.


...fuck

So basically the Conservatives know they've been caught stealing an election and are covering their assesses by neutering Elections Canada's ability to verify the integrity of the election. Where's the outrage?
BladeWorker
Member
(03-07-2012, 12:34 AM)
BladeWorker's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

Liberalism and Liberals/liberals are not always one in the same, especially here.
And while that character is right, liberals need to stand up for their principles more publicly, it would end in nothing but shouting matches. I'd rather not have all of Parliament become like the televised sections of Question Period in the House.

Yes, I'm pretty sure I learned that in first year politics. But when it comes to cowering in a corner saying "please don't hurt me" it's hard to think of a party that, in the past few years, has better embodied the concept than the Liberals. And the moment that it was revealed that a Liberal ORB worker was behind Vikileaks, the Liberals started to cower again. I'm not counting Rae's apology, here - I'm talking about what has happened subsequently, where Liberals have been walking on eggshells about Robocalling issues because they don't want to get into an Adscam versus Robocall debate that they are worried they'll lose.

I disagree that Liberals and the NDP standing up for their principles would end in nothing but shouting matches. Reasonable people can disagree, and they often do. Most Parliamentary Committees disagree with regularity, and somehow, they manage to work through legislation without engaging in "nothing but shouting matches". What's the difference? Committee work doesn't end up on the national news day-to-day.

We also witnessed a filibuster this summer, whereby the NDP stood up for their principles as long as the Standing Orders would allow. The filibuster wasn't a shouting match, it was a move intended to force a stalemate. It failed, but they went down fighting.

And both sides of the house need to tone down their rhetoric in QP. The Conservatives fail to answer any sort of question posed in the House, but generally speaking, the Opposition parties also fail to ask any sort of question. It's just how things go now, as everyone goes for the soundbite. Most Parliamentary debates - many of which are televised on CPAC - aren't nearly as migraine-inducing as QP, and anyone speaking is taking some kind of position on one side or another of a bill. The degree to which they're principled stands is up for debate, but there are attempts there. But the Parliamentary debates don't usually land on the 6PM news, short of an MP forgetting how to sing the national anthem, or falling asleep.

At this stage, what dissolves the "discussion" to veritable shouting matches is mass broadcast, where the Conservatives have learned that winning the rhetorical war means shouting loudest and shouting last. If any party is to overcome this wall (so to speak), they have to be equally - if not more - belligerent.

I think Liberals, liberals, and all progressives more generally have to risk the shouting matches in order to demonstrate that no party has a monopoly on principles, and no party has a monopoly on what is right.
gabbo
Member
(03-07-2012, 05:09 AM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by BladeWorker

Yes, I'm pretty sure I learned that in first year politics. But when it comes to cowering in a corner saying "please don't hurt me" it's hard to think of a party that, in the past few years, has better embodied the concept than the Liberals. And the moment that it was revealed that a Liberal ORB worker was behind Vikileaks, the Liberals started to cower again. I'm not counting Rae's apology, here - I'm talking about what has happened subsequently, where Liberals have been walking on eggshells about Robocalling issues because they don't want to get into an Adscam versus Robocall debate that they are worried they'll lose.

I disagree that Liberals and the NDP standing up for their principles would end in nothing but shouting matches. Reasonable people can disagree, and they often do. Most Parliamentary Committees disagree with regularity, and somehow, they manage to work through legislation without engaging in "nothing but shouting matches". What's the difference? Committee work doesn't end up on the national news day-to-day.

We also witnessed a filibuster this summer, whereby the NDP stood up for their principles as long as the Standing Orders would allow. The filibuster wasn't a shouting match, it was a move intended to force a stalemate. It failed, but they went down fighting.

And both sides of the house need to tone down their rhetoric in QP. The Conservatives fail to answer any sort of question posed in the House, but generally speaking, the Opposition parties also fail to ask any sort of question. It's just how things go now, as everyone goes for the soundbite. Most Parliamentary debates - many of which are televised on CPAC - aren't nearly as migraine-inducing as QP, and anyone speaking is taking some kind of position on one side or another of a bill. The degree to which they're principled stands is up for debate, but there are attempts there. But the Parliamentary debates don't usually land on the 6PM news, short of an MP forgetting how to sing the national anthem, or falling asleep.

At this stage, what dissolves the "discussion" to veritable shouting matches is mass broadcast, where the Conservatives have learned that winning the rhetorical war means shouting loudest and shouting last. If any party is to overcome this wall (so to speak), they have to be equally - if not more - belligerent.

I think Liberals, liberals, and all progressives more generally have to risk the shouting matches in order to demonstrate that no party has a monopoly on principles, and no party has a monopoly on what is right.

I don't like the idea of needing to become more belligerent. I would rather civil discourse rule the day than needing either side to stoop to dirty tricks. That's not likely to happen, but I can still hold out hope for it one day in my life time. I do agree with your last comment pretty much through and through though.
dragonfart28
Member
(03-08-2012, 04:14 PM)
dragonfart28's Avatar
I'm glad somebody has decided to lead our country.

Tories flip flop, support NDP
gabbo
Member
(03-08-2012, 06:05 PM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by dragonfart28

I'm glad somebody has decided to lead our country.

Tories flip flop, support NDP

Isn't this simply what they said yesterday about supporting the non-binding resolution the NDP would put forward today, Opposition Day?
Zombie James
(03-12-2012, 10:00 PM)
Zombie James's Avatar
Bill C-11 news: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6374/125/

A summary of some of the proposed amendments, by party:

Conservatives

change enabler provision to providing a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of infringement
a slight tightening of the private purposes copying exception and the time shifting exception by limiting to the specific individual
a new limitation on computer interoperability exception that restricts the use or disclosure of the information reproduced for the purposes of making the programs interoperable
a new limitation on disclosure of security flaws that requires advance notice to the copyright owner unless it is in the public interest to have it disclosed without such notice
a change to the network provider safe harbour that allows for extraction of meta-data
a limitation on the injunction power against information location tool providers

NDP

a new resale right for visual artists
adding the Supreme Court of Canada's six factor test to fair dealing
making the user generated content provision subject to moral rights
remove the 30 day destruction requirement on lessons
change the restriction on digital library loans by requiring a notification of restrictions rather than the need to take measures to stop restricted activity
amend the new broadcaster provision on ephemeral rights
expand the provision on perceptual disabilities
link circumvention to copyright infringement

Liberals

adding a new conditions to time shifting and backup copy provisions that restricts the right to sell or distribute the recording or copy
change the 30 day destruction requirement on lessons
amend the new broadcaster provision on ephemeral rights
removing the five day use restriction on digital library loans
link circumvention to copyright infringement

Not surprisingly the NDP and Liberal amendments benefit the public, Conservative amendments benefit no one.
gabbo
Member
(03-13-2012, 03:24 AM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zombie James

Bill C-11 news: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6374/125/

Not surprisingly the NDP and Liberal amendments benefit the public, Conservative amendments benefit no one.

Cons add anti-consumer nonsense, and the other 14-17 amendments will probably be left on the table...
maharg
idspispopd
(03-13-2012, 03:59 AM)
maharg's Avatar
Probably? It's pretty much policy for the CPC to vote down any opposition amendment, no matter how sensible. If the vote down something good, they'll just go through contortions to add it themselves.
Zzoram
Member
(03-13-2012, 04:05 AM)
Zzoram's Avatar
And so Conservatives hand over Canada to the MPAA and RIAA.
BladeWorker
Member
(03-13-2012, 04:28 AM)
BladeWorker's Avatar
The broad apathy with which Canadians treat likely election frauds and big-brother tactics in this country makes me ashamed to admit that I share the same citizenship.

What the f**k did we fight wars for, if not the most basic democratic rights and peace, order, and good government?
Blackface
Banned
(03-13-2012, 05:14 AM)
Blackface's Avatar

Originally Posted by BladeWorker

The broad apathy with which Canadians treat likely election frauds and big-brother tactics in this country makes me ashamed to admit that I share the same citizenship.

What the f**k did we fight wars for, if not the most basic democratic rights and peace, order, and good government?

Canadians think because we live in Canada, that stuff like this can't and does not happen. They don't take it seriously because my god, how could it happen in Canada? Just go talk to your average uninformed Canadian. This is how they feel.

So subjects that would be massive in other countries, get ignored here.
gabbo
Member
(03-13-2012, 08:29 AM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Blackface

Canadians think because we live in Canada, that stuff like this can't and does not happen. They don't take it seriously because my god, how could it happen in Canada? Just go talk to your average uninformed Canadian. This is how they feel.

So subjects that would be massive in other countries, get ignored here.

We're too politically apathetic. At least we got C-11 this far through shear internet anger.

That people don't seem to care that an election may have been stolen is a sign of dark times. Hopefully it won't be buried by attempts to obfuscate the bigger issue like the current attempt - Liberal calls not identifying themselves as such
crazy monkey
holds a masters in liberal arts
(03-13-2012, 12:38 PM)
crazy monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

We're too politically apathetic. At least we got C-11 this far through shear internet anger.

That people don't seem to care that an election may have been stolen is a sign of dark times. Hopefully it won't be buried by attempts to obfuscate the bigger issue like the current attempt - Liberal calls not identifying themselves as such

100% Agreed with that.
Zzoram
Member
(03-13-2012, 12:55 PM)
Zzoram's Avatar
I want an investigation because I want to know if the Conservative majority was legit or if the voter suppression was responsible for it.

The Liberals were crushed so hard it was unfathomable, but voter suppression would explain part of it.
maharg
idspispopd
(03-13-2012, 01:04 PM)
maharg's Avatar
No way does this have anything to do with the fall of the Liberals. I'm sorry, but that's just insanity. The Liberals dropped more than 7% of the popular vote. Everyone and their dog who ever voted liberal in their life would have had to have gotten a call to make that happen.

The Liberals fell because they became a party of bickering insiders who lost touch with any semblance of governing authority. No one is to blame but the party aparatus itself and its obsession with leadership squables. Over the last 30 years they lost every single regional base they had, one by one.
BladeWorker
Member
(03-14-2012, 02:26 AM)
BladeWorker's Avatar

Originally Posted by Blackface

Canadians think because we live in Canada, that stuff like this can't and does not happen. They don't take it seriously because my god, how could it happen in Canada? Just go talk to your average uninformed Canadian. This is how they feel.

So subjects that would be massive in other countries, get ignored here.

In the past several months I've heard from about a hundred thousand Canadians.

If they do tune it out, it's more often because they think so little of politicians that this doesn't surprise them in the least.

And as long as it didn't happen to them, it's fine. "Other people" are stupid/make the wrong choice/don't know better and shouldn't vote anyway.

If they even got to the point of "how could this happen in Canada"? it'd be a step up.
Zombie James
(03-14-2012, 07:32 PM)
Zombie James's Avatar
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2369109/

The federal government is making what appears to be a telecom policy announcement this afternoon.

It’s expected Industry Minister Christian Paradis will reveal his decision on questions that he’s been puzzling over for months.

Telecom industry players have been waiting anxiously for the rules that will govern the next wireless spectrum auction.

As well, they have been awaiting a sign whether the Conservatives will relax foreign investment restrictions on wireless players as they had promised in a previous speech from the throne.


The Department of Industry has instructed journalists to meet at the National Press Building where they be transported 30 kilometres away to the eastern Ontario town of Russell for a briefing and lockup.

An announcement will be made at 4:15 pm ET, after financial markets close.

Mr. Paradis told an industry audience last November that a decision on foreign investment rules and auction policy would come in 2012.

"When we make those decisions, we will announce them - clearly and directly," he said last November.

"Given the importance and the serious impact this will have on the lives of Canadians for years to come, this is not a decision that I nor this government will be taking lightly."

The Globe and Mail reported last November that a key cabinet committee was considering a proposal to allow 100-per-cent foreign ownership of telecom firms with a share of 10 per cent or less of the Canadian market. Current law restricts direct and indirect foreign investment to a combined total of 46.7 per cent.

Will the Conservatives do something beneficial to the public? Or will the Rogers/Bell/Telus coddling continue? Find out in three hours!
crazy monkey
holds a masters in liberal arts
(03-14-2012, 07:46 PM)
crazy monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zombie James

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2369109/



Will the Conservatives do something beneficial to the public? Or will the Rogers/Bell/Telus coddling continue? Find out in three hours!


I am thinking robbers will continue to dominate. Normal Canadian will not find out what is cheap wireless. At least in Toronto wind and moblicity are doing fine. I still can not understand how this oligopoly was allowed to be continued.
I hope they do something good other wise rogers, bell have them by balls and they will sleep with them.
gabbo
Member
(03-14-2012, 09:28 PM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zombie James

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2369109/



Will the Conservatives do something beneficial to the public? Or will the Rogers/Bell/Telus coddling continue? Find out in three hours!

They'll make half hearted attempts at foreign ownership in the market, but allow Rogers/Bell/Telus to have equal footing in the spectrum auction (Having new/small companies subject to the same restrictions B/R/T are subject to) thus destroying any chance Wind/Moblicity/others have of expanding their reach. Hell, my area still isn't accessible to cable or DSL, so I don't expect much from either side.

edit: So they've loosened the foreign investment restrictions for those with 10% or less of the marketshare, and if marketshares increases beyond 10%, foreign ownership/investment is fine so long as marketshare isn't gained through mergers. The gov't has also capped the amount of spectrum anyone group can buy in the next auction.

Not enough info in the article beyond that to say whether this will be bring interest from new ISP/Phone providers in the long run. Would have liked them to prevent Rogers/Bell/Telus from bidding on the spectrum at all, but we'll see.
Article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...-industry.html
Last edited by gabbo; 03-14-2012 at 10:51 PM.
Zombie James
(03-14-2012, 11:02 PM)
Zombie James's Avatar
More info here (hey look, "Harper Government" is back):

-The Telecommunications Act will be amended to lift foreign investment restrictions for telecom companies that hold less than a 10-percent share of the total Canadian telecommunications market. This will help telecom companies with a small market share access the capital they need to grow and compete.

-The government will be applying caps in the upcoming spectrum auctions to guarantee that both new wireless competitors and incumbent carriers have access to the spectrum up for auction.

-The government will apply specific measures in the 700 MHz auction to see that rural Canadians will have access to the same advanced services as everyone else in a timely manner.

-The government will improve and extend the existing policy on roaming and tower sharing to further support competition and will improve transparency and information sharing to facilitate agreements between companies to slow the proliferation of new cellphone towers.

-A portion of the 700 MHz spectrum will be reserved for public safety users such as police and firefighters across Canada.

I think it's mostly positive news.
Razorskin
----- ------
(03-14-2012, 11:05 PM)
Razorskin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zombie James

More info here (hey look, "Harper Government" is back):



I think it's mostly positive news.

Hey, that sounds good.
Kifimbo
Member
(03-14-2012, 11:11 PM)
Kifimbo's Avatar
Complete PR:

Harper Government Takes Action to Support Canadian Families

Today's announcement will provide Canadian families with more choices at low prices for wireless services

Russell, Ontario, March 14, 2012—Today, the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry, announced that the Harper Government will be taking action to provide Canadian families with more choices at low prices for wireless services.

"The Harper Government understands that Canadian families work hard for their money and that they want their government to make decisions that will help them keep more of it," said Minister Paradis. "The measures I am outlining today will ensure the timely availability of world-class wireless services at low prices for Canadian families, including those in rural areas."

Minister Paradis announced that:

The Telecommunications Act will be amended to lift foreign investment restrictions for telecom companies that hold less than a 10-percent share of the total Canadian telecommunications market. This will help telecom companies with a small market share access the capital they need to grow and compete.
The government will be applying caps in the upcoming spectrum auctions to guarantee that both new wireless competitors and incumbent carriers have access to the spectrum up for auction.
The government will apply specific measures in the 700 MHz auction to see that rural Canadians will have access to the same advanced services as everyone else in a timely manner.
The government will improve and extend the existing policy on roaming and tower sharing to further support competition and will improve transparency and information sharing to facilitate agreements between companies to slow the proliferation of new cellphone towers.
A portion of the 700 MHz spectrum will be reserved for public safety users such as police and firefighters across Canada.

This spectrum will allow telecom companies to bring the latest 4G LTE mobile networks to Canadian consumers and businesses, including those in rural areas. This means Canadians will have access to the fastest mobile speeds and latest devices, such as the newest iPad, PlayBook and smartphones. They will have access to high-definition video and video conferencing over mobile networks. Canadians will benefit from greater access to e-health, intelligent transport and other advanced applications. This will result in improved connectivity for consumers, increased business productivity and enhanced safety for Canadians.

In 2008, the Harper Government set aside spectrum for new entrants and implemented other policies to support new competitors. New entrants have since made large investments to launch services and are providing greater choice to Canadian consumers.

"Our government has taken significant action to promote competition in the wireless sector, and our decisions have helped to reduce mobile wireless prices for Canadian families by 10 percent since 2008," said Minister Paradis.

Today's announcement will provide Canadian families with more choices at low prices for wireless services. For a more detailed description of the measures to be taken as part of the policy approach to the upcoming auctions of 700 MHz and 2500 MHz spectrum, please consult the attached backgrounder.

Divvy
Canadians burned my passport
(03-14-2012, 11:12 PM)
Divvy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zombie James

More info here (hey look, "Harper Government" is back):



I think it's mostly positive news.

Yay, good news for once! Props to the conservative government for making the right decisions here.
gabbo
Member
(03-14-2012, 11:24 PM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zombie James

More info here (hey look, "Harper Government" is back):

I think it's mostly positive news.

Unless a huge telecom from outside the country jumps into the auction with the capacity to challenge the Big Three, or one of the smaller companies buys a huge swath, none of these will help lower wireless costs, so that preface to the PR is nonsense.

In the future these may help, but 10-15 years doesn't help now.
Zombie James
(03-15-2012, 03:27 AM)
Zombie James's Avatar
Ahh, here's the bullshit:

For the 700 MHz spectrum, the government said it would limit purchases of prime spectrum by incumbents.

This, it said, would effectively reserve one block of prime spectrum in each of 14 license areas of Canada for firms and for regional companies that aren’t national heavyweights.

Incumbents in each of the 14 license areas would be limited to buying what amounts to 5 MHz of prime spectrum for uploads to cell towers and 5 MHz for downloads.

This effectively reserves 25 per cent of prime spectrum for new entrants or regional providers.

So Rogers, Bell, and Telus get 75% reserved for them while Wind, Mobilicity, Public Mobile, and any new entrant have to battle for the remaining 25%.
Zzoram
Member
(03-15-2012, 03:34 AM)
Zzoram's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

Unless a huge telecom from outside the country jumps into the auction with the capacity to challenge the Big Three, or one of the smaller companies buys a huge swath, none of these will help lower wireless costs, so that preface to the PR is nonsense.

In the future these may help, but 10-15 years doesn't help now.

All of those things help WIND get established, and WIND has tons of foreign money to establish itself as a major player once regulatory hurdles are cleared.
gabbo
Member
(03-15-2012, 03:52 AM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zzoram

All of those things help WIND get established, and WIND has tons of foreign money to establish itself as a major player once regulatory hurdles are cleared.

The money aspect I'm fine with, but as the spectrum auction won't allow them to grow enough to put a dent into the problem prices and bills won't see any effect from this for a long time, if ever as it's currently set out.
Fuzzy
I would bang a hot farmer!
(03-15-2012, 04:03 AM)
Fuzzy's Avatar

Originally Posted by gabbo

The money aspect I'm fine with, but as the spectrum auction won't allow them to grow enough to put a dent into the problem prices and bills won't see any effect from this for a long time, if ever as it's currently set out.

One big thing here is that reserving 25% may now change Wind's mind about even bidding for some of it. Before this they weren't going to and that would be even worse for us.

"We would like to, but these are not fair rules," he said. "Our position is clear: if they don't set aside, we won't bid for it — why would we go in and just increase the price so the government makes more money and we get devastated," Sawiris said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...b-sawiris.html
Zzoram
Member
(03-15-2012, 04:04 AM)
Zzoram's Avatar
WIND is the only 3rd party big enough to buy that 25% so setting it aside helps them because Rogers/Bell can't just bid up spectrum beyond what WIND can afford.
krae_man
Member
(03-15-2012, 04:27 AM)
krae_man's Avatar
What happens when a company with less then 10% marketshare and foreign ownership grows in marketshare?
Fuzzy
I would bang a hot farmer!
(03-15-2012, 04:33 AM)
Fuzzy's Avatar

Originally Posted by krae_man

What happens when a company with less then 10% marketshare and foreign ownership grows in marketshare?

Paradis said Ottawa will lift restrictions on foreign investment in firms with less than 10 per cent of market share by revenue.

The exemption will stay in place for companies that increase their share of the market beyond 10 per cent if they do that without merging with a rival, he said

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...-industry.html
crazy monkey
holds a masters in liberal arts
(03-15-2012, 05:35 AM)
crazy monkey's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zombie James

Ahh, here's the bullshit:



So Rogers, Bell, and Telus get 75% reserved for them while Wind, Mobilicity, Public Mobile, and any new entrant have to battle for the remaining 25%.





fuck rogers, bell and telus. Fuck them. Canadian public needs to wake up.
Divvy
Canadians burned my passport
(03-15-2012, 05:36 AM)
Divvy's Avatar
Well to be fair, none of the smaller entrants have anywhere near the userbase and coverage of the big three so it does make sense for them to get less of that spectrum.
gabbo
Member
(03-15-2012, 05:36 AM)
gabbo's Avatar

Originally Posted by krae_man

What happens when a company with less then 10% marketshare and foreign ownership grows in marketshare?

So long as they don't gain the market share through a merger, the new ownership rules still apply and they'd be fine. Lest Bell/Rogers try to buy one of the new companies out, that won't be a problem for a long time.
SRG01
Banned
(03-15-2012, 05:39 AM)

Originally Posted by Zzoram

All of those things help WIND get established, and WIND has tons of foreign money to establish itself as a major player once regulatory hurdles are cleared.

No, it's been established that foreign players aren't willing to dump millions/billions into the black hole that is the Canadian Telecom industry.

Also, it will be neigh impossible for Wind/Mobi even with a merger to win spectrum in Sask, Manitoba, and Quebec because of this block restriction. Keep in mind that only ONE block is for new entrants only.


Originally Posted by Divvy

Well to be fair, none of the smaller entrants have anywhere near the userbase and coverage of the big three so it does make sense for them to get less of that spectrum.

The reason why it's unfair is because the Big 3 got their spectrum for free. The incumbents have both positional and cost advantages that new entrants can't match.
Cheerilee
Member
(03-15-2012, 06:26 AM)
Cheerilee's Avatar

Originally Posted by SRG01

No, it's been established that foreign players aren't willing to dump millions/billions into the black hole that is the Canadian Telecom industry.

Wind's main backer apparently is. But wasn't allowed to own Wind, and he still had Rogers & Telus suing him/Wind, saying it wasn't fair that Wind was allowed to spend money that he fed to them.

Now he's free to own the company, and he's free to invest as much as he wants in it's growth.

And he was just recently complaining that it was pointless for Wind to bid on 700 MHz spectrum, because Robbers & Hell will just outbid him, and pass the costs along to their customers, and the government will pocket the difference.

Now Rogers/Bell/Telus will fight over 75%, while Wind/Mobilicity/Public Mobile will fight over 25%.
BigJonsson
Member
(03-15-2012, 06:35 AM)
BigJonsson's Avatar

Originally Posted by Divvy

Well to be fair, none of the smaller entrants have anywhere near the userbase and coverage of the big three so it does make sense for them to get less of that spectrum.


The big three already have a ton of spectrum that they are not and have no intention of using, they were allowed to hoard it =/
Divvy
Canadians burned my passport
(03-15-2012, 06:36 AM)
Divvy's Avatar
I guess I just feel like this is pretty good compared to how fucked we were just two years ago. Maybe my standards are just much lower.
SRG01
Banned
(03-15-2012, 06:47 AM)

Originally Posted by ruby_onix

Wind's main backer apparently is. But wasn't allowed to own Wind, and he still had Rogers & Telus suing him/Wind, saying it wasn't fair that Wind was allowed to spend money that he fed to them.

Now he's free to own the company, and he's free to invest as much as he wants in it's growth.

And he was just recently complaining that it was pointless for Wind to bid on 700 MHz spectrum, because Robbers & Hell will just outbid him, and pass the costs along to their customers, and the government will pocket the difference.

Now Rogers/Bell/Telus will fight over 75%, while Wind/Mobilicity/Public Mobile will fight over 25%.

The first half of your post is irrelevant, because that's old news. The bolded part is what's important. Vimpelcom is no longer willing to spend money in an uncompetitive market unless it's able to fight in equal footing.

Also, that 25% is misleading because it's a very small block of spectrum and only that one block is reserved per region. This means only one regional or small player will get spectrum.

So, what do you think is going to happen? They will get outbid in Sask. They will get outbid in Manitoba. They will get outbid in Quebec.

It looks like competition, but in reality it's fragmenting the competition such that no one can't compete as a potential national carrier. Anyone who wants to bid on the 75% will need deeper pockets than the Big 3.
Zzoram
Member
(03-15-2012, 06:52 AM)
Zzoram's Avatar
Why would WIND be outbid? What other foreign competitor exists that wants to buy spectrum? Most of the brands in Canada are actually just owned by Rogers and Bell.
Cheerilee
Member
(03-15-2012, 07:01 AM)
Cheerilee's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zzoram

Why would WIND be outbid? What other foreign competitor exists that wants to buy spectrum? Most of the brands in Canada are actually just owned by Rogers and Bell.

Wind seems to have pretty good coverage in Vancouver. Moblicity seems to have good coverage in Alberta.

The smaller carriers are either going to focus on improving their own existing turf, or someone like Wind will try to snap all/most of it up to try and make a bigger net with just a few holes.

Still better than the nothing they were planning on doing because they had no chance.
Canuck76
Banned
(03-15-2012, 07:04 AM)
Proud of my Canadian brothers caring about politics


Bumping this. Canadian till i die!
SRG01
Banned
(03-15-2012, 07:35 AM)

Originally Posted by Zzoram

Why would WIND be outbid? What other foreign competitor exists that wants to buy spectrum? Most of the brands in Canada are actually just owned by Rogers and Bell.

Because Saskatchewan and Manitoba have huge regional carriers, and 700 spectrum is too valuable to pass up. As for Quebec, Videotron will be Videotron and just buy it all up out of principle.

Originally Posted by ruby_onix

Still better than the nothing they were planning on doing because they had no chance.

I don't understand this attitude at all. That's like saying: "Foul peasants! You should be happy with your scraps!"
Fuzzy
I would bang a hot farmer!
(03-15-2012, 07:38 AM)
Fuzzy's Avatar

Originally Posted by SRG01

Because Saskatchewan and Manitoba have huge regional carriers, and 700 spectrum is too valuable to pass up. As for Quebec, Videotron will be Videotron and just buy it all up out of principle.

I would assume that Sasktel and MTS would be locked out of the 25% in those provinces just like R/B/T. I don't know what it's like in Quebec.
Divvy
Canadians burned my passport
(03-15-2012, 07:40 AM)
Divvy's Avatar

Originally Posted by SRG01

Because Saskatchewan and Manitoba have huge regional carriers, and 700 spectrum is too valuable to pass up. As for Quebec, Videotron will be Videotron and just buy it all up out of principle.

But wouldn't the regional ones just bid for one of the slots in the 75%? I thought the 25% slot was reserved for the new entrants.
SRG01
Banned
(03-15-2012, 07:50 AM)

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I would assume that Sasktel and MTS would be locked out of the 25% in those provinces just like R/B/T. I don't know what it's like in Quebec.

Originally Posted by Divvy

But wouldn't the regional ones just bid for one of the slots in the 75%? I thought the 25% slot was reserved for the new entrants.

Bloody hell, the Globe edited their original article.

Anyway, no, the single block is the restricted block for new entrants and regional carriers. The 75% is the one that everyone can bid on.

Thread Tools