ah ha
@videotron.ca
| Rogers Sues Shaw over their divide and conquer plans
»www.mediacastermagazine.com/issu···09102009
Rogers Battles Shaw over Cablevision Purchase
Rogers Communications is suing its largest rival, Shaw Communications, and is trying to prevent that company from expanding into eastern Canada with the purchase of Mountain Cablevision, in Hamilton, ON.
A hearing into the matter took place this week, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto.
Last July, Mountain Cable entered into an agreement with an affiliate of Shaw to sell its cable television operation and surrounding area, subject to CRTC approval.
Now, Rogers is asking an Ontario judge today to halt the $300 million CDN deal.
Shaw and Rogers have been operating under an agreement reached nearly ten years ago, one that basically divided the country in half, giving Rogers the east and restricting Shaw to western Canada.
The case is reported as Rogers Communications v. Shaw Communications, 09-8305-00CL, Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto).
Posted this in the Rogers forum as well. |
|
Xtort
join:2001-07-28
Edmonton, AB
| I might be speaking non-sense, but Rogers has been providing cable services in the lower mainland of B.C. for quite a long time now. Rogers hasn't exactly been restricted to the eastern side of the country. Quite frankly, I think Rogers is crying foul.
--
Asus P5Q-E / Q9450 @ 3.6 / 4GB OCZ Reaper HPC 8500 / XFX 9800 GX2 / Windows 7 Ultimate x64 |
|
Tom25
@shawcable.net | Rogers doesn't have any cable customers in B.C. as far as I know. They used to 9-10 years ago, but not since then. |
|
tlhIngan
join:2002-07-08
Richmond, BC
| reply to Xtort
Rogers used to run the cable system in BC many years ago.
Then Rogers and Shaw came to a mutual agreement - Rogers will give up its cable network in western Canada, and Shaw will give up its cable network in eastern Canada, and Shaw will have the west, while Rogers has the east so they can consolidate.
Before it was Rogers in BC, Shaw in AB, I don't remember who had SK, MB had their own, ON was Shaw, QC had their own, and I think Rogers had the Atlantics.
But that was a LONG time ago (over 10 years). |
|
AnonShawUser
join:2006-06-17
Calgary, AB | reply to ah ha
Fun thing about it, was it was a handshake between the heads of Shaw and Rogers. When Rogers died, the agreement was off and it opened it up to a free market for both sides. |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to ah ha
said by ah ha :
Shaw and Rogers have been operating under an agreement reached nearly ten years ago, one that basically divided the country in half, giving Rogers the east and restricting Shaw to western Canada. Admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see how this doesn't violate antitrust laws. It reminds me of two crime syndicates carving up the country. It's stifling competition in that Rogers and Shaw don't need to fight each other, they can bully better compete against smaller upstarts in the market. Of course anyone with half a billion or so dollars in their pocket and ready to spend it all on infrastructure can compete against Shaw or Rogers. Otherwise anyone wanting to take on Shaw or Rogers might as well just set their money on fire. |
|
heh yeah
@videotron.ca
| heh yeah. Unfortunately we have no "watch dogs".
I posted this topic in the Rogers forum as well, and this guy made a reasonable (McD) analogy on how the internet market is in Canada:
»Re: Rogers Sues Shaw over their divide and conquer plans
Any other business would be brought up on anti-trust, collusion, and anti-competitiveness.
Telecom? Not a chance. Carve it up, protect the duopoly and keep the prices fixed due to lack of competition.
I hope shaw has the "testicular fortitude" to run deeper into Rogers territory and even QMI's territory. But I doubt this. |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
| said by heh yeah :
I hope shaw has the "testicular fortitude" to run deeper into Rogers territory and even QMI's territory. But I doubt this. It would be good, if only because if Shaw invades Rogers' "territory" then this gentlemen's agreement is likely to get tossed out the window, and who knows, maybe we might see Rogers and Shaw battling each other across Canada.
Then again, we might just see one gobble up the other. |
|
hmm
@videotron.ca | reply to ah ha
Anyone have a link to the actual court filing(s)? |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
2 edits | said by hmm :
Anyone have a link to the actual court filing(s)? I'm searching, but this country's judiciary is typically technology-adverse, so it's hard to find filings.
I did however locate an interesting Bloomberg article that has a bit more information (scroll about half down): »www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···IrkMdwHM
Note this priceless gem at the bottom, "Shaw claims any deal restricting each company to a portion of the country is illegal and unenforceable because it unfairly restricts competition."
"Hello kettle? It's me, pot. You're black!"  |
|
Good find
@videotron.ca
| said by ErikRP  :Note this priceless gem at the bottom, "Shaw claims any deal restricting each company to a portion of the country is illegal and unenforceable because it unfairly restricts competition." "Hello kettle? It's me, pot. You're black!" LOL +1 Great find!
Some things to keep an eye on for next week.
1. Ontario Superior Court Judge Frank Newbould reserved his decision on the request following a hearing yesterday in Toronto.
“I’ll get you something as quickly as possible,” Newbould told lawyers from the two companies at the conclusion of the four-hour hearing.
2. Seems Rogers made a bid on Mountain Cable and came out the loser (seems more of a lawsuit because they lost):
Charles F. Scott, a lawyer at Lax O’Sullivan Scott LLP representing Shaw, said at yesterday’s hearing the difference between Rogers’s offer for Mountain Cablevision and what Shaw bid was about C$10 million, or 3 percent. That would suggest a price of around C$300 million, he said after the hearing.
3. Rogers is scared of the competition in it's monopoly area:
“Mountain isn’t a one-off deal,” Tim Pinos, a lawyer for Rogers with Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP, told the judge. “Shaw intends to acquire further assets in eastern Canada.”
Ah-ha Shaw intends to push further out into Rogers land and force some competition, per Rogers. Scary stuff, ay.
Good for Shaw.
4. What you found:
Shaw claims any deal restricting each company to a portion of the country is illegal and unenforceable because it unfairly restricts competition.
...and they should go to the competition bureau as well as well as file with the CRTC to say there is restricted competition. We all know this anyhow. We (Ontario and Quebec residents) have all been screaming this for 2 years in these forums. Shaw could tilt the balance in these fights.
Seems to me it's only a case of Rogers not wanting to harm it's artificially inflated prices (price gouging) and its cable monopoly in Ontario.
GO Shaw GO!
But don't throttle and cap everyone at 60-frigging gigs |
|
heh
@videotron.ca
| reply to ah ha
Shaw wins in court. Rogers is anti-competitive.
»www.cartt.ca/news/FullStory.cfm?NewsNo=8623
The purchase of Mountain Cablevision by Shaw Communications can go ahead. Justice James Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice today dismissed the motion filed by Rogers Communications seeking to block the acquisition based on a near decade-old non-compete arrangement it had with Shaw.
“Shaw has a good case that the non-competition covenants are contrary to the public interest in relation to their effect on an owner of a cable television business who wants to sell his or her business in a competitive marketplace and a good case that these covenants are contrary to section 45(1)(d) of the Competition Act.”
Now for the rest of the anti-competitive telco's... |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB | Oooh!
Rogers won't take this lying down. This gang turf-war could get very hot if Rogers decides to start poaching in Shaw's territory.
If I was Rogers I'd be seeing how much it would take to buy a company like Novus... |
|
competition
@videotron.ca
| Oh I know it won't end there.
This opens the doors for shaw to go to the competition bureau with a court ruling behind it, I would imagine, should rogers try more BS.
Pretty sure more is to come...  |
|
