CRTC told not to grant FTTP access to big telecoms

A wealth of intervenors have told the CRTC that the large established telecoms should not be allowed to have access to aggregated wholesale high-speed access over fibre-to-the-premises (AWHSA-FTTP) facilities. A diverse group of stakeholders filed their remarks this month with the regulator. The filings are in response to an application by BCE Inc., Bragg Communications Inc., Cogeco Inc., the Competitive Network Operators of Canada and TekSavvy Solutions Inc. that would deny access to the Big Three. Rogers Communications Inc. opposed the request. Repeating its calls for technology-neutral exclusions, the company said the signatories unfairly focus on FTTP-only relief, ignoring other high-speed services. “It would intentionally perpetuate regulatory asymmetry, to the obvious benefit of Bell,” Rogers wrote on April 12. “The signatories fail to establish urgency, let alone irreparable harm.” The Toronto telecom accused Bell of trying to protect its FTTP facilities from wholesale access by Rogers and Telus Corp., while Bell “continues to ride” on mandated access to the cable carrier’s services. “Rogers is carrying Bell, Telus, Cogeco and Videotron traffic today–and yet the signatories are focused solely on an exclusion for Bell FTTP,” Dean Shaikh, SVP regulatory affairs, told the commission. “Bell, Telus, Cogeco and Videotron, or their affiliates represent a large and growing segment of our aggregated wholesale customer base. The signatories claim the same is true for Cogeco and Eastlink.” Telus stated that the applicants are attempting to use indirect methods to get what they have been unable to achieve through the usual regulatory channels. “More broadly, the application lacks substance, is out of time and represents a concerted anti-competitive, anti-consumer and protectionist effort which, if endorsed by the commission, will deny consumers (most immediately those in Ontario and Quebec) the benefits of the competition brought by out-of-territory, facilities-based carriers,” the western ILEC wrote. The company says the application paints Telus, Rogers and Bell with the same brush, claiming they are all national carriers. Apart from British Columbia, Alberta, and a tiny incumbent footprint in eastern Quebec, Telus claims it is a CLEC in central Canada. The Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA), representing 21 small incumbents, came out against letting the Big Three have access. “ITPA members are concerned over the potential competitive impacts across the entire industry if the largest carriers in the country are permitted to access mandated aggregated wholesale high-speed access over fibre-to-the-premises facilities,” executive director Jonathan Holmes asserted. It was joined in this sentiment by the British Columbia Broadband Association. “The BCBA believes that allowing Bell, Rogers and Telus to access mandated AWHSA-FTTP facilities would threaten the business viability of the BCBA members,” the group wrote. “If independent wholesale-based competitors are obliged to compete against premium and flanker brands operated by Bell, Rogers and Telus and their nationwide mobile wireless offerings, it will be extremely difficult for independent service-based competition to continue to operate successfully.” It added that granting such access poses a threat not just in central Canada but to operators in the west as well. The Canadian Communication Systems Alliance filed a brief letter speaking out in favour of limiting access, as did the Community Fibre Company. Beanfield joined the chorus. CIK Telecom Inc. carried on that theme. “Allowing Bell, Rogers and Telus to access mandated AWHSA-FTTP facilities, whether on an interim or permanent basis, would threaten the viability of independent ISPs like CIK Telecom,” the firm wrote. Ontario-based independent ISP SkyChoice Communications Inc. echoed Rogers’ argument, saying that the large telecoms should be forbidden access on both FTTP and also on existing copper last mile facilities. “It is very important that incumbent providers are denied access to wholesale last mile facilities from other carriers regardless of technology in order to maximize the ability for independent telecom providers in Canada to compete in the marketplace,” it concluded. The firm accused Telus of piggybacking on recent ISP purchases to offer home internet through flanker brands. It said Koodo is offering home internet in Ontario and Quebec using Rogers, Cogeco, and Videotron third-party internet access infrastructure. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre joined with OpenMedia to submit an intervention. They said the filers have not proved irreparable harm. “Many statements made are speculative, such as that the independent TSPs could not compete or would not be viable if forced to compete with flanker or flagship brands of other incumbents,” the organizations wrote. “This sort of statement is understandable but actually based upon the still too high expedited wholesale access rate. Should the final rates be set at an appropriate level, these TSPs could be competitive in the same manner as they are or can be against a single incumbent, such as Bell Canada.” The Public Interest Law Centre, representing the Manitoba Coalition, similarly filed an intervention supporting the telecoms’ wishes to block access. Novus Entertainment Inc. and Vaxination Informatique also endorsed the request. “The definition of ‘incumbent’ based on wireless market share could allow Videotron to bundle its Freedom wireless with VMedia wireline services because this bundle was part of the Competition Tribunal’s decision to allow Rogers to buy Shaw,” Vaxination Informatique said. “Because of this, any/all deals between Videotron and Rogers should be given deep scrutiny by the commission and perhaps Competition Bureau to weed out any anti-competitive clauses.” Writing as an individual, Marc Nanni stated it is obvious the commission’s interim order excludes national carriers. “I find the signatories attempting to muddy the waters between ILECs and ‘national carriers’,” he said. – Reporting by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

CRTC told not to grant FTTP access to big telecoms

News | April 22, 2024

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 told not to grant FTTP access to big telecoms

News | April 22, 2024

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