EoW January 2014

44 / 108

Transatlantic cable
January 2014 42
As reported by Joan Engebretson, executive editor of
Telecompetitor , an AIR.U programme announced in November
is the second phase of a structured approach for participants
hoping to obtain vacant TV broadcast spectrum, available for
unlicensed use. These higher-ed communities have greater than
average demand but often, because of their rural or small-town
locations, are underserved with broadband. (“AIR.U Quick
Start Program Targets White Space Networks,” 14th November)
The technology to support this initiative includes a database
that keeps track of where TV channels are vacant, and wireless
equipment that automatically con gures itself to use vacant
channels based on information from the database.
The West Virginia deployment supports speeds of 12 Mbps
over distances of at least two miles. But Barry S Toser, of
Declaration Networks, told Telecompetitor that, with “expanded
base stations,” the technology can support speeds as great
as 100 Mbps. He said Declaration Networks expects to use
multiple vacant TV channels in its networks. The programme
bears a similarity to one that Gig.U – a consortium of 37 major
universities and itself a founding member of AIR.U – is using to
bring ultra-high-speed bre-based broadband to university
communities in non-rural areas of the United States. Gig.U
has helped jump-start several such high-speed broadband
deployments.
† Founding partners of AIR.U, established in June 2012,
include Microsoft, Google, and the Open Technology
Institute at the New America Foundation, a Washington
DC-based think tank.
Business
A falling away of public trust in
companies commands attention
at the highest levels of government
“A great many North Americans are sick and tired of
business. Tired of its piratic ways, craven incompetence, and
me- rst-and-only approach.” In response to the jaundiced view
of a thoroughly disgusted electorate, will governments turn
anti-business?
With reference to his own government at Ottawa,
David Olive, a business and current a airs columnist at the
Toronto Star , nds ample proof that they can – and do. (“Why
Have Governments Turned on Big Business?”, 15th November)
Mr Olive called attention to the most recent Speech from the
Throne, delivered 16th October and outlining federal priorities
for the coming session of the 41st Canadian Parliament. It was
read by the governor general, standing in for Queen Elizabeth
II; but, also as per tradition, the text was supplied by the Prime
Minister’s o ce. On its evidence, Prime Minister David Harper’s
fealty lies, decisively, not with his nation’s companies but with
its citizens.
From the speech:
† “Canadian families work hard to make ends meet, and every
dollar counts. While companies will look out for their bottom
line, our Government is looking out for everyday Canadians.
† “When Canadians make decisions about how to spend
their money, they must be assured of a voice, a choice, and
fair treatment.
† “Although Canadians are among the most digitally
connected in the world, we also pay some of the highest
wireless rates in the developed world. As families know –
especially families with teenagers – the monthly bills add up.”
Demonstrating a particularly tender concern for telecom
subscribers, Mr Harper promised them an end to the “bundling”
practice of Canada’s monopolistic cable operators, and to
penalties on customers who prefer paper – as distinguished
from electronic – billing. The Throne Speech also demanded
that roaming costs imposed on cellphone users be reduced,
and proposed that cable TV customers be permitted to choose
which channels they are willing to pay for.
Claiming that the Throne Speech “could easily be read as an
anti-business tract,” Mr Olive of the Star wrote that, at the very
least, its promises, if acted on, “will upend a comfortable way
of doing business for entire industries.” At worst, it will cut into
corporate pro ts. While acknowledging that the majority of
businesses are not anti-social, Mr Olive invited a consideration
of recent events, notably the Great Recession – “caused by
singularly self-interested captains of nance” – which cost
the jobs of eight million Americans and more than 400,000
Canadians. He also cited “Main Street anger” at the need for
taxpayer-funded bailouts of nancial giants – and of a General
Motors Corp and a Chrysler Corp – to prevent collapse of the
global nancial system. Also still present to people’s minds, he
believes, are “the cost-cutting and pro t-seeking” behind such
disasters as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
in April 2010 and the deadly derailment of a crude-oil carrying
freight train at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, last July. “Seldom have so
many business-related tragedies been compressed into such a
short time frame,” wrote Mr Olive. But he asserted that the “social
contract” between business and communities has been fraying
for some time in Canada. He recalled the losses, among others,
of the steel companies Alcan, Inco, Falconbridge (including its
Noranda unit), Stelco, Dofasco, and Ipsco, as well as the “epic
failures” of Nortel Networks and BlackBerry. His perception is
that the Canadian Prime Minister has planted his foot against
further erosion. For example:
† Over the past ve years, Mr Harper has blocked four foreign
acquisitions of Canadian companies. Not one o shore
takeover had been blocked over the previous 23 years.
† Ottawa nixed the sale to a US rm of the aerospace division,
with its Canadarm and Radarsat satellite operations,
of Macdonald Dettwiler. It also killed proposed foreign
takeovers of Potash Corp and the Allstream Division of
Manitoba Telecom Services, and quietly dashed the hopes
of Beijing-based Lenovo Group Ltd of acquiring all or part of
BlackBerry.
† Mr Harper has “ring-fenced” the Alberta tar sands against
any further sovereign government purchases, thwarting
Chinese ambitions for shoring up its energy needs by way of
Canada. And China’s Huawei Technologies has been advised
not to bother bidding on the next generation of Canadian
telecommunications and email systems.
† Whether or not Mr Olive reads the Prime Minister’s mind
accurately, he is probably correct that there was bound to
be a backlash to the “yard sale” of iconic Canadian business
assets over the past decade and a half. Like a heat-seeking
missile, the wrath of the Canadian electorate has traced the
culprits to corporate o ces across the country; and those in
high o ce have taken notice. But it is worth noting, Mr Olive
observed at this point, that consumer-pleasing moves, and
vocal patriotism, do not cost governments a penny. To be
anti-business is relatively easy. It is not enough. In conclusion
he wrote: “It is not entirely disagreeable to hear the squeals
of anguish from certain business quarters over this latest
priority shift [in Ottawa]. But the two must be partners,
or our capitalist system – the one Churchill said is the
least-bad of the systems on o er – does not work.”