Mitel pushes back on incumbents in STIR/SHAKEN access debate

Mitel Networks Corp. has delivered a blunt reply to incumbents over their approaches to implementing the STIR/SHAKEN anti-fraud-call technology, suggesting that larger companies are seeking “anti-competitive, uneven, and discriminatory” regulations. In December, Mitel filed a Part 1 requesting the CRTC to mandate the inclusion of resellers in the STIR/SHAKEN rollout, arguing that if companies like it are excluded, they would face a competitive disadvantage, as they would not be able to directly attest to the authenticity of calls originating from their customers. This would be in contrast to companies such as BCE Inc.’s Bell and Rogers Communications Inc., which would be able to make those attestations. Bell and Rogers are also part of the agency responsible for rolling out STIR/SHAKEN, the Canadian Secure Token Governance Authority, alongside other telecoms like Telus Corp. and Shaw Communications Inc. In its response Mitel took issue with interventions arguing that its Part 1 was premature, such as that from Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp., which recommended that Mitel negotiate with the CST-GA to resolve the issue. “Mitel notes that it tried discussing this matter with CST-GA and exchanged correspondence on this matter to no avail,” it wrote in response. “Waiting until the CST-GA develops its other required policies...as suggested by SaskTel will unfairly prejudice excluded TSPs including Mitel.” In its response, Mitel noted that it is not opposed to some barriers to entry for the STIR/SHAKEN framework, such as registration with the CRTC, but pushed back on arguments from Bell and Rogers that it could solve the problem by registering as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC). “Becoming a Type III or Type IV CLEC implies an intent to commence operations as a non-dominant Canadian carrier. Such a business model is unnecessary to provide local VoIP services...it would create a proliferation of non-dominant carriers that in-reality only have minimal non-exempt telecommunications facilities” While Mitel rebutted interventions from most telecoms, it did find a partial ally in Telus, which filed an intervention suggesting that STIR/SHAKEN would be most effective by including a broader range of companies, including VOIP providers. “Excluding TSPs will increase the likelihood of nuisance calls which will weaken the public’s faith in the system,” wrote Mitel.

Mitel pushes back on incumbents in STIR/SHAKEN access debate

Brief | February 18, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Mitel pushes back on incumbents in STIR/SHAKEN access debate

Brief | February 18, 2021

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

ISED starts consultations on right to repair

Eastlink unveils video streaming app

Newfoundland finally gets new area code after six years’ delay

Telecoms file interventions on thousand block pooling

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us