Last month, the Canadian government concluded its auction of 700 MHz spectrum licenses. The auction was publicly declared a success after generating more than $5.27 billion in revenue from the sale of licenses to national carriers. Measured by proceeds alone, this result surpassed the prior high set in the 2008 AWS auction, which raised roughly $4.3 billion.
However, several independent analysts and smaller industry participants have raised concerns about how those licenses were distributed. The country’s three largest telecom operators—Rogers, Bell and TELUS—won a combined 83 of the 97 licenses offered. Videotron and Bragg accounted for 11 more licenses between them, while regional providers such as MTS, Feenix and SaskTel secured just a single license each. That concentration has reignited debate over the combinatorial clock auction (CCA) format used in this sale, with critics arguing the system tends to favor larger incumbents and creates an uneven competitive landscape for smaller companies.
Understanding the debate requires a brief comparison of auction formats. For many years spectrum was commonly sold using the Simultaneous Multi-Round Auction (SMRA). In SMRA, multiple lots across bands and geographies are auctioned simultaneously in a series of rounds, allowing bidders to pursue individual lots and adjust strategies across rounds. In contrast, the CCA sells combinatorial, or package-based, lots rather than many discrete lots. Prices are discovered through a clock mechanism that raises the price for a package incrementally while measuring bidder demand. The approach avoids having the auctioneer predefine every possible band plan, instead letting bidders reveal how they value combined spectrum packages.
A principal reason Canadian regulators adopted the CCA format was to enable winners to secure more contiguous geographic blocks of spectrum. Under SMRA it was not uncommon for bidders to end up with non-contiguous license footprints—either by accident or through competitive tactics—which could leave consumers in neighboring communities facing very different coverage and pricing from the same provider. By contrast, CCA encourages bidding for larger, contiguous areas, which can simplify network planning and deliver a more consistent customer experience across adjacent towns and regions.
At the same time, the CCA tends to drive up the cost of securing licenses relative to SMRA. Higher prices are beneficial to public coffers, but they also raise barriers to entry for smaller operators. When only well-capitalized incumbents can afford robust packages, licenses concentrate with major providers, risking reduced competition and potential price pressure for consumers. Smaller carriers argue that the limited licenses they won were largely those the big players deemed unattractive, reinforcing concerns that the format disadvantages niche and regional providers.
With an auction for 2500 MHz licenses scheduled for 2015, SaskTel and other regional players have urged a return to the SMRA approach. They contend SMRA would support greater participation from smaller regional operators such as MTS and other rural-focused providers, preserving a more diverse marketplace. The nature of the 2500 MHz band also informs the debate: it is often targeted at rural consumers who need broader coverage and stronger wireless links, but those rural deployments typically do not demand contiguous urban-style footprints. Rural users frequently benefit from targeted, region-specific allocations rather than the large contiguous blocks prioritized under CCA.
Policy-makers now face the challenge of balancing several competing objectives: encouraging efficient, contiguous network builds where appropriate; maximizing public revenue; and preserving competitive access for smaller, regional providers. One possible path is to design a hybrid auction framework that draws on the strengths of both SMRA and CCA—allowing bidders to secure contiguous coverage where it matters while keeping entry costs and strategic disadvantages in check for smaller carriers. For example, regulators could reserve a portion of spectrum for smaller bidders, limit combinatorial package sizes in certain regions, or combine iterative individual-lot bidding with package bidding in a single auction.
Any changes should be grounded in careful analysis of how different formats affect competition, consumer pricing and network deployment, especially in rural areas where connectivity gaps remain a pressing concern. Crafting auction rules that encourage investment in infrastructure—while preventing excessive consolidation—will be essential to promoting long-term consumer benefits across Canada.
It remains to be seen how the government will respond to SaskTel’s call for a return to SMRA or whether it will instead pursue a revised auction design that attempts to balance these trade-offs.
Do you think the auctioning system needs to change? Tell us in the comments.