The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Decima Reports. It’s been over a year since the end of the 24 and 38 GHz auction, and while the process went without a hitch, there was one lingering concern. At auction’s end, the various players were required to prove Canadian ownership and control as per Industry Canada’s guidelines. While the auction itself was fully transparent, Canadians have never been told how foreign companies such as Dolphin were able to meet that requirement. Now, the industry is about to embark on another auction, this time with greater stakes. The PCS auction will be run according to the same rules as last fall’s fixed wireless event, and once again, players will have to prove Canadians are in control of a Canadian resource. The presence of Sprint in the list of applicants isn’t a great surprise. Mike Kedar was apparently unable to raise sufficient financing in time for the application deadline, and it looks like he has turned to old partner Sprint to provide the bridge he needed. Most observers speculate that his old company Call-Net will be made a partner in the deal as well. Speculation aside, Canadians have a right to see - in black and white - the end-result of those arrangements. It is not sufficient that the department proclaim the licence winners to be in compliance. No one doubts the integrity of the individuals in spectrum management. But no one should ever be asked to accept something so fundamental, on the government’s word alone. When AT&T bought into Unitel, the CRTC required full disclosure of ownership compliance. The evidence from that proceeding is on the public record. Wireless companies may be forborne from regulation, but they’re not exempt from the ownership restrictions in the Telecommunications Act. The system lacks accountability if full disclosure of compliance arrangements isn’t mandatory. Sprint is a monolith American telecommunications giant, and any undue influence it might exert over Canadian spectrum is unacceptable. We welcome their participation in the process, but demand to be given proof that both the control and the ownership are in hands of Canadians when the event concludes. That right to information should never be questioned.