This is what I am thinking. I am probably going to make some changes....I'll take suggestions. This is my 8th email to you today. After trying to digest your response on this matter it has come to my attention that you don't have your facts straight. In this article (click on link) http://www.canadaviews.ca/2009/11/25/masse-demands-minister-maintain-canadian-ownership-rules-for-telecom/ you are quoted as saying, "The CRTC did its job by determining that Globalive did not meet the Canadian ownership rules. The other new entrants in the sector, Public Mobile and DAVE, were able to meet the standard and so should Globalive. It’s troubling that the Department of Industry and the CRTC have come to different conclusions on Globalive’s ownership structure. This raises questions about possible favoritism or carelessness in the department, and those questions need to be resolved immediately.” First of all Public Mobile and DAVE have not gone through the CRTC yet. You would have realized that had you read my previous email to you. It was Email #2 that I sent to Mr. Layton. I put this link in it. http://mobilesyrup.com/2009/09/11/rogers-requests-foreign-ownership-hearing-into-public-mobile-and-dave-wireless/ For you to say that the other new entrants met the standard......is ridiculous because they have not been through CRTC's hearing. Now I doubt that the incumbents will put them under a microscope like they did to Globalive because the other new entrants are not as much as a threat to them as Globalive is. Public Mobile is run by someone that worked for the incumbents for years and is afraid to compete with the incumbents and basically admitted that he would sell out. DAVE is only launching in 5 - 10 cities. That's it. Globalive is launching on a National scale except for Quebec. Read my previous emails and you will get the whole picture. The other new entrants are basically jumping on the band wagon because they are no where ready to come to market yet and since they are the direct competitors of Globalive....that's why they are complaining. This has nothing to do with a fair playing field for them. The questions that I find troubling that needs answers to are: Why haven't the CRTC implemented the governments policy direction that has been given to them since 2006? Why are the incumbents allowed to have so much influence over the CRTC? The decision Industry Canada made was uninfluenced by the incumbents. The CRTC's decision was heavily influenced by the CRTC. Read email #4 that was sent to Mr. Layton. There was no favoritism played. Defacto is a very shady area of law to hang your hat on. It is subjective. It is a matter of opinion what constitutes control in fact. Orascom has no more control over Globalive than a Canadian bank would had it loaned them the money. Konrad von Finckenstein said it himself in his ruling in paragraph 34 that there is no definition. I can say that I don't have much faith in an Ombudsman's office. I have dealt with the one at the 407 ETR and they are useless. They simply restate the 407's position on the matter and they say they are using the 407 Act to back them up, but they are forgetting about all the other laws that are designed to protect Canadians. The only thing that is truly going to fix the problem we have in Telecom is serious competition. Everyone has to be forced to look at the product they are offering Canadians and compete with each other to see who is truly offering the best. I don't buy into that whole, splitting the market between more companies without lowering costs for subscribers leaves in place the problems that exist today of the wireless industry raking in record profits at the expense of ordinary Canadians. I am tired of being force fed what ever the incumbents tell us. It is time for a change. This ruling by the CRTC is not about an issue of foreign control......it's about a monopoly that is trying to hang on to its power. I would say you should rethink your position on this matter. Sincerely, Tammy Flores
Here is somethig you should probably change:
"The CRTC's decision was heavily influenced by the CRTC."
Thanks Chris 125. That would have been funny to let that one go. Spell check only goes so far:)
beautiful letter. I'd try and knock up their idea for an ombudsman a little more and offer the solution of liberalizing the foreign financing restrictions and possibly striking the clauses from the telecom act regarding de facto control... but that's just my opinion and what I'd want done
A standing ovation for you Tammy, i wish i could write as good as you. :P
"I wish i could write as WELL as you"
I'm sorry, I couldn't help it.
@Clumpen - The whole Ombudsman thing.........I have serious beef with that. I have a huge problem with the 407 and I have to take them to court now. The Ombudsman's office was suggested in Mike Cole's report of 2006 (Ontario Provincially). It was suggested along with a lot of other suggestions for customer service/billing issues. I am being told a report doesn't mean that it's law. I don't want to get into much detail, but I think an Ombudsman's office is useless unless it has teeth. Which clearly it doesn't. I think an Ombudsman's office is just a waste of time, space and money.
Holding companies to good customer services/proper billing standards.......that's where it's at. But how to express that? I mean I serious want to avoid the whole foreign ownership issue all together because I don't believe that this is the problem here. I think it's because they are afraid of the competition that's coming and the fact that the NDP is going on about spliting the market and crap......that just makes my blood boil.
How are you suggesting to express it?
© 2010 WIND Mobile
