Interventions filed in favour of Bell penalty for delays to support structure access

BCE Inc. rival Rogers Communications Inc. and a number of other groups are in support of a penalty against Bell as it is accused of delaying granting access to support structures such as poles to other companies for its own benefit. The CRTC floated the idea of penalizing Bell last month after Quebecor Inc. filed a Part 1 claiming that through unreasonable delays in responding to requests for permits, delaying access to its structures, not respecting construction standards, and offloading costs to replace outdated or deteriorated structures onto those requesting access, Bell was granting itself an undue preference in violation of the Telecommunications Act. The regulator asked for comments in April on whether or not it should fine Bell and how much that fine should be as its own “preliminary” view is that an “administrative monetary penalty” should be imposed “to deter future violations and promote compliance with regulatory requirements.” In its response posted by the CRTC this week, Rogers said it sees several factors that “collectively support” the penalty. For one, Bell’s support structures as public good access and timely access to them, at a reasonable cost, “is essential to the deployment of broadband facilities and the provision of affordable broadband services to Canadians,” the company said in its intervention. “The application of is not, however, a replacement for timely enforcement action in respect of outstanding and future complaints of non-compliance,” Rogers said. Rather, it “is an imperfect deterrent, and it does nothing to address the irreparable harm to facilities-based competitors and consumers that results from unreasonable delays and costs in accessing Bell support structures.” Rogers was joined by interventions from others including the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance and Quebecor, which said the CRTC should impose the maximum fine of $10 million. In its own intervention, the Community Fibre Company -- which itself claims it has been impacted by structure access delays -- calls for the penalty of $10 million as well, saying it would take less than one per cent of Bell’s Q1 revenue to pay “with virtually no impact to financial capacity.” “As Bell Canada’s financial capacity is significant, and the non-compliance documented in this and other filings is systemic and continues to be ongoing, it is Community’s position that the commission should impose the maximum AMP applicable under the Telecommunications Act,” it said. “All told, Community Fibre’s financial position today would be more than $635,000 better than it is had these permits not been delayed and denied. This is a substantial sum for a small carrier that was just beginning to establish itself in 2017 and contributed to delaying profitability by close to three years. The damages caused by delayed and denied permits are real.” The Independent Telecommunications Providers Association, which argued that the sum of the fine should be equal to Bell’s ability to pay, said the limited supply of pole attachment space for telecommunications facilities makes them a “de facto scarce public resource” that should be managed to the benefit of the public, not of the pole owner. “The commission should send a clear message of deterrence to other large ILECs, not just Bell Canada, that such behaviour will no longer be tolerated,” it said. In looking into the issue, the CRTC found that Bell installed its own equipment on the lines (or structures) during the same period in which Quebecor was denied access. “When Bell Canada’s handling of a competitor’s formal permit application is delayed by months or even years, and this situation is repeated for that same competitor and other competitors operating in the company’s serving territory, potentially hundreds or thousands of consumers and small businesses are deprived of choosing a provider or innovative telecommunications services,” the regulator said. Bell did defend itself, arguing that only seven per cent of Quebecor’s applications have been denied and that only five per cent of all poles and strands required make-ready work, percentages which it said are comparable with other licensees and the denial rate for Bell’s applications to other support structures in Canada. Quebecor, however, submitted that in actuality, 26 per cent of its permit applications were denied, while only three per cent of all poles and strands needed work. Quebecor also took the issue to the Competition Bureau and the court last fall to investigate what it called practices used by Bell “to slow down and, in a number of cases, even block access to its support structures.” The company’s suit in Quebec Superior Court sought damages estimated to be just under $12.5 million. Bell and Quebecor have been in a number of regulatory battles in recent years, including over Bell’s treatment of Quebecor’s Super Écran TV channel, permanent roaming, and a long-running dispute over TVA Sports. - Reporting by Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca

Interventions filed in favour of Bell penalty for delays to support structure access

News | May 19, 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

Interventions filed in favour of Bell penalty for delays to support structure access

News | May 19, 2021

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Bell Canada to offer service in eastern Ontario ILEC’s footprint

CRTC tells Iristel to pay overdue fees to Bell, Northwestel or risk losing service

Bell files for injunction over Rogers, Warner Bros. deal

Indigenous communities to buy Northwestel for up to $1B

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us