By Len Katz
THE WORDS IN THAT headline came from a senior executive at a wireless conference almost a decade ago as he commented on the Joint Network and Spectrum Sharing Agreement that saw Bell Canada and Telus carve up the build-out of one national wireless high speed digital network to compete with Rogers. Telus trumpeted the agreement saying it allowed for an accelerated buildout.
It also resulted in one less national infrastructure network in Canada. So did the benefit outweigh the cost?
ISED (then Industry Canada) repeatedly approved the applications to extend the Sharing Agreements during subsequent spectrum auctions and afterward by simply saying the applications will have “no impact on either company’s overall spectrum holdings or distribution.” But they were silent on the extent to which it might impact the supply and demand dynamics in the marketplace.
Would it have incented Bell Mobility and Telus (and likely Rogers) to seek broader distribution arrangements with others had there been three pipes to fill rather than two?
After many years of spectrum licensing and auctions, new entrants coming and going (Microcell, Clearnet, Mobilicity, Wind, Public Mobile), Canada is left with only incumbent cable and telco carriers as the primary providers of wireless services and they have been doing an admirable job of protecting their markets by “managing” competitive entry. And now, as we are on the cusp of a CRTC wireless policy decision on mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), some are saying the CRTC should continue to limit access terms and conditions to the remaining Canadian cable and telco carriers and deny access by others.
Wouldn’t it be opportune for ISED to review its old decisions and continued policy of allowing network and spectrum sharing by incumbents who of 
course seek to control access to shared infrastructure by new non-incumbent entrants?
I can only assume that Industry Canada, at the time, had good and valid reasons for approving and promoting network sharing which has since been extended to other facilities based incumbents (Rogers and Videotron in certain regions, for example).
I will not enter the fray on whether our wireless rates are still too high, but one thing is certain, Canadian wireless rates would not be any higher today had Industry Canada denied Joint Network and Spectrum Sharing between Bell and Telus. It now begs the question: If Industry Canada had to do it all over again today, would they? If not, can anything be done to mitigate its effects today?
After all, as someone once said: “More networks are a good thing.”
Len Katz (right) has been involved in Canada’s communications industry for 45 years and served as CRTC vice-chair of telecommunications from 2007 to 2012 and briefly as interim chair.
