Hamid Moghani

Public Policy Assignment - Canada

NEU Number: 001161852

What triggered the government’s decision to open the sector to new entrants? What key dilemmas did the CRTC and Industry Canada face? What general lessons can be learned from the “Globalive” example? Two organizations were examining the same case and applying the same objective test: 1. How could these conflicts in judgment been avoided? 2. What issues/challenges could arise in the event of differences in public opinion?

-The Canadian telecommunication industry was not so competitive. Definitely the government wants new entrants, because they want more players. So they are kind of forced to do it. Competition was the big reason and actually was a good thing. But the ownership rules were a little challenging for their goal. They wanted to create more job opportunities in this industry, that’s why they wanted those new entrants be controlled and managed by Canadian people. So they basically wanted Canadian citizen people be their managers. But they didn’t change their ownership issues and rules. So basically they wanted to make competition in Canada. The prices were high; the technology might be old; they wanted to make new job opportunities and ultimately that decision was based on incoming money and investments. Ultimately all the government decisions are about money in almost all countries. -The main dilemma of CRTS and Industry Canada was the future of Globalive in a nutshell. Globalive went to industry Canada which is the decider of their government telecommunication industry and they were promised that they can bring their investment and start working on infrastructures. From Industry Canada point of view Globalive didn’t have any problem. So Globalive didn’t go to CRTC after talking to Industry Canada.

Moghani@coe.neu.edu

1

Hamid Moghani

Public Policy Assignment - Canada

NEU Number: 001161852

From CRTS point of view, after Globalive did all the work and installed the infrastructure and when they wanted to start working officially, they didn’t have the requirements to start that company in Canada legally. So CRTC had 2 choices. First was to tell Globalive privately that you don’t have the requirements, and second was to tell that publicly. They chose the latter. So now Globalive with all the investments cannot continue working in Canada because of the ownership rules. In other hands, Industry Canada which was the main government telecommunication industry part wasn’t against the Globalive situation of ownership. -The lesson could be that if we have 2 deciders in a country, the problems like this might occur. So if we have 1 decider or a single layer in a government industry there would be fewer problems. Single layer is certainly the easiest way to go. Like FCC in the US. From Globolive point of view, if any company wants to invest in another country, it should consider all the circumstances and rules, because it’s a big investment. But in this case it wasn’t really Globalive fault, because they couldn’t foreseen that CRTC would come in their way; they went and talked to the more powerful layer which was Industry Canada. -One might say that it could have been avoided. CRTC could tell Globalive privately and Globalive might change their policy to match the rules. Or the government could change the rules to make the incoming investments easier. Or Globalive could foreseen this problem and invest its money in another country or invest it in Canada through a Canadian company. One might say that it could have not been avoided. In some regard there’s no way they could have avoided this. They didn’t go to CRTC. They went to Industry Canada the higher level, they got the approval and they were sure that they were all set.

Moghani@coe.neu.edu

2

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful