• According to Tony, Canada is still effectively a series of provincial duopolies (2 carrier concentration of 80-90% in most markets), with the 3rd highest costs and least customer satisfaction in the world. What we need is competition.
• Globalive is not pleased to be missing Christmas but is pushing ahead, expanding the network, keeping staff on while they sort through with the CRTC and industry Canada
• Tony is not yet acknowledging the possibility of not launching
• CRTC’s reversal came after globalive were legally approved by both Industry Canada and Dept of Finance. The CRTC’s choice was not one of law but a subjective decision, says Tony, and we disagree with their interpretation.
• Tony played up the charity work globalive employees have been doing – “has made our culture so much stronger”
• Wind (The globalive wireless brand) plans to launch with “all unlimited plans, no contracts, no catches*”
• Other than the catch that data will have some limits, or at least large buckets (this is not so unreasonable)
• Tony is keen on cool ideas like open application platforms. Although we don’t know what that means from a carrier perspective exactly.
• Wind will launch with blackberries (the latest) and other smartphones but not the iphone yet
• Asked about whether Canada should scrap foreign ownership rules – no says they are still important from a broadcast and cultural perspective
• What Tony really means is that Globalive doesn’t need (to wait for) legislation to change for them to launch

A few great, and essentially unanswered yet questions from the audience:

1) Globalive (and the likes of Quebecor) are more clearly intent on building long-term sustainable businesses, but how well will they compete against kamakazie marketshare strategies of any of the pure new entrants who could, potentially, be intent on gaining-marketshare-at-any-cost strategies in order to flip their businesses at the end of five years? (e.g. when the spectrum exclusivity rules for new entrants come off)

2) How does the UK wireless industry (for example, pick any G8 country) perform so well and competitively without the benefit of Canadian-style foreign ownership? Why does Canada keep such good company as Burma, Iran, North Korea in sheltering our wireless industry from international competition?

From Today’s NationalPost:

Globalive Wireless has been racing to bring its offering to market as quickly as possible. By next summer, without the delays occasioned by the CRTC review, Globalive Wireless would have launched its services in many Canadian markets, employed an estimated 2,000 people and spent over $1 billion building its network.

The incumbents responded to the threat of new competition in predictable ways: they cut prices and suggested they would provide better customer service. Fair enough although one wonders whether that would have happened without the threat of more competition. Somewhat more cynically, they sought to game the regulatory system in a way that could delay and seriously complicate the introduction of wireless competition.

LINK: Wireless Wars: Barriers to new providers -Ken Campbell CEO Globalive Wireless
Funny that Rogers doth not protest. It’s almost like they know that as the one carrier selling out iphones, blackberries, and rocket sticks faster than they can back up the trucks, that they are the least of whose lunch will be eaten by the upstarts.

Here’s what we know. Globalive (our only new nationwide entrant) has partnered with Alcatel in the west and Nokia in the east to build them a cellar network. The bad news is they are, reportedly, still in phase of locating acquiring tower real estate. To make life a little more difficult, Globalive is also catching some flack for using a lot of US labour (really Alcatel’s labour) rather than hiring the local talent apparently ready/able to do the work. Take that for what you will.

This is, of course, funny because our government -over much lamentation of the incumbents- mandated something called “tower sharing” in the recent spectrum auction. Meaning that the existing carriers were supposed to share space on their towers with the new kids whenever “reasonable”, “safe” and “practical”. Unfortunately None of the new entrant CEOs we’ve spoken with have particularly optimistic about tower sharing arrangements.

You would thing that after burning through the better part of two billion in a slugfest of an auction last summer, that the hard part would be over for Canada’s new Wireless Entrants. Word is though, that the rollout of wireless coverage across a country this size isn’t so easy either. Leaving aside the obvious challenges of the vast geographies, lets not mention the global economic collapse (not a fun time to be going back to the well for more capital) the new entrants current challenge is finding tower space. Or urban spaces for new towers.

Elsewhere in the world this wouldn’t be as difficult a problem. In the US, europe and many civilized countries, a majority of towers and cell sites are owned by 3rd party companies, vertical wireless hotelling/hosting businesses.

Theoretically, it’s really nobodies interest to have a lot extra tower sites. Municipalities and locals don’t like it, towers and antennas are usually ugly. Finding real estate, building the tower, routing power and data backhaul is expensive so it makes for considerable scale advantages to share.

In Canada though, we don’t have an independent, competitive tower industry. The towers are , by and larger, all owned by the big three. They do share or trade tower space amongst themselves. By share, our sources tell us, you mean “grudgingly” and “like children”.

Contacts a certain big red carrier have been suggesting they will be doing all they can to fill up their towers with equipment, any equipment, just to not leave space for the new entrants. Don’t be surprised if you see the Rogers’ family own toaster-oven staplegunned to a cell tower near you, and so forth.

Altogether, signs don’t point to “likely” that we’ll see meaningful new wireless coverage in Canada this year.