dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4907
share rss forum feed


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

Wind Mobile wants CRTC hearing over Telus ownership

And Bell wants it behind closed doors, might be too foreign owned too.

Wind Mobile is saying that Telus has sold too much of itself to forging ownership, in violation of domestic foreign-ownership laws.

Wind is saying that 48% of Telus is foreign hands, while Telus contends that it's only 32.59.

»business.financialpost.com/2012/···f-telus/
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by elwoodblues:

And Bell wants it behind closed doors, might be too foreign owned too.

Wind Mobile is saying that Telus has sold too much of itself to forging ownership, in violation of domestic foreign-ownership laws.

Wind is saying that 48% of Telus is foreign hands, while Telus contends that it's only 32.59.

»business.financialpost.com/2012/···f-telus/

This is excellent... seeing as Telus originally spearheaded the CRTC hearing that delayed WIND's launch in 2009, I'm happy to see WIND tossing its weight back at the incumbents.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

1 edit
said by El Quintron:

said by elwoodblues:

And Bell wants it behind closed doors, might be too foreign owned too.

Wind Mobile is saying that Telus has sold too much of itself to forging ownership, in violation of domestic foreign-ownership laws.

Wind is saying that 48% of Telus is foreign hands, while Telus contends that it's only 32.59.

»business.financialpost.com/2012/···f-telus/

This is excellent... seeing as Telus originally spearheaded the CRTC hearing that delayed WIND's launch in 2009, I'm happy to see WIND tossing its weight back at the incumbents.

If Bell is too foreign owned, I'm wondering why they want it behind closed doors, would that would unwind MLSE, Astral, maybe CTV....

That would be fun to watch.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
reply to elwoodblues
Payback may be a bitch for Telus... too bad they have money and power and will get off with nothing more than a hand slap likely.


Kardinal
Dei Gratia Regina
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico
reply to elwoodblues
It's an interesting take, but I'm confused about how a company is supposed to stop their shares being bought by foreign investors. There's a difference between shares being owned by people/investment companies outside Canada and the company being almost entirely foreign financed and controlled. If people outside of Canada want to buy shares in Bell/Telus/Rogers/Videotron, energy companies, whatever.....how are these companies supposed to stop that from happening?

From what I can remember, BCE sold 5% of Bell Canada (wireline telephone and Internet only) to Ameritech (one of the RBOCs created by the breakup of AT&T) in the 90s. Ameritech was then bought by SBC, which then bought Southern Bell and AT&T (by then, only an LD and data provider) and rebranded back to AT&T. Bell bought it back from them in the early 2000s I think, at quite a profit to the US company. I'm not sure if there are any other parts of the BCE empire that have a portion of foreign ownership still in play, other than TSN in the CTV family, which I think is partly owned by ESPN (that's the reason the graphics are all similar). Anyone? Anyone?
--
All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars

- Peart / Lifeson / Lee
Join Team Helix

Phorkster
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Windsor, ON
kudos:1
reply to elwoodblues
Does anyone really give a flying crap who owns what? Better choice and cheaper prices for consumers should be #1. The bulk of their employees are in foreign call centers anyways...

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Kardinal
said by Kardinal:

It's an interesting take, but I'm confused about how a company is supposed to stop their shares being bought by foreign investors.

Here's a simplified how....

When a Canadian company goes public they have to have a 'transfer agent' - called what you may recollect as being a trust company. ...a Canadian trust company in fact.

The trust company is the agent which records the beneficial owners of the shares of the pubic company. The trust company is bound to enforce the laws of the land (Canada) when it comes to recording who the shareholders are - if they don't then their license to operate as a trust company is yanked.

So if the law says that certain specified companies (in this case those governed by the Telecom Act) are not to have greater than an aggregate percentage of share held by non-Canadians (real, people, corporations, pension funds, governments, etc...) then the transfer agent will not register the ownership of those offending shares to the foreign entity, and will advise the entity thereof. The foreign entity will NOT be able to vote the shares, nor will it be paid dividends or interest, as the case may be.

If the foreign entity does not voluntarily sell the shares, the transfer agent will sell the shares and send the proceeds to the foreign entity.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

This is excellent... seeing as Telus originally spearheaded the CRTC hearing that delayed WIND's launch in 2009, I'm happy to see WIND tossing its weight back at the incumbents.

Exactly. This is going to be a real fun one to watch and, as elwood already said, it may have ramifications for Bell.

Vomio

join:2008-04-01
Reviews:
·odynet
This might be interesting. Edgar is nicely searchable.

»www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/···ndex.htm

A cursory glance seems to indicate a chunk of their debt is US rather than Egyptian.

Somebody with greater search-fu may find a few gems.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

said by El Quintron:

This is excellent... seeing as Telus originally spearheaded the CRTC hearing that delayed WIND's launch in 2009, I'm happy to see WIND tossing its weight back at the incumbents.

Exactly. This is going to be a real fun one to watch and, as elwood already said, it may have ramifications for Bell.

Your comment gets even better after that link that Vomio See Profile posted, it basically shows that the incumbents were guilty of what they're accusing WIND of, and they're using a position of privilege in order to block access to the market to WIND.

I'm glad WIND has enough resources to throw it back at them... it's about time they had to fight a bigger player.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to Phorkster
said by Phorkster:

Does anyone really give a flying crap who owns what? Better choice and cheaper prices for consumers should be #1. The bulk of their employees are in foreign call centers anyways...

IT's more to get back at Telus for what they did to Wind...


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by koreyb:

said by Phorkster:

Does anyone really give a flying crap who owns what? Better choice and cheaper prices for consumers should be #1. The bulk of their employees are in foreign call centers anyways...

IT's more to get back at Telus for what they did to Wind...

...Something about a dish best served cold?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
I have to wonder the merit of this whole situation, though. If the investment is held the same way as it was for Globalive, the courts ruled it was perfectly legal, which means that Telus and Bell would have just as much right to operate under this kind of ownership model as Globalive does.

If you think about it, Globalive may have done Telus and Bell a favour.

25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
reply to Kardinal
SBC IS Southern Bell. They changed their name to SBC prior to Ameritech/SNET/PacBell merger/buyout. SBC stands for Southern Bell Communications.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

If you think about it, Globalive may have done Telus and Bell a favour.

Crazy... like a fox! I may also reading too much into this, but, the way I see it is this:

WIND comes out on top either way here's why:

By dragging Telus' ownership structure into this, they're showing that either Telus is violating the law (the apparent goal on the surface) by having too much foreign interest.

-or-

They're showing that Telus had a similar ownership structure to WINDs but abused it's position to delay WIND's entry into the market, opening the up the doors to further action by WIND against Telus.

I'm not a corporate strategist or lawyer by any means but it seems that WIND is going to get their pound of flesh any way you slice it on this one.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
It'll be interesting to see how the recent ownership rules come into play, because as I understand it Globalive could have significant foreign ownership up to and including 100% as they are a new entrant, but Telus and Bell are still limited to the old rules.

But you're right, if Telus was found to be in the exact same position as Globalive was when they launched an objection it will be a lawyer feeding frenzy.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
I'm sorry, I know I'm going to get trashed, but I'd love to see the rule completely jettisoned. I'd love to see US Carriers be able to put up towers in Canada and start offering cross-border plans with no surcharge as a hook to get business.

Unlike TV and Magazines, I don't buy the culture arguments as applied to mobile phones. Most people get their information from the web and apps, not a cellular company's web portal. Moreover, a foreign carrier operating on Canadian soil will offer such content. As a Detroiter, I can tell you that Canadians are not the only ones who like Hockey. H---, we even have an active curling club on our side of the border.

I love Canada, but you make me think I have a cellular bargain down here (at least until I visit my bros. in the UK).


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by stufried:

I'm sorry, I know I'm going to get trashed, but I'd love to see the rule completely jettisoned. I'd love to see US Carriers be able to put up towers in Canada and start offering cross-border plans with no surcharge as a hook to get business.

I'm afraid they'd swallow up our monopolies and continue offering service at monopoly rates! (or worse)

I'm not trashing you, but competition is something that needs to be orchestrated somewhat... if not what motivation is there to be competitve?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to stufried
said by stufried:

I'd love to see the rule completely jettisoned. ... As a Detroiter,

Manifest Destiny?

Ideally telecommunications should be delivered on a public utility model, and no public utilities should ever be foreign owned. Doesn't matter much who owns the companies that do the branding & marketing and customer service & billing, but the critical infrastructure must be nationally owned if not nationalized.
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
A number of public utilities are foreign owned in a number of countries. Why pre-tell are cellular companies different. If our countries ever have a breakdown you can nationalize the company. Germany lost a lot of property holdings in North America because of World War I. Moreover, there isn't one company delivering power in the community, there are four or five. The interest seems less compelling.

You guys are paying some of the highest rates I know. Our rates aren't low and you make ATT look like a bargain basement. "MetroPCS Canada" would shake up your industry (until you realized the gaps in their coverage).

NAFTA was an agreement between our nations that committed to the principle of mutual trust of the other. Perhaps a bigger testament to it is the thousands of miles of unfortified border. While 9/11 fubbed it up somewhat, consider:

»www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazi···town.asp

Look at your deal with your telco. Most Canadians I know pay roaming when they are 70kms from their house. You pay three year contracts for your phones and get really hammered when you cross the border.

The Canadian culture exception has been used as a non-tariff barrier. There is a limit on US television on your network to protect Canadian culture, but consider some of these Canadian produced programs that don't quality:

*House (supposedly set in New Jersey);
*Andromeda;
*Battlestar Galactica;
*Highlander;
*MacGyver (later episodes);
*Police Academy - The Series (supposedly set in California);
*Stargate SG1, Universe, and Atlantis;
*21 Jump Street;
*The Commish (filed in supposedly set in New Jersey);
*NYPD Blue (supposedly set in NYC);
*Silk Stockings (supposedly set in Palm Beach);
*Eureka;
*Human Target;
*Smallville (supposedly set in Kansas);
*F/X

My point is not that there is no such thing as true Canadian culture -- there is. My point is that the justification is often a pretextual and used to protect incumbent interests at the expense of the consumer.

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
reply to El Quintron
If Verizon & ATT were permitted to buy Rogers and Bell, I'd agree with you. If they were allowed to come in, string their own towers, and compete with them, that is entirely different. You guys are probably not going to love to go with the US carrier and they won't be your default choice. If they can sweeten the pot enough, your wallet will rule.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by stufried:

If Verizon & ATT were permitted to buy Rogers and Bell, I'd agree with you.

Which is an option that would be viable if the rules were just tossed completely. Easier to buy in than to build up.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to stufried
said by stufried:

My point is not that there is no such thing as true Canadian culture -- there is. My point is that the justification is often a pretextual and used to protect incumbent interests at the expense of the consumer.

The unfortunate phenomenon you're referring to is regulatory capture, I'd have no problem with US players settng up shop here, as long as their Canadian operations are not subject to the Patriot Act and such.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
If I thought I could get German style privacy protection, I'd switch to TMobile in a New York minute. I absolutely presumed that the US players had to play by Canadian rules.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by stufried:

If I thought I could get German style privacy protection, I'd switch to TMobile in a New York minute. I absolutely presumed that the US players had to play by Canadian rules.

Assuming they set up a Canadian operation, I'd assume they would, but I don't know how that would interact with their own obligations to the Patriot Act and with our cross border cooperation arrangements.

I'd want to investigate that's for sure.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


easy peasey

@videotron.ca
said by El Quintron:

Assuming they set up a Canadian operation, I'd assume they would, but I don't know how that would interact with their own obligations to the Patriot Act and with our cross border cooperation arrangements.

I'd want to investigate that's for sure.

There would be nothing to investigate. US law applies to us companies, *even* if they are only partially owned by Americans. Patriot Act applies, regardless of anything else.

You can check priv coms site for this and more info.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by easy peasey :

There would be nothing to investigate. US law applies to us companies, *even* if they are only partially owned by Americans. Patriot Act applies, regardless of anything else.

You can check priv coms site for this and more info.

I'm not disputing your point, in fact what you just said there is what concerns me about, say, subbing to Verizon, or T. Mobile.

Where it may get hairy for these companies, is if all the gear is located in Canada, then which law takes precedence. Obviously we're talking theoreticals here.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

I have to wonder the merit of this whole situation, though. If the investment is held the same way as it was for Globalive, the courts ruled it was perfectly legal, which means that Telus and Bell would have just as much right to operate under this kind of ownership model as Globalive does.

It's a bit different for public companies because there is no way to accurately police the percentage ownership @ the time of trade, and thousands of trades - even tens of thousands - can occur daily in a Canadian public telco.


easy peasey

@videotron.ca
reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

said by easy peasey :

There would be nothing to investigate. US law applies to us companies, *even* if they are only partially owned by Americans. Patriot Act applies, regardless of anything else.

You can check priv coms site for this and more info.

I'm not disputing your point, in fact what you just said there is what concerns me about, say, subbing to Verizon, or T. Mobile.

Where it may get hairy for these companies, is if all the gear is located in Canada, then which law takes precedence. Obviously we're talking theoreticals here.

Answer: Patriot Act.

This and more can be found on Priv Com.

You know... there is a reason why BC, PEI and some other prov's ended contracts with partially owned, or fully owned, american data houses with server farms in Canada.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

It'll be interesting to see how the recent ownership rules come into play, because as I understand it Globalive could have significant foreign ownership up to and including 100% as they are a new entrant, but Telus and Bell are still limited to the old rules.

But you're right, if Telus was found to be in the exact same position as Globalive was when they launched an objection it will be a lawyer feeding frenzy.

Wind may use the result of this to exact damages from Telus in a civil suit, for delaying the startup of Wind.