Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia's VimpelCom Buys Wind Mobile In Canada

Posted by timothy on from the telephone-network-owns-you dept.

silverpig writes "Wind Mobile's CEO and Chairman Tony Lacavera announced on the Wind Mobile site that VimpelCom has decided to purchase Wind Telecom for $6 billion. The deal should go through by the middle of this year and may give Canadians cheaper international and roaming rates, as well as giving Wind some extra leverage with its suppliers and handset manufacturers. The deal is particularly interesting, as Wind is one of the new entrants into the Canadian wireless operator industry and has had to deal with issues regarding Canada's foreign ownership rules. Expect a lot of scrutiny from the CRTC, Bell, Telus, and Rogers."

63 comments

  1. Why can companies buy other companies ? by dargaud · · Score: 1

    Ok, capitalism, blah, blah, blah... but can anybody tell me WHY are companies allowed to buy other companies ? I mean if the owners/investors in company A want to purchase (stock in) company B and make them work together, then go for it; but I don't understand why a company should be allowed to purchase another one.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Why can companies buy other companies ? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Ok, capitalism, blah, blah, blah... but can anybody tell me WHY are companies allowed to buy other companies ? I mean if the owners/investors in company A want to purchase (stock in) company B and make them work together, then go for it; but I don't understand why a company should be allowed to purchase another one.

      In Soviet Russia company owns YOU.

      ...

      Come to think of it, that's how it works in the Capitalist world, too.

      Think of a corporation as being the embodiment of a business, with rights and responsibilities similar to those of an individual. An individual may own one or more companies. Why not a Corporation?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Why can companies buy other companies ? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      Ok, capitalism, blah, blah, blah... but can anybody tell me WHY are companies allowed to buy other companies?

      Economies of scale should result in lower consumer prices (in theory), combined management, operations, IT, etc saves money, etc etc. If you want a world where companies can't buy other companies then we'll have a bunch of companies that go out of business. For example, YouTube could never make a profit if it had to pay for its own servers & bandwidth requirements. Piggybacking on Google it can and does generate a profit.

    3. Re:Why can companies buy other companies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But corporations are people, at least according to the Supreme Court, and last I checked, it's illegal to own other people!

  2. One thing's really been bugging me. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Not that it likely matters a lot now, because since they've been bought out, it's not unlikely they'll have a name-change anyways, but I've only ever seen this company's name in print, and I've always wondered how the name of the company is pronounced. That is, do you pronounce it with a short 'i', or long 'i' sound?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by green1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wind? According to their adds it is pronounced the same way as moving air outdoors.

      As for the topic at hand. In Canada it is illegal for a telecom company to have more than 30% foreign ownership. Wind was owned by an Egyptian company violating those rules, as such the CRTC banned them from operating in Canada, the federal government then overode the ban (but didn't change the rules) making Wind the only foreign owned telecom company allowed to operate in Canada. Recently a federal judge overturned the exemption and sent it back to the government saying that they had to make everyone play by the same rules (either ban Wind from operating in Canada, or allow other foreign companies the same leeway, and gave Wind 60 days to comply/appeal. Now the Egyptian company is solving their foreign ownership problems by becoming Russian owned instead of Egyptian... somehow I don't think that helps.

      Our government really needs to make up it's mind. Either allow foreign ownership of telecoms (and open up our telecom industry to real competition) or kick Wind out. The double standard has got to go.

    2. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Thanks... I've actually never seen any ads for them other than seeing their name in print, and none of the ones I had seen gave any real clue about how the name was supposed to be pronounced.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Rogers, Telus and Bell will be whining to the CRTC about it again.
      They don't like real competition to their price fixing and overpriced plans.

      What Canada needs is foreign competition in the ISP market and to scale back the powers of the CRTC. The whole UBB fiasco has proven that the CRTC isn't acting in the interest of Canadian consumers, it shows they're in the pocket of the communications giants.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way: Wind is nothing more than a bunch of hot air moving into a depression. I always figured it was a short i just based on their logo and print ads.... I'm sure they define Wind as "a breath of fresh air" instead of "a load of hot air" though.

    5. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by kevinmenzel · · Score: 2

      How does scaling back the powers of the CRTC help the consumer though? If the complaint is that the CRTC swings too much in the direction of the major powers, I don't see how handing all power over to those major powers by virtue of their entrenched market position wouldn't be actually quite a bit worse...

    6. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by green1 · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood TELUS, Rogers, and Bell. They have never said "we don't want Wind to be allowed to compete in Canada" they've said "we want a level playing field, if they can get foreign investment, we want to be able to too."

      And I can't blame them for it. This is actually not a CRTC problem, the CRTC was only upholding the law as made by the government. It is up to the government to fix this mess, not the CRTC.

      By giving Wind an exception to the law, they not only limited competition in Canada, but they also undermined the rule of law, one of the most fundamental principles of our society. If they truly wanted more competition they would have changed the law itself to allow any company to come in, something they haven't done. And believe it or not, the big telecoms in Canada are pushing for the same thing Wind wants, more relaxed foreign ownership rules. They just don't want it in the form of individual exemptions for specific players.

      Why should Wind get a free pass on foreign ownership but nobody else?

    7. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by dwandy · · Score: 1

      What Canada needs is foreign competition in the ISP market and to scale back the powers of the CRTC.

      We don't need foreign competition: we need to make the last mile a public utility and let any Canadian owned company compete at the retail level. Then the CRTC can go back to managing spectrum allocation for a dying industry.
      And since the topic was Cell Phone Service, I'd suggest that cell-towers also be run as a public utility; again letting whomever run a retail business.
      And this isn't crazy; anyone out there want to privatize the road to their house? You get to pay a private company whatever they want to charge to drive on it...any takers?
      We need to accept that there are natural monopolies and letting a non-profit run those is in our best interest.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    8. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're very naive if you think that three oligopolistic players were not attempting to block the entry of outside players...

      Canadians pay exorbitant rates for their cell phone plans. This has nothing to do with access to foreign capital and everything to do with a protectionist market.

      Agreed that generally allowing foreign capital/ownership would sort the issue, but there's no way that such an outcome is what Bell/Telus/Rogers want.

    9. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by green1 · · Score: 1

      TELUS has specifically stated in the media that this is what they want, they have also been lobbying the government for this, and have testified to this point in court.

      So I'll take their actions to speak louder than your random guess on slashdot.

    10. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      If they truly wanted more competition they would have changed the law itself to allow any company to come in, something they haven't done. And believe it or not, the big telecoms in Canada are pushing for the same thing Wind wants, more relaxed foreign ownership rules.

      The original purpose of those foreign investment rules was to keep the profits and control of communication within Canada. That means that the decisions of the companies actually affect the people who made them.
      In theory, it's less desirable for someone to make a "fuck everyone, profits or death" kind of decision if it is going to directly affect your own family, and your neighbors, and the guys you golf with, etc.
      Also, keeping the profits within the national borders is better for the local economy.

      This kind of regulations is supposed to prevent, or at least limit, the race to the bottom.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    11. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a pure form of competition in the broadband and Television services. What needs to be allowed is foreign investment in network infrastructure so that Bell is no longer the gatekeeper.

    12. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by green1 · · Score: 1

      My statement was in regards to inconsistency in the application of the current laws, not a statement about my preferred situation.

      Basically the government needs everyone to play by the same rules, either everyone is allowed foreign investment, or nobody is. They can't go doing the one off exceptions like they did for Wind.

      That said, my personal preference is to remove the foreign ownership rules to allow more competition, but only with corresponding consumer and infrastructure protection rules to offset the risks that you describe.

    13. Re:One thing's really been bugging me. by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      It's not at all like there is a natural monopoly in running cables to my house... no not at all... (rolls eyes)

  3. Hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Expect a lot of scrutiny from the CRTC, Bell, Telus, and Rogers."

    Same thing!

    1. Re:Hahahaha by green1 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. CRTC is pushing to maintain the rule of law. The law says no more than 30% foreign ownership in Canada, so that's what the CRTC is enforcing. If the government changes that law, the CRTC will enforce whatever the new law says instead.

      Bell, TELUS, and Rogers are after something different, they want the rules on foreign ownership relaxed, they are actually on Wind's side (sort of), What they DON'T want though is an exemption for one specific carrier as the government illegally put through originally. If Wind is allowed in, why are we still blocking other european carriers who tried to gain entry? Why do we block US carriers from buying stakes in our existing carriers?

      The Government is the one that has caused this mess, they undermined the rule of law by illegally making an exemption for a single company (Wind) while at the same time blocking any other company in the world that wanted to do the same thing. The government needs to make up it's mind, either competition is good (in which case anybody who wants to should be allowed to compete) or the foreign ownership rules are important (in which case foreign telecoms like Wind shouldn't be allowed) Either answer is valid, but one off exceptions aren't.

  4. Foreign ownership rules by mirix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They really need to get rid of the foreign ownership ban.

    Is the fact that the oligopoly that is raping me happens to be Canadian supposed to make me feel better?
    Lets get some real competition.

    Then maybe we can get things like Europe, where charging for incoming calls is looked upon like the insanity it is. Fair data and SMS rates, etc. Fucking crooks.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
    1. Re:Foreign ownership rules by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Testify brother!
      I recently decided I was done with Fido. 3 years of terrible customer service was enough. So I went down the street to Bell, and got better service for the same money. Only one problem, I went to Bell 3 days before my contract was up with Fido. That mistake cost me a $100 early cancellation fee. I attempted to fight it and those bastards sent me to collections. I would have continued to fight it, but my mortgage is coming due in a couple of months and I don't need a black mark on my credit report.

      In case anyone doesn't know, Fido is a division of Rogers.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    2. Re:Foreign ownership rules by chargersfan420 · · Score: 1

      As a fellow Canadian, I agree with both of you. The one thing they did to really enrage me is when they started charging a small fee for INCOMING text messages. I soon found myself berating my friends for sending one-word text messages, especially a string of them because they couldn't organize their thoughts before they hit send. They were on unlimited texting plans and couldn't care less what stupid plan I was stuck with.

      Just a quick note on your Fido story - I had a similar problem with Telus once. I stopped paying for a contract I never actually signed (the phone was an x-mas present) after the phone battery stopped working 9 months into a 2 year contract. Telus wanted either $100 to replace the battery or ~ $250 to buy out the contract. At that point I decided Telus wasn't going to get any more of my money. It went through collections for a little while but nothing ever came of it. The funny thing about that was just as they were giving up, I ended up getting a cheap Telus landline connected with the same name, different address. They never made the connection that I was the same person, and my credit rating never really took any sort of hit from that at all.

    3. Re:Foreign ownership rules by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Be careful what you wish for ... in a way selling off your domestic economy to foreign owners is similar to trade deficits, in both cases as a country you are borrowing against the future. Except trade deficits just result in national debt, which can be inflated away ... foreign ownership is harder to reverse (which is exactly why the trade surplus countries, like Russia, are switching from buying bonds to buying companies).

      Obviously your internet situation sucks balls ... but foreign solutions are not necessarily the right answer.

    4. Re:Foreign ownership rules by mirix · · Score: 1

      I could see that if it were state run perhaps, but otherwise, what is the difference? The outfit pays tax here regardless who owns it. The linesmen hanging from the towers are the same. Whether the CEO is in Toronto or Moscow is immaterial, as sweet fuck all trickles down anyhow.

      Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, though.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    5. Re:Foreign ownership rules by dwandy · · Score: 1

      They really need to get rid of the foreign ownership ban.

      We don't need foreign ownership; we need the socialise the last mile and let competition run at the retail level.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    6. Re:Foreign ownership rules by lithiumfrost · · Score: 1

      You know, ironically this happened to me too, though I walked away from my Rogers contract 2 days early, after I had called to make sure I was free and clear (they assured me I was). They sent me a bill for $150 on my way out the door, for early contract termination and for failure to give notice before porting. Of course, if you give notice that you're cancelling, you can't port your number.

      I got them to refund the $100 after an extremely heated and profanity laced phone call. The extra month of service I took them to the CCTS over. It took a month, but we settled, and they reversed that fee as well.

      I went to Wind. It'll be a cold day in hell before I go back to Rogers.

      --
      Que tout ce qui est vrai.
    7. Re:Foreign ownership rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition will do nothing about the incoming calls issue.

      The incoming calls issue is because of the way North America created our phone systems - the old copper line system.

      As part of the service we get free local calling, whereas the Europeans have always paid for local calling. Thus it is a lot easier to add on an extra cost to calling a cell number in Europe where you are already paying for the call, much harder to do in North America where the consumer expects local calls to be free regardless of who you are calling.

    8. Re:Foreign ownership rules by green1 · · Score: 1

      The foreign ownership rules are there for a completely different purpose. The theory is that telecommunication is critical infrastructure, and as such we don't want someone from a foreign country dictating who can talk to who and how.

      Personally I think that a better option would be to remove the ownership requirements, but make sure that there are appropriate laws in place to safeguard the infrastructure against such changes.

    9. Re:Foreign ownership rules by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Then maybe we can get things like Europe, where charging for incoming calls is looked upon like the insanity it is. Fair data and SMS rates, etc. Fucking crooks.

      Charging for incoming calls in Europe doesn't happen because all cellphones in Europe are identifiable, so callers know when they call a cellphone. The reason for this is obvious - the caller pays for the call.

      If you can get everyone to change their phone numbers (a new area code to signal "cellphone"). It's one of the reasons why texting is really popular in Europe - people end up too cheap to call cellphones.

      It also means that telemarketers will reign supreme on cellphones because it doesn't cost you anything anymore - since they're paying the bill, they're gonna call. It'll be in your interest to answer so you can charge them for the call, and if you don't, they'll just ring it all day.

      SMS rates - I agree though. I should be able to block ALL SMS to my account. I don't care for texting, so I should block it if I'm going to be charged for it. Sorry, my friends can call or send an email.

  5. Welcome to VimpelCom by sayfawa · · Score: 1

    This is VimpelCom
    Welcome
    Anything is possible at VimpelCom
    VimpelCom is what you make it
    The only limit is yourself
    The unattainable is unknown at VimpleCom
    Yes

    --
    Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
  6. Why not? by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 1

    There's some pretty clear reasons: clients, assets, market share, talent, etc.. Basically it's still the capitalism argument: the company exists to make money for its shareholders, and buying another company will make it more money... or so's the idea.

    In context with how businesses operate I don't see this as good or bad. As a business owner you're no more or less removed from liability than you already are as a shareholder. If your comment was aimed at keeping the owners within one degree of separation from the business I'd agree it's a good idea, but there's other changes to how businesses can exist that would need to happen before looking at how a company is owned.

    -Matt

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  7. Get rid of ownership requirements by Philodoxx · · Score: 2

    Now I would understand the need for ownership requirements if the Canadian telcos treated its customers well and were just afraid of bigger meaner foreign companies running them out of business. That imaginary scenario couldn't be further from the truth. Only good things can come from competition in the Canadian wireless market and international companies are the best place to get that competition. /soapbox

    --
    Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
    1. Re:Get rid of ownership requirements by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Only good things can come from competition in the Canadian wireless market and international companies are the best place to get that competition. /soapbox

      Right. Because there is no value whatsoever to sovereignty.

      Don't be too eager to sell control of the countries critical infrastructure to another country. That's the sort of thing that can really bite you in the ass in the long run in all kinds of really nasty ways, even if it looks better in the short run.

    2. Re:Get rid of ownership requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May be part of the foreign ownership requirement about have certain percentage of management level should be Canadian should be expanded to cover all their employees. This way even a foreign Telecom company would actually be creating Canadian jobs helping out the economy.

      Companies like Bell CANADA would be forced to keep their call center in Canada instead of countries like India. Wind on the other hand hire Canadians (so far) and in my eyes are more Canadian.

    3. Re:Get rid of ownership requirements by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Not entirely sure what world you're playing in, but in this reality, Bell is already operating call centers in India, the Phillippines, and Tunisia.

      There's nothing about the foreign ownership rules that preclude a Canadian company from having a stock in a foreign company. The inverse is true, but we can own foreign companies.

  8. Not exactly by telso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This Russian company didn't purchase the Canadian company. They purchased Wind Telecom S.p.A., a company owned by an Egyptian family. That company owns 50%+1 of Orascom, which itself has a complicated relationship with Globalive, a Canadian* company that operates Wind Mobile, an upstart wireless telephone service provider in Canada. "Complicated" and "Canadian*" because the Federal Court disagrees it's Canadian, as I wrote last month.

    1. Re:Not exactly by Esteanil · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that this "Russian" company is ~40% owned by Telenor, the former Norwegian telephony monopoly. (Used to be owned by the state)

      --
      I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
    2. Re:Not exactly by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2

      Not to mention Telenor, the Norwegian telecom company, has been in long court battles fighting what is essentially a russian-style theft of the company Wimpelcom. The Wind Mobile company isn't worth anywhere near 6 billion dollars.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, that process lead to about as much legal fun as you'd expect - Telenor have been in a protracted dispute with some other company over the Ukrainian arm of Vimpelcom. (And they tried to block this buyout, but couldn't.)

  9. This could be good by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Maybe the new WimpleComMobile will finally be able to offer a decent handset. Up until now their selection has left quite a bit to be desired.

    1. Re:This could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why the hell would the carrier has to offer handsets and lock me in.

      Handset manufacturers have to have the ability to offer their best phones on the street market, not be locked into exclusivity deals like in the US.

      I want Samsung Galaxy phone, but I don't want the T-mo understanding of it, nor the ATT rendition of it. Or for example even that old Moto V3 that normally has a bluetooth and usb modem (yes, modem, not clumsy tethering), can execute java applications, these can connect to internet and so on. But what do I get with the T-mo V3 - sorry, java apps are not allowed to connect to internet.

    2. Re:This could be good by ashvagan · · Score: 1

      Wind is a company with cheaper rates and cheaper call quality (comparatively). It is for people who can not afford the higher rates of Robellus (Rogers, Bell, Telus), hence the dearth of top quality handsets. They do offer lower end phones from Huawei, Nokia, RIM etc. and that serves the purpose all right.

    3. Re:This could be good by camperdave · · Score: 1

      And why the hell would the carrier has to offer handsets and lock me in.

      You're asking and answering your own question there. It's offering you the phone in order to lock you into their contract.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:This could be good by zill · · Score: 1

      Since everything from T-moible works on Wind, I'd say their selection is pretty damn good. Much better than what the big 3 offers anyways.

    5. Re:This could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. Wind is certainly cheaper, but the call quality I would not describe as worse. Within the urban zone of Vancouver, my signal was about the same as with Fido on launch, and has been steadily getting better. The data speeds are higher, and I have had few if any drops in internet connection, as was a daily occurrence on Fido. The network is excellent, within the cities. Certainly better than Rogers/Fido here or Bell throughout Ontario & Newfoundland. The handsets are lower end, only so much as they compete with so called $0-phones on other carriers; they actively encourage the use of unlocked phones, as the assumption is 'you bring your own'. Who cares what they offer, grab an N900 overnight from Hong Kong. You'll save the difference on your bills within a few months. Wind is not for people who can't afford the big carriers, it's for people fed up with the atrocious state of telecom's in Canada.

    6. Re:This could be good by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Wind has no coverage at all outside of cities. If you're getting any coverage, you're in a roaming zone, which means you're actually using a Rogers or Bell GSM tower rather than a Wind tower.

      And within the city proper, you may or may not actually be using a Wind tower. I live within the urban transit area in Ottawa... outside the greenbelt, but close enough to the center of town that I get regular bus service. I also happen to live *just* outside Wind's coverage area. If I switched to them, I'd be on roaming at home.

      I have no argument at all that they have good coverage within the urban area. But once you get out of the urban area, their coverage is non-existant. So I'm not entirely sure how you can say that their coverage is better than Bell throughout Ontario/Newfoundland... Bell actually *has* coverage in the middle of nowhere. Pretty good coverage, actually... though admittedly they're better in MTS territory.

    7. Re:This could be good by wazoo666 · · Score: 2

      My roaming charges when outside the Wind's coverage area are actually lower than my daytime Rogers rates.

    8. Re:This could be good by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      For voice. What about data?

    9. Re:This could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I believe you see my point - not that the availability of coverage is better, certainly not, but that the density of coverage (where they are) is higher, resulting in a much more stable data connection. Thus, the network is a much better quality, when available. This I have experienced in Calgary & Toronto. Obviously they don't exist in Newfoundland, but the available cell networks there are practically third-world, even in St. John's.

    10. Re:This could be good by stoanhart · · Score: 1

      Just buy the phone outright. Consider the following cost breakdown, which I did for myself:

      TMobile Vibrant from eBay: $500
      Wind service: $35 + tax for voice/text/data = $39.20 after tax
      Three years of service and a phone: $1911.2

      Subsidized Vibrant from Telus: $200 w/ 3 year contract
      Similar service plan, after hidden fees and taxes: approx. $55-$60 per month
      Three years of service and a phone: $2180-$2360

      Wind wins, even with a crappy in-store phone selection.

    11. Re:This could be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind is a company with cheaper rates and cheaper call quality (comparatively). It is for people who can not afford the higher rates of Robellus (Rogers, Bell, Telus), hence the dearth of top quality handsets. They do offer lower end phones from Huawei, Nokia, RIM etc. and that serves the purpose all right.

      Wind call quality is not bad at all. I switched and I get service in places where my Robellus buddies don't. I laugh at their higher pay for worse service.

  10. CRTC = Bell + Telus + Rogers by zill · · Score: 1

    Expect a lot of scrutiny from the CRTC, Bell, Telus, and Rogers.

    Quite a bit of redundancy in that statement, considering that CRTC is basically the law making arm of the latter three. The vice-chairman of CRTC used to a VP at Rogers for 15 years.

  11. This won't fly by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    Lost all interest. I was holding my breath until Wind came to my Canadian city. Not any more. Not even a tiny bit.
    Don't they realize that Canadian regulators will look at this and laugh?

    1. Re:This won't fly by kdsible · · Score: 1

      I don't know, now that Russia has a hand it may amount to something. Politics all the way. Recall that Suncor was allowed to be merged with Petro Canada even though the majority ownership ended up being Suncor a US based company. Of course there is a law that says it should not be allowed but Flaherty turned a blind eye - politics.

  12. Electrician price by semon · · Score: 1

    CLAP Electric are experts at saving you time and money by getting you the right solution for your electrical needs. Bay area residences and businesses can benefit from using CLAP Electric and getting local knowledge on local codes for the city that you live in.
    Electrician price

  13. Seen in a headline by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    "Vimpelcom throws money to Wind".

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  14. This won't fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention Telenor, the Norwegian telecom company, has been in long court battles fighting what is essentially a russian-style theft of the company Wimpelcom. The Wind Mobile company isn't worth anywhere near 6 billion dollars.https://bianmin.chinapay.com/copweb/index.jsp

  15. CounterIntel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FSB (formerly KGB) approves. All the freshest intel data straight from the mounthpiece of your phone.

  16. Not that simple by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    From what I heard its not quite as all clear as that. The way they worked it to intentionally get around the rules. Basically Wind is Canadian owned, however they got pretty much ALL their capital from an Egyptian company. So they own pretty much all their debt. As such some of the Egyptian Execs sit on the board, but is still dominated by Canadians.

    In this way they beat the law about foreign ownership. The other telecoms in Canada being the monopolistic greedy MF that they are caused a stink and had the CRTC review it. The CRTC found that while the letter of the law was followed, they violated the spirit of the law, as the whole purpose was to prevent foreign ownership. Wind argued that basically having your debt owned wasn't the same, just like you can own your house, yet a bank owns all your debt.

    Anyway after the CRTC ruling the political got involved and the conservatives in power decided to overturn the CRTC's decision. The telecos upon seeing this took it to court. The court ruled the exact same as the CRTC. Wind I believe currently has it in appeal at the supreme court, and are awaiting a decision, but in the meantime are still operating.

    Anyway the whole industry is dirty if you ask me. But I agree the waffling of decisions is stupid. If they want this to go forward they should change the law so that it is clear and not ambiguous about this issue. Basically wind is just being sneaky to try and get around it, the Conservatives are for it, but don't want to be seen as the ones to change that law as it may be a tough sell politically, the telcos are just protecting their monopoly. The consumers might be slightly better off if Wind does come to town... maybe.

    The Russian's are betting that either A) the appeal is in Wind's favor, or B) that the Canadian government changes the law in question.

    Considering the price tag of 6 Billion, they must know something I don't, which is scary. Perhaps they consider that they will have a stronger voice in Canada coming from Russia than from Egypt... who knows...

    1. Re:Not that simple by green1 · · Score: 1

      No, they never followed the law, they tried to invent a loophole that didn't exist. The CRTC knew this, the courts knew this, it's only the government that pretended that it was ok, and in fact they didn't even state that Wind was following the rules, they instead ruled that "in the interest of increased competition" they would waive the requirement for Wind... but ONLY for Wind.
      The courts ruled that the government broke the law by doing this.

      This isn't a case of Wind following the law and the big bad CRTC beating them down. it's the case of Wind deliberately trying to hide the fact that they were foreign owned hoping nobody would notice, and fooling nobody.

      I applaud the idea of increased competition, but I can't stand a government that undermines the rule of law by giving exceptions to those it likes better than others.

      Additionally it wasn't the incumbent telecoms in Canada that challenged this decision, it was another startup who claimed this wasn't fair, and they were right, this isn't fair. Either change the rules, or make everyone follow them, it's that simple.

      Now the big players have stepped in to provide their points of view (as is their right) However it isn't the point of view that you seem to think it is. The incumbant telecom companies are campaigning to relax the foreign ownership rules which would allow MORE competition. Now I'll admit they aren't doing it to be generous to the newcommers, they are doing it because they want the foreign capital too, but the end result would be the same either way.

      The only way a society can function is if the same rules apply to everyone, making an exception for specific entities undermines that whole concept and shouldn't be tollerated.

    2. Re:Not that simple by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Well you sort of agree with me.

      The courts interpret the law, that's their job, so when they rule "Nope", that was the first nail on the coffin that says "sorry that's not a loop hole". Wind and the Conservatives can interpret however they like and as seen recently with the election fraud etc... the Conservatives can be pretty loosy goosy with "interpretation". However if all that said was "in the interest of more competition" that's sort of the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Its like having a law against murder, and then saying that in the "interest of more killing"... I guess they what what they want, but don't want to be seen as to change the law itself for everyone.

      I would be very surprised if the telcos were for this. I guess they might think that could get bigger this way with more outside capitol from the US or whatever. I know I saw a show where they were calling for less regulation, but it was of the sort that gives them more freedom, not consumers.

    3. Re:Not that simple by green1 · · Score: 1

      TELUS has been in court, in the media, and lobbying Government to loosen foreign ownership restrictions. Doubt their motives all you want, but that doesn't change which side of this issue they're on.

      Sure I'll admit they aren't doing it to be nice to the competition, but they have decided that the benefits (more money in their pockets from foreign investors) outweigh the risks (a startup stealing enough of their customers to be a real problem)