Should Bell Be Sold?

[jdobbin]

Like being responsive and responsible to shareholders? Think about it. Lets say Chinese State owned company buys sympatico. They could control the access to news sites. They could filtre news. As a Canadian, your only recourse would be to switch IPs.

I realize that is a long shot but that is one reason why foreign ownership is an issue. Could you imaging Britain in 1938 if German interests owned a few major dailies?

In 1938, there wasn't the amount of regulatory monitoring taking place that there is today.

For example, when Wal-Mat decided that its Canadian subsidiary would have to comply with the embargo on Cuban goods, the Canadian government decided to fine them for being beholden to U.S. law while operating in Canada.

Likewise, public utilities boards and the CTRC, the RCMP as well as anti-trust legislation all monitor prices, price fixing, screening of websites, espionage and the like.

I can see no difference in how things would operate.

If the Canadian government has issues with things like head offices during such takeovers, I suggest that they do what the Australians have done and make it a requirement that they remain in the country. There's a reason why BHP-Billiotn has its head office in Sydney rather than London. It is because the Ozzies wouldn't let the company be sold if they lost the office.

Seriously, if Bell seems to be dominating Canada, we take it up with anti-trust as is our right.

http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/article-ca...n-tribunal.html

[White Doors]

Yes, sure sell BCE off to the US and THEY will be listening to YOU on your phone. We must keep the 40% ownership only to foreign business, especially the US!

Put your tinfoil hat on, that will protect you.

[geoffrey]

Bell is no where NEAR a monopoly. I forgive you though because obviously you are not keeping up with what is going on in ICT.

There are three major players in cell phone service. I don't know if the Mobility area is part of this proposed transaction.

I think the biggest injustice would be a merger of Telus and Bell, something being thrown about by financial analysts right now. It'll highlight our desperate need to scrap our protectionism of communications.

But you get the point. Communications should not be foreign controlled. Whether it is the internet (sympatico) or satelitte services.......unless of course we are comfortable with The Chinese (Hell! How about a Iranian Oil Conglomerate....) owning Sympatico.

The Chinese aren't buying to make a profit, they are buying for political control. They aren't a corporation of shareholders. Communists are a different cup of tea, and while China is reforming, the government is still in the business of controlling things.

I have no problem with a consortium of Americans owning BCE over a consortium of Canadians. They all want to maximize profit. I don't really see what difference the colour of the passport of the guy trying to make a buck makes?

[Who's Doing What?]

Yes I just love the thought of potential extremists and enemies to our way of life having a chance to control our communications network.

I know they think it will be a US led bid to take over Bell, for now. Who knows 10 maybe 20 or 30 years from now who will be in a position to buy it. Wouldn't Al Qaeda just love it if one of their ally states used a foreign company to buy and control all of our communications. That sure would help them bankrupt the West wouldn't it? Shutting down phone, fax, and internet services to cause havok to business and the overall economy.

What a comforting thought.

Well your fears are unfounded. The Telecommunications act is very tight and telecommunications companies have to have secure, redundant networks to ensure basic communications for the military and government. It's the #1 priority. Bell is not th eonly company that has to do this, they all do.

Your fears are completely unfounded and are based on ignorance.

Let me guess. You also supported the idea of the US selling it's ports to a country that has supported terrorists, or has terrorist supporters in it.

It doesn't matter what redundancies there are in place. If they are under the control of someone who wants them shut down or disrupt them, they will have the means to do so.

Your blind faith is completely unfounded and based on ignorance.

[geoffrey]

Why would a private shareholder in the US run BCE as anything other than a profitable enterprise. It doesn't pay you to shut down a company. Don't be silly.

[Who's Doing What?]

Why would a private shareholder in the US run BCE as anything other than a profitable enterprise. It doesn't pay you to shut down a company. Don't be silly.

You need to read my original post.

I am not talking about a US conglomerate buying the company now. I am talking about opening the door to the possibility of a terrorist state buying up the communucations companies down the road.

[geoffrey]

You need to read my original post.

I am not talking about a US conglomerate buying the company now. I am talking about opening the door to the possibility of a terrorist state buying up the communucations companies down the road.

That's why we prevent states from owning communications or resource companies in Canada. There is no harm in limiting state participation in our markets, while allowing foreign individual and group investors full access.

[Who's Doing What?]

You need to read my original post.

I am not talking about a US conglomerate buying the company now. I am talking about opening the door to the possibility of a terrorist state buying up the communucations companies down the road.

That's why we prevent states from owning communications or resource companies in Canada. There is no harm in limiting state participation in our markets, while allowing foreign individual and group investors full access.

Correct me if I am wrong but is not Bin Laden an individual?

I would not feel comfortable with him as the largest shareholder and therefore policy maker for our communications network.

Individual or State does not really matter when it comes to terrorists. But a state like Iran, which has the revenue needed, could just set up a dummy company to purchase the network and disrupt it at their whim.

It could just as likely be the same group that funds Al Qaeda could instead buy the network.

Allowing total foreign ownership is just a bad idea.

[geoffrey]

Your ignorant of the fact that many Canadians likely have terrorist ties. The colour of your passport has little effect on your commitment to the country or it's communications companies.

[Who's Doing What?]

Your ignorant of the fact that many Canadians likely have terrorist ties. The colour of your passport has little effect on your commitment to the country or it's communications companies.

You are being willfully ignorant to the fact that while some Canadian shareholders may or may not have terrorist ties they are far from being the decision makers of terroist organizations as well as policy makers for our communications network.

I can't fathom why you would want to allow Al Qaeda or some other group an opportunity to gain control over our communications.

By allowing 100% foreign ownership that is exactly the opportunity you are giving them. Once they are in charge they appoint their own people to key positions of importance and wait to strike.

[geoffrey]

I can't fathom why you would want to allow Al Qaeda or some other group an opportunity to gain control over our communications.

Straw man, we'll deal with it if it happens. Fortunately, it won't.

I feel no more threatened by a foreigner that wants to make money in Canada than a Canadian that does. The off chance that bin Laden sees a favourable return from BCE is a chance I'm willing to take.

[Who's Doing What?]

I can't fathom why you would want to allow Al Qaeda or some other group an opportunity to gain control over our communications.

Straw man, we'll deal with it if it happens. Fortunately, it won't.

I feel no more threatened by a foreigner that wants to make money in Canada than a Canadian that does. The off chance that bin Laden sees a favourable return from BCE is a chance I'm willing to take.

It is not a straw man. I can see where you are confused with Al Qeada ownership. You are thinking like a capitalist. If Bin Laden wanted to earn a profit as a minority investor then I wouldn't care,(other than I would not like to see him supporting Al Qeada with money made from a Canadian Company). Unfortunately they would not be buying to invest. Al Qeada wants to bankrupt the West. Gaining control and shutting down or disrupting our communications would go a long way towards that goal.

It doesn't even have to be Al Qeada. Or any terrorist organization to purchase our communications network for this to be a very bad idea. Say Chinese (or any other for that matter) nationalists bought the company and are forced by their govt to use our communications to spy on us. They use software to record key strokes of MP's, Cabinet Ministers, CEO's and other high ranking employees in any sector they wish to spy on. Don't say they couldn't, because as owners they would have the means to do so.

I don't care if foreign investors want to buy up shares of BCE, but I sure as hell don't want them to be able to own 51% and decide the fate of the company.

The point is if you open up our communications to be majority owned and controlled by foreign nationals and possibly through them foreign Govt.s you are creating a disaster. It ceases to become an issue of "if" the network will be disrupted and becomes and question of "when". Sooner or later it will fall into the hands of someone or some nation who supports those out to destroy our way of life.

[blueblood]

I can't fathom why you would want to allow Al Qaeda or some other group an opportunity to gain control over our communications.

Straw man, we'll deal with it if it happens. Fortunately, it won't.

I feel no more threatened by a foreigner that wants to make money in Canada than a Canadian that does. The off chance that bin Laden sees a favourable return from BCE is a chance I'm willing to take.

It is not a straw man. I can see where you are confused with Al Qeada ownership. You are thinking like a capitalist. If Bin Laden wanted to earn a profit as a minority investor then I wouldn't care,(other than I would not like to see him supporting Al Qeada with money made from a Canadian Company). Unfortunately they would not be buying to invest. Al Qeada wants to bankrupt the West. Gaining control and shutting down or disrupting our communications would go a long way towards that goal.

It doesn't even have to be Al Qeada. Or any terrorist organization to purchase our communications network for this to be a very bad idea. Say Chinese (or any other for that matter) nationalists bought the company and are forced by their govt to use our communications to spy on us. They use software to record key strokes of MP's, Cabinet Ministers, CEO's and other high ranking employees in any sector they wish to spy on. Don't say they couldn't, because as owners they would have the means to do so.

I don't care if foreign investors want to buy up shares of BCE, but I sure as hell don't want them to be able to own 51% and decide the fate of the company.

The point is if you open up our communications to be majority owned and controlled by foreign nationals and possibly through them foreign Govt.s you are creating a disaster. It ceases to become an issue of "if" the network will be disrupted and becomes and question of "when". Sooner or later it will fall into the hands of someone or some nation who supports those out to destroy our way of life.

I hate to say this but this is why the economy of Ireland is kicking our ass, a high % of companies there are foreign owned/operated, result--> on average the average Irishman is making much more than us, 4th highest avg. income in the world, higher growth rate; all this with NO natural resources.

If a foreign buyer with our communications network tried screwing around with it as you say they might do, the gov't of Canada would expropriate that company in a second, after all no property rights in Canada.