Less Wireless Competition in Canada?

Now that a federal court has ruled that Wind Mobile’s ownership structure doesn’t comply with Canada’s foreign ownership rules, one of the options being openly discussed by analysts and Wind is the possible consolidation of the wireless market. This could see Wind acquire one of the new players – Mobilicity and Public Mobile – so Wind can get back onside.

How ironic given the effort made to introduce more wireless competition. If consolidation became a reality, the wireless market could quickly revert to its former self with maybe, at best, a few new players.

It raises the question about how long any kind of competition – wireless or broadband – can really exist in Canada without foreign ownership rules being relaxed. Right now, the biggest problem facing competitors is there are few buyers for their companies and, as important, a limited number of investors. With few financing options, selling out to one of the incumbents is a strong possibility, which means less competition.

Amid the speculation about Wind’s future, it is important to remember that consolidation is nothing new to the Canadian market. Microcell, for example, was the new kid on the block that shook up the landscape with lower prices. Then, it ran into financial problems and filed for bankruptcy protection before it was acquired by Rogers.

The federal government allowed the transaction to go through even though it meant a major competitor was going to be swallowed up by an existing competitor. A couple years later, the government then decided Canada needed more competition.

If you’re at all confused about what’s the horizon, you are probably not alone. The biggest question is whether consolidation is inevitable or a healthy scenario. Is this what the government envisioned when it decided there had to be more wireless competition?

AOL Making Content King Again

So let’s get this straight: AOL just spent $315-million to buy the Huffington Post, a move that makes it a “next-generation publishing” entity?

First reaction is not why AOL decided to buy Huffington Post but why Arianna Huffington sold to AOL. Of course, there are 315 million reasons to justify the deal but why throw in the towel to AOL when you’ve got the world in the palm of your hand as the world’s largest and most influential online publisher?

It’s not like Huffington needs the money personally or whether the Huffington Post is lacking growth capital. At the apex of her career, Huffington made a strange decision by taking the money and running. Maybe her investors made her do it given the size of the AOL offer, which is five times the HP’s sales. After six years at the helm, maybe Huffington wants to focus on giving speeches and writing books rather than running a fast-growing online publishing company.

Whatever the reason, AOL is placing a huge bet not only the Huffington Post but the value of content to create a lucrative digital platform. For those of you with a sense of history, AOL pulled the same trick a decade ago with a marriage to Time-Warner in the name of digital convergence – and we all know how well that turned out.

With Huffington Post and TechCrunch now in the fold, AOL has swooped up two of the highest profile digital publishers and, along with it, two of the more interesting entrepreneurs (Huffington and TechCrunch’s Mike Arrington) along with it.

All I can say is “interesting”.

A Perfect Approach to Business Cards

Maybe I’m old school but in my world, the business card is still alive and well. Although far from sexy or digital, a business card still has clout. It’s something tangible that can be given to someone to establish a relationship. And the upside is accepting a business card is quick as opposed to having to slowly type contact details into an address book, or “bump” someone, which seems fairly intimate if you’ve had just met someone.

But what happens with all these business cards after they’ve been collected? They can be manually imported into an address book or, in many cases, they pile up on your desk and collect dust. There are technology solutions such as CardScan that are designed to make it easy to deal with business cards but they can be expensive, which seems strange for a small piece of hardware.

There are services such CloudContacts in which you send business cards so someone else can digitize them. And there are iPhone apps that claim to capture business cards by taking photos of them.

As someone who has spent far too much time trying to find a user-friendly solution, I haven’t discovered anything elegant and cost-effective to capture business cards….until now.

The answer is CardMunch, an iPhone/Web app that has, so far, blown me away. CardMunch consists of a free iPhone application and a Web site to manage business cards. The service used to have a cost but it’s now free after being bought by LinkedIn. Even if CardMunch wasn’t free, I’d still use it.

After downloading the iPhone app and registering for an account, you capture a business card by taking a photo of it using the CardMunch app. The business card is sent to your CardMunch account and, after logging in, there’s a list of pending and completed cards.

The most impressive thing about CardMunch is how well the details of each card have been captured. I’ve used several business card iPhone apps but the picture quality and information captured has been far from ideal. CardMunch, however, does an amazing job. To send the details of each card to your address book, you click on “Export Contact”, which downloads a VCF file that can added to an address book.

CardMunch is one of those “gems” that does a straightforward job in a simple, user-friendly and effective way. Now that it’s free and owned by LinkedIn, it should attract a lot of people who still use business cards. Even if it weren’t free, CardMunch would be difficult to resist.

After UBB, Then What Canada?

So it looks like usage-based billing (aka UBB) is going to be removed from the scene – now that the Conservative government has decided the CRTC’s decision to approve UBB was a mistake.

Now what?

The nut of it is UBB is just a symptom of larger problems within Canada’s $4.5-billion broadband market, which has been allowed to operate with little regulatory oversight. This has created the following landscape:

- An oligopolistic market dominated by the cable and telephone companies. In other words, there’s no or little competition in all markets.
- Prices that rank among the highest in the world
- Access that while improving are far from world-class.
- Service providers that can do and charge what they want.

Addressing the UBB problem is like putting a finger in a leak in the dyke. It will solve one issue but it’s just a stop-gap solution to a bigger problem. In a spirited e-mail I received from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, he suggested that; “We must build a digital strategy for Canada that embraces the energy, entrepreneurial spirit, and innovative creativity of consumers, businesses and digital influencers like you.”

Putting aside the political posturing, Ignatieff makes a great point: Canada desperately needs a digital strategy, which is a different approach from the hands-off approach the federal government has taken for the past decade.

This does not suggest the federal government take a pro-active approach to the Internet but Canada needs a new master plan that recognizes the Internet has gone from an interesting new medium to an essential part of Canada’s economic, innovation, cultural and content future.

It’s no longer good enough to let market forces rule the day because what you get is self-interest ruling the day even if that means an Internet landscape with no structure or long-term vision. We need more competition so innovation and competition thrives. Ministry of Industry Tony Clement has raised the “more competitive” issue himself but let’s see if he’s willing to walk the walk.

If the UBB issue has done anything positive, it’s finally put broadband into the spotlight. For far too long, Canadian consumers have just paid the piper; now there’s a window to take a good, hard look at an industry that has had its own way for too long.

More Broadband Competition, Mr. Clement?

Amid the uproar about the CRTC’s flawed and misguided decision to allow metered-billing for broadband usage in Canada, the spotlight is finally started to shine on the fact one of the big problems in Canada is the lack of broadband competition. At best, most markets have a cozy oligopoly – great for the ISPs, bad for consumers.

It was surprising to see this quote in the Toronto Star for Ministry of Industry Minister Tony Clement amid speculation the federal government could overturn the CRTC’s decision.

“We feel very strongly that we need more competition, we need more consumer choice, we need more choices for small business owners and operators and our entrepreneurs and our creators.”

So, Mr. Clement, how are you going to get more broadband competition in Canada? How are you going to change a regulatory and competitive environment that hasn’t worked over the past decade?

Are you going to force the ISPs to play nice with companies that would like to use their networks – something that hasn’t worked despite rulings by the CRTC?

Are you going to allow foreign competition into Canada to really shake up the marketplace – something that would shake up the Telus, Bell, Shaw, Rogers cartel?

While more broadband competition is a great idea, making it happen is another thing altogether. It makes for a great sound bite and great political/election fodder when you talk about “more broadband competition” but talk is talk unless you’re prepared to walk as well.

So the $64,000 question is: Mr. Clement, what’s your plan to attract more competition?

Canada Needs More Broadband Competition

So it looks like metered billing could become a reality in the Canadian broadband market, which will give ISPs, who already enjoy an oligopoly, another way to make even higher profits as they take advantage of the growing demand among consumer for bandwidth so they use online services such as video and games.

The real issue isn’t metered billing but the lack of competition within Canada’s broadband market. In most markets, consumers are lucky if they have two choices – the cable or telephony company. This means competition is, at best, light because there’s no need to compete when all you have to do is match what the other guy is doing.

While Canada’s telecom regulator, the CRTC, has made some half-hearted attempts over the past decade to encourage cable and telephone companies to offer wholesale access to other ISPs, the market has not flourished.
The small number of ISPs using wholesale services have established a modest foothold by, in part, offering unlimited bandwidth – something will be killed if the CRTC’s metered billing decision is established.

The troubling reality of Canada’s Internet landscape is how unprepared the government and the CRTC has been for the Internet’s emergence as the way to communicate, consume services and do business. We’re still struggling with major decisions such as whether the Internet should be regulated or not. There’s no regulation of broadband services so the ISPs can pretty much do what they want.

And while the federal government has bent over backwards to encourage more wireless competition, little has been done to stimulate more broadband competition. It has left the market with few choices and, as a result, innovation and competition have not flourished. In Canada, broadband is seen as an unregulated utility rather than a valuable service that will be a more essential part of Canada’s economic future.

While metered billing will likely become a political hot potato because it’s so consumer-friendly as we head into a federal election later this year, it shouldn’t overshadow the dearth of broadband competition. It has been something that has been ignored for years but it will come home to roost as broadband becomes an essential service in our personal and professional lives.

If the federal government were forward-thinking, it would create a new policy to encourage more broadband competition. It would be a bold and aggressive move because it could mean introducing policies that would force the existing ISPs to provide better and more wholesale access to networks in which they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars. It could mean opening the doors to foreign companies so we get new well-financed competitors willing to move into an oligopolistic market.

At the end of the day, more broadband competition is crucial is Canada is looking to thrive globally. Metered billing is just a symptom of what’s wrong with the market but it should be used as an excuse to focus on a much bigger and more important issue.

Links:
- Michael Geist providing more details and insight into what the CRTC’s decision means.
- Anti-UBB, include ways to get involved in stopping metered billing.
- TechCrunch – “Say Goodbye to Innovation”

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...