CRTC in-building wire decision fair, CNOC didn’t follow process in review application: Rogers, Eastlink

Rogers Communications Canada Inc. and Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink told the CRTC that the Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC)’s review and vary application of a decision -- which states that firms must negotiate with BCE Inc. for multi-dwelling unit (MDU) fibre -- does not follow CRTC process and that the original decision was fair. CNOC filed the application in October, arguing that the CRTC’s determination that access to in-building wire (IBW) is not a matter of public good was an error in law. It cited the Supreme Court decision in Canada v. Vavilov, a ruling which Rogers maintains does not apply to CNOC’s argument. Rogers said if CNOC had any problems with the decision, it should have done so months ago. “CNOC chose not to be a party to the proceeding that resulted in (the proceeding). CNOC now seeks, in the guise of a review and vary application, to make arguments that CNOC had the opportunity to make, and declined to make, during the proceeding,” senior vice president regulatory Ted Woodhead wrote. “In the interest of fairness and to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, the application should be dismissed on this basis alone.” In his 15-page filing, Woodhead cites other reasons the complaint should be dismissed including the errors and relief identified being moot; no errors of law being identified; failure to raise doubt that access to fibre IBW is a public good; failure to raise doubt that additional investment and innovation considerations do not support mandated wholesale access to fibre IBW; failure to identify doubt as to the CRTC’s assessment of the impact of the ruling; and there being no basis for mandating a single rate for wholesale access to fibre IBW. In its less-detailed intervention, Eastlink’s VP regulatory Marielle Wilson writes, “CNOC’s application fails to establish any substantial error of fact or law raising substantial doubt as to the correctness of the policy. CNOC’s application is comprised of restating arguments that have already been fully articulated on the record of the proceeding and carefully considered in the analysis of the commission, as well as arguments that result in absurd results. Simply disagreeing with the conclusions of the commission is insufficient to establish substantial errors.” Eastlink concentrated its opposition in four areas: public good; innovation and investment; advancement of telecom policy objectives and wholesale rate for access to fibre IBW. Its failure to address other areas raised by CNOC should not be interpreted as endorsement, Wilson said. -- Reporting by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca

CRTC in-building wire decision fair, CNOC didn’t follow process in review application: Rogers, Eastlink

News | November 26, 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

CRTC in-building wire decision fair, CNOC didn’t follow process in review application: Rogers, Eastlink

News | November 26, 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