106

Industry Canada reportedly scraps TELUS’ second attempt to acquire Mobilicity

mobilicity

The Mobilicity soap opera just might be over.

Mobilicity has been looking for a buyer for a number of months. The only company to come forward was TELUS back in June with a $380 million bid, but Industry Canada shut down the idea and stated “spectrum set aside for new entrants was not intended to be transferred to incumbents. We will not waive this condition of licence and will not approve this, or any other, transfer of set-aside spectrum to an incumbent ahead of the five-year limit.”

Mobilicity, or any of the new entrants, cannot transfer spectrum until February 2015. Last week, Justice Frank Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Canada granted Mobilicity an extended “stay period” until December 20th to “secure the federal government’s approval for a proposed sale.” Rumours hinted that the talks between Mobilicity and TELUS were again active and a deal was near. However, according to the Globe and Mail, the government has once again dropped the hammer on any pending partnership:

“Industry Canada confirmed late Tuesday that it provided a confidential answer to Mobilicity about a potential transaction that the small carrier was trying to complete while under court protection from its creditors. Although Industry Canada would not comment on the substance of its response, sources confirmed that government officials turned down the proposed sale.”

There’s no word if Mobilicity has other buyers in the pipeline. Back in July the company noted that they’re “in discussions with multiple parties in connection with an acquisition.” In addition, Orestes Pasparakis, Mobilcity’s lawyers stated last week that “discussions are continuing… they are very active and very dynamic.”

Another hit to the company is Stewart Lyons, Mobilcity’s current President, will be departing the company on October 31st and will be replaced by Chief Customer Officer Anthony Booth.

Mobilicity currently has approximately 189,000 wireless subscribers.

Source: Globe

  • Liberal Phone Person

    Is there some way Wind could pick it up at a discount? perhaps through bankruptcy?

    • silver_arrow

      That would seriously be awesome, they have a compatible 3G network so it would increase Winds network a lot and make it more powerful. And it would get the more customers to help pay for their LTE network

    • hardy83

      Quite possible.
      It all comes down to what the federal government is okay with, what industry Canada is okay with, what Wind is willing to pay, and what Mobilicity is willing to accept.

    • Delphus

      Again only problem with Wind is we don’t know what Vimpelcom’s intentions are. They surely aren’t being very supportive publicly, actually wanting to sell it off…

    • thomas nguyen

      Wind is barely making money, and may soon be in the same position as Mobilicity.

      the best way to encourage new entrant, is to give them hope that there is an exit strategy, at this point, the government just said to everyone wanting to invest in Canada ” Come in, we will give you benefits because you’re new, but if something happens, we rather you be bankrupt”

      if i was a telecom company, i wouldnt invest in Canada since if I dont succeed, i have to go bankrupt unless a small company like myself would want to buy me out for a substantially less money than what the incumbent is willing to pay.

    • Peter

      You sir, know the industry well. Hats off to you. The media has oversimplified things to a “we pay too much versus the rest of the world”

    • kkritsilas

      It makes far more sense for Wind to buy Mobilicity than anybody else. If Telus were permitted to buy Mobi, they most likely NOT use Mobi’s spectrum, just hoard it/keep it away from potential competitors. They would not want to rework their base stations to use AWS for the small (relative to Telus’ existing customer base) number of additional customers that a Mobilicity buy out would bring.

      Note the wording of the Industry Canada statement:

      “spectrum set aside for new entrants was not intended to be transferred to INCUMBENTS…” (emphasis on INCUMBENTS added by me). Wind is not an incumbent, in government speak, it is a new entrant. If Wind were to bid on Mobilicity (either pre- or post-bankruptcy), Industry Canada would not have any grounds to block the sale. Wind’s existing base stations could use the Mobilicity spectrum from the first day, most likely, if not, it would be a fairly easy change for Wind to allow the use of the Mobilicity spectrum. For Wind, the added spectrum would be very useful, and the increase in customer base (Mobilicity has about 280K customers) will be very significant. Wind may have the best chance of anybody of getting Mobilicity, but will wait until Mobilicity goes bankrupt.

      Kostas

    • Fire Man

      They have about 2/3 of the number of subscribers you posted. They’ve been rapidly droppings subs last few months

    • kkritsilas

      Ok, I stand corrected. But the basic ideas still stand. Even if Mobilicity has only 180K customers, this is still significant to Wind, who only have about 680-700K customers. The technical stuff about the spectrum and base stations still holds.

    • thomas nguyen

      but remember, wind is also in the same predicament as Mobilicity, they are losing subs and money as well, so for them to invest in more might not be the best option.

    • kkritsilas

      Wind is actually not losing money. They are fairly close to the break even point, actually making a slight bit of profit. Add 180K customers to their subscriber base, and they may be able to survive long term. They are losing subs because of poor coverage, and in some cases, like GTA, due to bandwidth issues. Both of them can be improved by buying out Mobilicity. There will be an increase in the customer base of $180K, an increase in bandwidth once Mobilicity’s bandwidth is added onto Wind’s, and there will be (albeit fairly minor) increase in coverage. The key parts are the first two. The increased bandwidth will alleviate the speed issues in dense areas, making Wind’s data rates more competitive. The incresed customer base size will generate more profits, allowing for increases in investments going into network expansion.

      Kostas

    • thomas nguyen

      thought i read somewhere they were losing profit. this makes a bit more sense now!

      thanks

    • ScooterinAB

      The issue with Wind buying Mobilicity is this. Anyone who purchases the company is purchasing their debt. The amount of Mobilicity’s debt is quickly outpacing its worth. If Wind hopes to improve their network (note that Mobi has fewer towers than Wind, so their wouldn’t be any expansion), it could be cheaper to just build the towers than assume Mobi’s debt.

    • Fire Man

      Also, Mobilicity would much rather be sold to TELUS since TELUS would pay more for tax losses considerations. Wind would probably be willing to pay for something much less than 380M$. Also, Wind does not have this money- who will provide it? Def not Sawiris…

    • Adam

      Building towers doesn’t get you more spectrum, and Wind is short on spectrum in large parts of their territory (they don’t have enough to smoothly migrate to LTE because in many areas they don’t have big enough blocks to run LTE and HSPA side-by-side). Mobilicity has spectrum every single place Wind needs it for this purpose.

      In terms of purchasing the debt, that won’t apply if they get sold off in pieces; if Wind were to buy just the spectrum license, for example, they wouldn’t have to take the debt.

    • ScooterinAB

      True that towers don’t add spectrum. But they do add coverage.

      Selling it in pieces isn’t likely to happen though. Mobilicity isn’t going to sell the only thing that makes them valuable to someone unless they also buy their debt.

    • Liberal Phone Person

      I’m surprised, albeit glad, to hear wind isn’t in the same dismal financial shape as the other new entrants.
      Are you an insider, or is this just your assessment?

    • kkritsilas

      An assessment.

    • thomas nguyen

      Telus right now are at the lower end of the totem pole for all 3 carriers, to add aws just requires to add a new radio on their tower, which in alot of urban areas, they would use it, so they can increase bandwidth, rural wont due to the frequency used in aws wont reach far.

    • Peter

      Wind is just as bankrupt, all these new entrants thought they could come in and get millions of subscribers by slashing prices to unsustainable levels because apparently so many people were dissatisfied with their providers. Turns out not that many people were dissatisfied. Consumers were given choice and they chose the big three time and time again.

    • Migzy

      As for AWS(aka 1700 MHz), Telus already uses that for LTE albeit a different block than Mobilicity. So I would imagine Telus(or Bell) would use it and some of Mobilicity’s towers to augment their LTE coverage. That said, it should stay with one of the “new entrants”.

  • J-Ro

    Geez, just let them sell already.

    • Liberal Phone Person

      not to telus

    • J-Ro

      I guess at this point, they will take anyone who is seriously willing.

    • J-Ro

      I would rather it sold to the big 3 than no one at all. It seems like every telecom deal has been blocked lately.

    • J-Ro

      In Canada, that is a given. I would just rather be shafted and get better service from my carrier than just overall shafted by the government for nothing.

    • J-Ro

      Don’t get me started on pricing. We had a nice 2 year period where pricing was really nice and now we have converted to the olden days. This time, instead of paying crazy amounts for voice, it’s data.

    • thomas nguyen

      if they sell it off, one of the big 3 if they still want it will still buy it, wasting money and transferring that down to us anyways, but this time, the government also get part of our money. I prefer the carriers are the only one that pays for it, and invest in the money than give it to the government.

    • thomas nguyen

      Rogers has the most spectrum by a long shot, followed by Bell then TELUS, if you look at the article by PCmag it will showcase the spectrum each carrier has on each province.

      secondly you are shooting yourself in the foot by saying you dont want the big 3 to have more spectrum (in this case mobilicity to TELUS), yet by doing so, you lose out on possible increase throughput and bandwidth if they DID acquire that spectrum.

    • thomas nguyen

      if there is enough for “premium” service (lets not forget their subsidiaries are also using the same spectrum) than there would be no data slowness for everyone, LTE and HSPA data service would be blazing fast, and there would be no “all circuits are busy”.

      by having more spectrum you mitigate capacity issues, which lets be honest, everyone here on any of the 3 network in any city will run into this time and time again

    • thomas nguyen

      they roll out LTE because people want LTE. and you mis-interpret spectrum with Technology.

      spectrum provides bandwidth, more spectrum will give more access and faster speed.
      more contiguous spectrum provides even faster speeds.
      if there are 100 people using 1 block of spectrum will have a slower throughput than 100 people using 2 blocks of spectrum.
      each spectrum is split up into “blocks” that allocate which section of the spectrum can be used legally by the purchaser.

      technology speaking limits the throughput of each device, like POTS gives maximum of 52Kbps, whereas ethernet gives you 10Mbps and more. so just because you can get that speed, you are limited to bandwidth.
      technology in this case would be frequency’s, phone types, and network technology (hspa/lte)

      think at home if you have 1 computer DL, you can get the full speed of your home internet, when you turn on 3 more and use it all to DL, speed drops for everyone, so technology gives you max speed per user, and in this case “spectrum” allows more throughput.

      regardless if you have spectrum or not, the more you have the faster you can provide speed for everyone, and not only is it data that uses the spectrum, but also voice calls, which affects peak times, when you try to call someone and drops or call someones and gets “all circuits are busy” means that the usage from that spectrum block is allocated and used.

    • thomas nguyen

      I dont know how it is unwarranted, considering you assume that the big 3 aren’t suffering yet real world suggest differently.

    • Peter

      I don’t think you really know how spectrum works, Thomas just gave you a crash course on the benefits to consumers when there is more spectrum and all you can say that the Big 3 aren’t suffering with what they have. To sum it up, the carriers will maximize their spectrum as best they can, take a look at the reports that show how efficient we are at maximizing it versus the rest of the world. Secondly, it’s consumers who are demanding ever fast speeds. What’s the first thing a consumer does when he has slow data speeds? He calls his provider to complain about the network!

    • FiveOD

      Don’t bother, I’ve noticed nekkidtruth is consistently one of the more ignorant commenters here and will allow their hatred of the big three to blind them to reality and rational thought. It’s a waste of time to argue with them.

    • thedosbox

      No. Let the spectrum go back on sale under the same conditions. Better for the government (additional revenues) and the consumer (hopefully another competitor).

    • J-Ro

      It is never better for us, only them. I would rather one of the big 3 get it and give us better network service. Might be expensive but at least we benefit from it.

    • Fire Man

      When was giving money towards the government ever desirable? Nobody believes that tax hikes means a better education/ healthcare system; everybody knows those budgets don’t change and extra revenue likely towards initiatives for re-election. I honestly don’t believe allowing the govt to double dip spectrum sales will ease taxpayers’ dollars or go towards something beneficial towards Canadians

    • thedosbox

      Right. Inflation doesn’t exist either…..

      Regardless of whether you agree about the benefit to government revenues, I assume that you believe that additional competition would be a good thing.

    • Fire Man

      I believe additional competition would be a good thing. However, I think it’s increasingly unlikely, as most posters here have pointed out, that a large foreign investor coming to Canada. Looking at the new entrants’ track record, seems like the market is saying there’s little interest for a low cost wireless operator (given the low number of subs even for an ARPU of ~$30) and that if you fail you go bankrupt without support from the govt

    • thedosbox

      So, you would prefer to cutoff the current “new” entrants from gaining additional spectrum? How is that going to help improve competition?

    • Fire Man

      Unsure how you came to that conclusion, but no I don’t believe new entrants should be cut off from gaining additional spectrum. Don’t think anybody reasonably believes this. I do believe that if a company, even the incumbents, are willing to be a fair price for the spectrum in question, that it should be considered. From my view point, if the spectrum can be utilized to improve services for the existing millions of customers who use the incumbents’ services, then it should be done as opposed to simply blocking the deal and allowing a new entrant to go bankrupt and having the wealth transfer to the govt

    • thedosbox

      Strengthening the incumbents does not strike me as pro-competition.

      I would prefer selling to one of the new entrants (at the same price as mobilicity paid) in the hopes of strengthening them.

    • Fire Man

      dosbox,

      I think the mindset you have is that “what is good for the incumbents is bad for competition and Canada”. I think we need to look at this a little more maturely. I am in favor of more competition, but if incumbents acquire more spectrum which helps their operations/ capacity, that is not necessarily “evil”.

      I would agree that if Wind could afford the spectrum, they could better utilize it than the incumbents. However, Wind cannot afford to pay what TELUS is proposing the purchase Mobilicity at, I suspect mostly because larger/profitable companies value tax losses when acquiring failing companies. Wind I imagine would pay a fraction of what TELUS is proposing, but also lacks funding. So I don’t see that happening. Instead, the govt is allowing Mobilicity to go bankrupt, collect the spectrum and resell. So I see this as a wealth transfer from Mobilicity’s creditors/debtors and TELUS to the govt. Which is what prompted my initial comment

    • thedosbox

      Not sure why you think the government benefiting from the licensing of a public asset is immature? Because that’s what spectrum is – a public asset.

      And yes, I do agree that the incumbents have plenty of advantages. Giving them more strikes me as anti-competitive.

    • Fire Man

      Again, that’s not what I said. Government selling spectrum as a public good the telco companies to operate has no immaturity.

      But preventing a deal beneficial to Mobilicity’s creditors/debtors and an incumbent and reselling the spectrum strikes me as questionable

    • thedosbox

      It’s clear what you implied – i.e. returning the spectrum to the government is a bad idea.

      As for preventing a deal beneficial to Mobilicity’s creditors/debtors, tough luck – that was in the terms they bid under.

    • thomas nguyen

      competition is good only in certain sense. if we have more competition all charging the same amount, there is no benefit.
      only when competition is actively competing for a commodity (in this case clients) will the end result be good.

  • AllanVS

    I wonder … if they went to a subsidies style of selling phones, but kept the prices lower than RoBelUs … (say $45-50/mth) could they attract more customers?
    I WAS with them for a year, but, because I couldn’t get service in Seneca@York I switched to Rogers in Dec. 2011.

    • Liberal Phone Person

      you went from the cheapest carrier to the most expensive…

    • AllanVS

      Actually, at the time they weren’t … and still, my plan is cheaper than Bell or Telus.
      I needed a phone that worked no matter where I was… and for 95% of the time, my phone works. (there were small spots on York U that didn’t have good signal… but only 2 that I knew of.)

    • ArberBeq

      rogers is only expensive if you let them be expensive. I pay ~$70/month for 5 cell phone lines all with caller id, vm, unlimited after 6, 200 min shared minutes + each line has 100min of its own + 100minutes LD, unlimited extreme texting, unlimited canada wide family calling.

    • Alex McIlwaine

      Sounds expensive to me.

    • ArberBeq

      for all 5 lines its about $70 with tax per month. Each line has its own 100 minutes + everyone has access to 200 shared minutes. Its about $14/month for each phone. So its actually pretty good.

    • Croc Ography

      A whole 200 minutes? What kind of a deal is that? These type of restrictions from 9-5 (or whatever) are ridiculous.

    • thedosbox

      Maybe you should read his comment again. 100 minutes per line + 100 minutes LD + 200 shared minutes.

  • Desi Jatt

    I wonder what’s going to happen to Mobilicity now.

  • Hammams

    “spectrum set aside for new entrants was not intended to be transferred to incumbents. We will not waive this condition of licence and will not approve this, or any other, transfer of set-aside spectrum to an incumbent ahead of the five-year limit.”

    Then how come they were able to buy public mobile???

    • ArberBeq

      cause public mobile spectrum is different and didn’t have that condition.

    • Desi Jatt

      Public Mobile Spectrum is completely different then Mobilicity’s Spectrum

    • JP

      The spectrum sold to Wind and Mobilicity was essentially set aside by the Canadian government to NOT be sold to Rogers, Bell or Telus.

      The spectrum sold to Public could have been purchased by anyone but at the time it was not seen as a desirable commodity and Public got it very cheap.

  • Allwayswrite

    Bahahaha…awesome

  • G35

    what does Telus or the big three for that matter not understand. NO MEANS NE

    • Delphus

      right because going bankrupt is a much better solution…

    • thomas nguyen

      No Means NE? what is NE?

    • Peter

      Tell that to the employees of Mobilicity. “Im sorry everyone but you will all lose your jobs because a) we have a bad business model i.e. we aren’t charging our users enough to use our service and b) the government wont let us be bought. ”
      I know if I were working in an industry and my job depended on a deal being approved by the government, I would be pissed as hell if they declined the deal.
      At the end of the day, why would another entity come into Canada if they wont be able to be bought out?

    • Liberal Phone Person

      welcome to capitalism. is this news?

    • Peter

      This is not capitalism.It’s socialism . The government is dictating all the terms. In a true capitalist world consolidation is possible and barriers to entry would be minimal. We have the complete opposite here.

    • HelloCDN

      Capitalism and Canada are totally different things right now. We would have never had the situation we’re in right now if there was capitalism.

    • Peter

      LOL, this is the farthest thing from capitalism. In a true free market, consumers choose who survives and who doesn’t. If people really hate the big three than why do 90% stay with them? Could it possibly be that they like what they are getting (minus a few loud mouths)

    • Peter

      People are funny, these companies exist for profit, don’t like what they charge? Change provider, its as simple as that. All this debate is fun and all but I find it sad that we complain about our $60 cell phone bills when gas costs a family close to $300-$400 a month. If the government really cared about the consumer they would fight collusion in the oil and gas industry. I could care less about a $5 savings on my phone bill. would rather save $100 on my gaz bill. Just my thoughs

    • Peter

      Fair enough, but has your gas bill been declining over the past few years or rising? Cell phone plans have been dropping. I don’t need to move. I need my government to fight all collusion, not just ones that may seem popular.

  • Matt

    They won’t find a buyer before going bankrupt, then the cdn gvt can take back their spectrum and re-sell it in another auction, essentially double dipping on the sale of the same spectrum

    • Delphus

      and then they’ll lower corporate taxes again while raising ours…

    • thomas nguyen

      and use our tax money on trips around the world, cars, houses, and personal use until they get audited, get fired, and a new wave of shameless people go in power to do the same thing over and over again.

    • thomas nguyen

      yes, people never see that it is a cash cow for the government at this point. yet the incumbent, in this case TELUS is actually doing mobilicity a favor by buying them out, yet the government and people can’t see past this.

      if it was my business, i would be pissed, i rather be bought out than declare bankruptcy. and the government is saying “no, go bankrupt so we can make more money off you”

    • Peter

      100% True

    • Liberal Phone Person

      but its not your business. you’re a consumer like 27 million other canadians.

    • thomas nguyen

      business actions trickle down to the consumer, so as much as we are not part of the business, we feel the ripple effect.

    • Liberal Phone Person

      how are consumers not negatively affected by the big 3 hoarding all the resources. explain that to me. and don’t use conservative jargon debunked years ago like “trickle down economics”

    • JTon

      Never thought of this. Really cool idea actually.

  • Super_Deluxe

    GOOD!!

  • thomas nguyen

    So to boost competition, they want Mobilicity to be bought by anyone but the incumbent, yet no one has the money to purchase them or want them, so they would rather loose a small carrier to bankruptcy, than lose it to an incumbent.
    Only reason i see why they are OK with this, is if Mobilicity goes bankrupt, the Government and Industry Canada get the spectrum back so they can resell it later.

    really this is not good business practice, no matter how you look at it.

    • Salinger

      What has to be understood here is, despite how Mobilicity & TELUS are presenting it, Industry Canada isn’t “blocking” the sale. they are simply enforcing the already established (and known by all parties) rules.

      When Mobilicity was granted a licence to operate, a very important condition of their being awarded spectrum was that they were prohibited from selling it to an incumbent carrier for a minimum of 5 years. After all, the entire point of the set-aside was to foster competition. What TELUS & Mobilicity are asking, is for that stipulation to be ignored. Industry Canada isn’t creating new impediments to business here.

      As for losing a small carrier, make no mistake, if TELUS was to purchase Mobilicity, we’d be losing a small carrier anyway. There’s no way TELUS is going to keep Mobilicity as a separate entity for any protracted period. Overriding the rules and allowing this sale would only allow TELUS to get marginally larger and do absolutely nothing for wireless customers in Canada. And despite assurances that staff would be kept on, in very short order, stores would close and employees let go as TELUS already has an established retail network and the few Mobilicity outlets would be superfluous.

    • thomas nguyen

      wow a legitimate reply with actual facts. kudos to you.

      you are right, they are enforcing it, but the downside is that

      1, we lose a carrier (which at this point is a matter of when).
      2, if the incumbent want the spectrum they will still buy it at the next auction (if IC allows purchase by current players)
      3, government makes money off with mobilicity going bankrupt.

      either way, i rather see the carrier using that money to buy mobilicity, than have the carrier buy it from the government. as far as what the government tried to do to reshape our wireless focus, they had made things worse in the recent years with the loss of 3 years contract to 2 year with now increase price per month.

    • skullan

      1. We will lose the carrier anyways if purchased by an incumbent.

      2. And, we get more money into the public coffers.

      3. See point 2.

      If an incumbent comes in and buys Moblicity, you will see a swath of layoffs within a year. HR, Tech, Administration. Gone.

    • thomas nguyen

      public coffers? so the government can spend it on personal usages? have you read the news lately? before we defend them and what money they get, they should be audited!

  • letodax

    Pound that hammer into their thick heads or better yet, fine them for every request.

    • Peter

      Good reasoning…… imagine the industry you worked in had as much government intervention as the telecom industry. Keep in mind the 300,000 well paid employees at these telecom industries help support your job as well.

  • Peter

    Telus knows what it is doing, it understands the rules, but in an attempt to save a company from bankruptcy and some of those jobs, they made an offer of close to $400 million dollars. Right now the perception is not that the government is abiding by its own spectrum rules but instead it looks more like they don’t care about the potential lost jobs. I sincerely doubt anyone will come in with a $400 million offer. Investment is dead in this country because of too much regulation. Let consumers decide who survives among the over 30 different brands we have across the country. Clearly Mobilicity didn’t offer anything worthy or properly priced otherwise they wouldn’t be in this position.

    • kkritsilas

      Sorry, but you need to get real. Telus has shipped more jobs overseas to call centers than there are employees at Mobilicity. Telus doesn’t want to save jobs, they want to minimize costs, and eliminate competition and any potential competitors. They wouldn’t keep the Mobilicity employees, all of them would get turfed almost immediately. Why have duplicate accounting, HR, payroll, etc. departments? Why keep the marketing people for a brand that no longer exists? Telus has its own marketing department. The Feds know this, that is why they are blocking the sale. Telus isn’t trying to buy Mobilicity to save anything; they are doing it for their own interests, not for the public’s interest, and least of all for Mobilicity’s customers and employees.

    • thomas nguyen

      they wouldnt, i assume they would buy out mobilicity, and aquire their employee, and use current infrastructure from mobilicity and rebrand mobilicity to Telus / koodo

    • kkritsilas

      Why would a company (Telus) that is actively shedding employees in efforts to reduce costs, want to acquire more employees? Employees that would essentially be duplicating what existing employees are doing?

      As for the current infrastructure from Mobilicity, the question is why? Their current towers do NOT support AWS. Roger’s towers do (roaming agreement with Wind), Wind towers do (pretty much the same spectrum as Mobilicity). Telus/Bell towers do NOT have AWS. To add AWS would be a significant expense. They would most likely move the existing customer base to the PCS frequencies (850/1900), and just leave the AWS frequencies to sit unused. This prevents Wind from acquiring the spectrum, and keeps costs down by not requiring reconfiguration of the base stations/towers to use AWS. In fact, it would make more sense for Telus to reconfigure whatever Mobilicity towers there are to use PCS, improving coverage for all of their existing customer base.

    • thomas nguyen

      more tower, more users, if you go into acquisition, you don’t just keep your workforce the same, so they may lose a few employees in the process, but the majority will still have a job (bankrupt, they all lose their jobs).
      currently AWS 2100 from Wind can add a secondary frequency for TELUS to offer increase speed and consistency.
      both Bell and Rogers has 2 bands in LTE, 1700 and 2600. whereas TELUS only has 1 in the 1700.

      i have never seen a business acquisition ax all their new employees and keep infrastructure, they still need the added employee to facilitate the operational work of the newly acquired lease, towers, power, clients, etc.

      as for what assumptions can be made with what they will do with the spectrum is now null and void since we can only speculate and wont see what the end result would be

    • kkritsilas

      That would be correct if this was a new business, or if Telus didn’t already have the same types of employees in place with the same skill sets. Telus DOES already have them, though. They will keep some of the employees through the transition period, but longer term, say >1 year, most will be gone.

      Telus already has enough employees to service around 8 Million subscribers. They would not need many more, or any at all, to service 8.2 Million subscribers. Telus already has customer service people, lease managers, contracts managers, power arrangements, HR, Accounting, Payroll in place for their existing customer base adn employee count. There is nothing that Mobilicity’s employees can add that doesn’t already exist after the transition period. Some of the best Mobilicity people may be kept on, but the vast majority will be gone in a year or less. Some, like the employees at retail locations, will go immediately.

    • Peter

      obviously, not all jobs would be saved and yes TELUS is looking out for its own interest, but keep in mind this situation is all caused by the governments failed policies. TELUS is just there picking up the scraps of a failed policy, cant exactly blame them

    • kkritsilas

      I doubt that any jobs would be saved. Not just on Telus’ current behaviour, but the behavior of all companies that buy out other companies. All of them, in presenting to their shareholders or the stock market in general, always claim “economies of scale”, which always translates into we can add their revenues to ours, but use our current employees to do the work of the bought out companies employees.

      Telus is taking advantage of a competitor that is failing, which is par for the course in a free market (relatively speaking) economy. Happens all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that. Their investors would expect nothing less. However, in this instance, the private interests of Telus are impacting a public resource (i.e. spectrum). This is where the government gets involved, as they are responsible for managing that public resource. They wrote the rules for the AWS spectrum auction, and had industry comment on them. The rules were known by all parties (Big 3, new entrants, etc.) prior to bidding starting. Now, not quite 5 years later, one of the new entrants is in financial difficulty. Telus, and the new entrant (Mobilicity) want to make a deal that doesn’t comply with the rules as they were originally set out. Feds say no. Why is anybody surprised? So they try a second time. Guess what? Feds say no again, and for pretty much the same reasons as it was rejected the first time around. What didn’t Telus-Mobilicity understand the first tiem around? If the sale involves a spectrum transfer, it isn’t going to be approved prior to the 5 year term being up, no matter how they try to dress it up.

      One of the definitions of insanity is to perform the same actions over and over again, and expect a different result. Sound familiar in the Telus-Mobilicity case?

    • Billy

      LOL.

  • thomas nguyen

    just because you have good speeds doesnt mean the rest of the nation does, in general spectrum in major centers are fairly well managed until there is a high amount of users in 1 area, say rush hour when, most businesses and major centers augment the current macro sites with inbuilding services so there is less strain, but when you go out to areas where there is a single or dual cell setup that covers all the community, this is where the problem lies, yes majority of clients are in major centers, but dont forget they are national carriers, not city carriers, so in general the loss of spectrum is most noticeable by people outside major centers, even large community are seeing the problem. that being said, try to take your Rogers phone outside the city and you can see they drop significantly in speeds.

    if you look outside the box and not just be self absorb into your own thinking and home, you can see the justification of any carrier, not just TELUS with increase spectrum and bandwidth for their clients.

    also, most land connection are still using coax cable to the home, to benefit you need to go fiber, which will allow a much higher throughput speed to the home.

    so really again we are talking about technology maximizing or limiting the throughput speed of each device.

    difference from landline, is you get consistent speed to your home, whereas wireless, though using the same metrics, have little consistency due to variables including people, data usage, etc.

    • thomas nguyen

      you cant just have more carriers for the sake of competition, it has to be the right competition.
      just saying we need someone to stir the pot and provide actual price competition. if we have competition to go in and charge the same amount, it wouldnt amount for anything.

  • thomas nguyen

    not everything is black and white, we are only seeing 1 part of what the media is promoting, we dont know, or can only assume what is going behind the curtain.

    lets be honest here, there is always a reason for all decisions, but we are not privy to seeing the full truth.

  • thomas nguyen

    if you turn an apple white, and put a bite it, it is worth more than any “apple” you can find in the supermarket! :D

  • Sweet

    Looks like Wind is going to get a sudden rush of almost 189,000 new customers very soon.

  • Prad82

    Someone here is pointing out that IC is only “enforcing” the term set out in 2008 when it comes to “transferring/selling” the set-aside spectrum to incumbents, and I admit this is a legit standing ground for the gov’t at this point, but somebody correct me if I am wrong, when that 5 yr ban expires by Feb, 2014, and our gov’t/IC is still blocking that sale of Mobilicity to let say Telus, what’s the legal ground for that?

    Hypothetically speaking, why can’t Telus and Mobilicity to bridge an agreement that the spectrum transfer is ONLY to materialized after the 5 yr ban is expired on Feb 2014, at that point if IC did not proceed with any additional legal terms regarding the restriction of transferring a new-entrant’s spectrum, that means Mobilicity is free to sell their spectrum to the highest bidder AKA Telus, and the gov’t would pretty much lose its ground to continue blocking the sale even though the previous IC minister has already expressed his “intention” of the consistency of this policy, but at least Telus/Mobilicity will have a high likelihood of winning a legal battle if this has to be taken into court.

  • disqusmy

    The best combination is Wind buy Mobilicity.

  • Tiago

    what will happen to my $25 BTS plan Mobilicity is sold?

  • mccans

    One of the governments many failures. They have messed up. No company wants to invest here because they are discouraged by the rules.

    Companies see that the Mobilicity deal was rejected twice. If they do try and invest and want to sell they aren’t allowed.

    Foreign investments should be allowed across the board and they should drop the selling restrictions.

    Now we will be back to the big three again in the next year or two.

Trending News

Other Articles