CRTC decision on condo access could be ‘warning’: analyst

Unless BCE Inc. is allowed to install its infrastructure in a Toronto condo building, as of March 31, Rogers Communications Inc. will not be allowed to provide services to its residents either, the CRTC said Wednesday. The commission made the decision in response to a complaint by Bell Canada last September. Bell said Plazacorp Investments Ltd. prevented it from installing fibre infrastructure throughout the York Harbour Club condo building, while Rogers, with whom Plazacorp signed a marketing agreement, was permitted to do so. The CRTC said in its decision that “the commission finds that Bell Canada is being denied access to the York Harbour Club on reasonable terms and conditions.” It also said: “Effective 31 March 2014, RCI will not be permitted to provide telecommunications services at York Harbour Club unless Bell Canada is given access to the ." The Wire Report reported last fall that on “rare” occasions, developers can strike deals allowing one telecom provider to access a building before the competition, a practice that is typical in the U.S. Alan Breznick, a media, telecom and technology analyst at Heavy Reading, said in a phone interview Wednesday that the CRTC’s decision is a “strong” one. “I’ve often seen where the regulatory agency has ordered a company to let their competitor in and provide access, but I haven’t seen it too often where they’ve said, ‘If you don’t, you can’t do it either’,” he said. “The CRTC may be trying to send a message to Rogers and other providers not to engage in these exclusive contracts because they’re going to come down very heavily on them,” Breznick said. “So they may be trying to send a warning out to more than just Rogers, and certainly more than just this building.” Independent telecom consultant Mark Goldberg said a decision where the CRTC stipulates a provider will not be allowed to offer services unless it allows the competition to do the same is not a common one. “It’s not common, but it is one of the tools that the CRTC has available to it,” he said. He noted that the CRTC does not have jurisdiction over real estate companies, but it does over telecom providers. “It’s a form of indirectly regulating the real estate sector. Keep in mind that Rogers doesn’t control the access to that building. It’s the property developer who’s been building it,” Goldberg said. “So the way for the CRTC to indirectly regulate that access is to exert its control over the companies it does regulate.” He said the CRTC doesn’t allow exclusive access arrangements. In its ruling Wednesday, the CRTC referred to rules set out in a 2003 decision on the provision of telecommunications services to customers in multi-dwelling units , which states that local exchange carriers should be able to access buildings during the construction stage. “What the CRTC wants to ensure is that at the end of the day, consumers continue to have choice,” he said. “The CRTC rules ensure that people have that option. What we saw today is the CRTC making it very clear that exclusive access won’t be tolerated.” In its September complaint, Bell said it had been allowed to bring its infrastructure to the main terminal room of the 21-floor, 502-unit building, but not any further, and asked the commission to issue an access order allowing it to connect the wiring to individual units, the CRTC said. Plazacorp Investments, which said it had a marketing and non-exclusive access agreement with Rogers, argued that the decision about which other service providers are allowed further access should be made by the condominium board. It said it was not denying Bell access, but instead delaying it until the unit owners form a condominium board, about five months after they begin moving in, according to the decision. Bell responded that it needed to have access to the building before the occupancy date in order to retain any current customers who may be moving into the building and gain new ones. “By waiting several months for the Condominium Board to be elected before potentially granting Bell Canada access to the MDU, would not only be denying the company current access to the MDU, but would also be denying residents the choice of which they will retain for their telecommunications services at the time they take possession of their units,” the CRTC said. “The Commission considers that refusal to grant Bell Canada access to the on reasonable terms and conditions during construction is contrary to the MDU access framework’s core principles of competition and, most importantly, end-user choice.” Bell spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said in emailed statement that “this is a very positive decision for consumers. It sends a strong signal to developers that all Canadians should have access to choice in communications providers, regardless of the type of dwelling they live in. We look forward to offering the residents of York Harbour Club the best TV and Internet in Canada with Bell Fibe.” Rogers did not provide comment by deadline Wednesday. Breznick said that while he didn’t know if exclusive deals were becoming more popular in Canada, “I can only speculate that there might be more pressure to do these kinds of deals because of the saturation of the market. There’s just not that many new homes, new apartments, new condos going up that aren’t already cabled or wired, so they’re going to fight tooth and nail over whatever’s still available.” Shawn Olmstead, Bell’s vice-president of residential product management, told the Wire Report recently that the company is building its fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) infrastructure in new subdivisions and condominiums in Ontario and Quebec, in locations like the greater Montreal and Toronto areas, as well as sections of Ottawa and Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont. The fact that the kind of wiring going into new homes is often newer, faster FTTH infrastructure heightens the competition, Breznick said. “Bell is focusing its fibre on the most attractive properties, so the properties they want to get into, they’re going to fight harder to get into and Rogers is going to fight harder to keep them out of,” he said. — With reporting by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Derek Abma at dabma@thewirereport.ca

CRTC decision on condo access could be ‘warning’: analyst

News | February 5, 2014

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 decision on condo access could be ‘warning’: analyst

News | February 5, 2014

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Rogers asks CRTC to reverse MVNO expansion decision

CRTC will not change temporary wholesale decision; final decision still on the table

CRTC denies Telus’ request for extension on fibre access deadline

UPDATED: Independent Broadcast Group backs Corus in dispute with Rogers over channel placement

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us