March 10th, 2010The counter argument on foreign ownership
Like the new anthem, is it all a sideshow distracting us from a real Made-in-Canada Digital Strategy?
Over on the Tyee.ca Steve Anderson makes a few good points:
In last week’s speech from the throne and release of the budget, the government had an opportunity to address digital issues. All that was made clear, however, was that government is committed to opening Canada’s telecommunications and satellite industries to foreign ownership. Giving up on our capacity to meet this challenge and instead relying primarily on foreign investment schemes is not the answer. Such an approach would, at best, miss the lessons learned from the countries that are leading in broadband speed, access and cost.
Link: Why Are Tories Giving up on Canadian Innovation?
[ see also: Canada Needs a Serious Agenda for Media Innovation ]
In markets like the UK, foreign-ownership of carriers has been consistent with a high level of industry competitiveness and mobile innovation. However elsewhere like New Zealand the case is not as clear.
In the wired world, the models that work for driving advanced broadband typically have involved significant investment at the national or municipal level, effectively fibre to the curb as a fundamental public-good infrastructure service like gas, water, or roads with private ISPs servicing and marketing the last “mile” to households. Of course wireless couldn’t be more different. Tower-sharing and in-territory roaming requirements are a step in the right direction of reducing total infrastructure costs. However, instead of otherwise lowering barriers to entry the government seems to set up spectrum auctions as a way to take billions out of ICT investment rather than put it in.
-
Igor
-
http://wirelessnorth.ca WirelessNorth
-
Tbarnston
-
Tbarnston
