Iristel asks CRTC for incumbents’ MVNO template agreements

The CRTC has said it will consider a procedural request from Iristel Inc. to direct the incumbent wireless carriers to publicize their template agreements for wholesale mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) and seamless roaming services, in a letter published this week. Earlier this month, Iristel requested -- on behalf of its subsidiary Ice Wireless -- that the CRTC order the disclosure of template agreements the carriers would require MVNOs to sign to obtain tariffed wholesale services in relation to several proceedings. The company argued intervenors should be given the chance to assess whether or not the draft agreements contain anti-competitive provisions or undermine the CRTC’s wireless review decision. “It is only through intervenor scrutiny of those draft agreements that a fulsome and balanced record can be developed in the present tariff proceedings,” Iristel said in its request to the commission that the agreements be put on the record by Aug. 16. “It is particularly important that potential MVNO customers have total clarity, as part of the present tariff proceedings, of the terms and conditions under which the Incumbents intend to provide wholesale MVNO service." Additionally, Iristel wants to see any updated template agreements for wholesale roaming meant to reflect the introduction of mandated seamless roaming put on the record in the proceedings as well. However, BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Telus Corp., and Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. -- the companies Iristel’s request is directed at -- say in their responses it's an unnecessary demand. The CRTC said in its letter dated Aug. 20 it would not make a decision until after the deadline for interventions on the tariff proceedings in September. In its response, Bell said that Iristel’s request is “inconsistent with the process that has already been established” by the CRTC and would unnecessarily cause delay. Even so, it said it does not have a “template agreement” for MVNO access or seamless roaming. “That is because these agreements are, as is clearly set out in our proposed tariffs, subsidiary to and must be consistent with the terms and conditions established in the tariffs. Until those terms and conditions are finalized, the agreements cannot be created,” the company said. “It is simply unnecessary to deviate from the established process… All of the key terms and conditions related to both the proposed facilities-based MVNO access service and seamless roaming are set out in our proposed tariffs, and these terms take precedence over any terms in the subsidiary agreements.” For its part, Rogers agreed such a requirement by the CRTC would “add unnecessary complexity to an already sizable record.” “Rogers has not yet begun the process of preparing any MVNO agreements or updates to its wholesale roaming agreements, the substance of which will be largely determined by the outcome of this tariff proceeding. If the Commission were to ask for such agreements to be filed, Rogers would suggest a much longer timeline than one week,” the company said in its response to Iristel’s request. Telus made similar arguments to Rogers and Bell, saying the request is unnecessary and “out of process.” Like its competitors, Telus does not have a standard form MVNO agreement template, it said, and any MVNO agreement would be based on the terms and conditions of a yet-to-be-approved MVNO tariff. As for updated wholesale roaming agreements, the company said that an industry-standard solution for seamless roaming does not yet exist and will need to be developed. Beyond that, each solution is unique to each roaming partner, it said. Telus said any templates put forward at this time “would be meaningless as they would necessarily contain placeholders for information that is either not yet approved (in the case of tariff terms and conditions) or not yet known (in the case of the technical solution not yet being fully developed).” Iristel said in its request the CRTC decided in its wireless review decision that final offer arbitration would only be available in disputes on rates, not terms and conditions. It said the limitation on final offer arbitration to disputes over rates “means that MVNO customers will not have any regulatory recourse once the tariffs are finalized and approved,” unless a new Part 1 proceeding is launched. Therefore, it would be more efficient for the template forms of any and all agreements MVNO customers must sign to be on the record, Iristel argued, similarly to wholesale roaming template agreements. - Reporting by Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

Iristel asks CRTC for incumbents’ MVNO template agreements

News | August 24, 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

Iristel asks CRTC for incumbents’ MVNO template agreements

News | August 24, 2021

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Freedom Mobile no longer pursuing full MVNO status

Federal arbitrator releases paid time political broadcast schedule

TV broadcasters denounce streamers’ appeals of CRTC’s broadcasting contribution decision

CRTC considering expanded mandate for Broadcasting Participation Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us