Big carriers defend interim tariff terms

Rogers Communications Inc., Telus Corp. and BCE Inc. took issue with a complaint by small wireless carriers that their interim tariffs include “onerous” terms and conditions, arguing the Telecommunications Act requires tariffs to include detailed terms. Telus said in its reply, dated Monday, that legislation specifies “the full terms and conditions whereby a regulated service will be made available must be set out in a tariff, meaning that the position of the as to what is to be included in the wireless carriers’ respective tariffs is contrary to the Act.” In June, Wind Mobile, Quebecor Inc. and Eastlink told the CRTC that "Bell and Telus have essentially cut and pasted onerous, pre-negotiation versions of their wholesale roaming agreements into their interim tariff pages, along with a confidential rate table.” Those interim tariffs were filed as a result of the CRTC’s wholesale wireless decision in May, in which the CRTC said it would start regulating the domestic roaming rates the big carriers charge smaller carriers. In their complaint, Wind, Quebecor and Eastlink said that the terms within the agreements “reflect Bell and Telus’ preferred versions of their wholesale roaming agreements and do not reflect negotiated outcomes with the ." They said Rogers "did not go quite as far," but did add some terms and conditions that weren't previously there. The smaller carriers asked that the incumbents be required to re-file their tariff pages with no added provisions, beyond clarifying that roaming customers can disclose the identity of their host networks to retail customers and that mobile virtual network operators (MNVOs), who are customers of the incumbents, can benefit from the arrangements enjoyed by smaller facilities-based carriers. Those two terms were included in the CRTC’s decision. In its reply, Bell said that the small carriers have taken an “overly narrow” view of the CRTC’s decision, and that the Telecom Act requires tariffs contain “the key terms and conditions for the provision of the service.” The company said that “the type of tariff suggested by Eastlink et al. may be inadequate and not satisfy our section 25 obligations.” Telus also addressed the small carriers’ statement that the conditions are one-sided and onerous. “Such claims are false,” it said. “It is troubling that the make their assertions but do not point to a single instance of which terms and conditions with which they take issue. For that reason alone, it is impossible for the Commission to agree with the Applicants, because they provide no facts to support their position.” It said that “every single one” of Telus’ tariff terms is either based on standard roaming terms or prescribed by the CRTC in its decision. Roaming is a global service provided in virtually every country in the world, it added, meaning that global norms have been established, which “should not, and cannot, be departed from lightly. As a result, standard roaming terms and conditions are well-known to all carriers, given that many technical and other customary requirements have been put in place to facilitate roaming.” Regarding the small carriers’ claim that some of the conditions aren’t consistent with negotiated outcomes, Telus argued that the “problem with the position of the is that they assume that all of their rights under a negotiated arrangement would automatically apply under the tariff regime.” Rogers noted that as part of the CRTC’s wholesale wireless process, all existing roaming agreements, including their terms and conditions, were filed with the CRTC. “As a result, all of the terms and conditions that have not been expressly prohibited by the remain valid and operative and may therefore be included in existing agreements and, in Rogers’ view, the interim tariffs filed by the national wireless carriers,” Rogers said. The Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC), representing small telecoms, filed a reply in support of Wind, Eastlink and Quebecor, but said that as a matter of “procedural fairness,” the terms and conditions should be made available for comment by interested parties and approved by the CRTC. If the terms and conditions, beyond the two specified by the CRTC, aren’t included in the tariffs, then they would be “subject to bilateral negotiations,” CNOC noted, disadvantaging small carriers and new entrants. “The inclusion of terms and conditions approved by the in the wholesale roaming tariffs is critical to ensuring that the terms and conditions do not frustrate the ability of small and new entrant wireless carriers to use wholesale roaming services that were found to be essential … or impose barriers on the ability of wireless carriers to offer wholesale access services to other parties,” it said. It said that requiring new entrants to “undergo years of negotiation and arbitration to simply obtain reasonable alternatives to the disputed terms and conditions …would represent an insurmountable barrier for small and new entrant wireless carriers for which there is no policy justification.” On July 3, Jean-Francois Mezei, a telecom consultant with Vaxination Informatique, filed a request for the disclosure of the confidential information included in the interim tariffs filed by the incumbents. Mezei said that tariffs are “more than just information submitted by a because once in force, they are a regulation which must be enforceable and challengeable.” He said the Telecom Act requires all tariffs to be public. In a July 14 response, Rogers told the CRTC it should deny the request, noting that the CRTC maintained confidentiality of the highest wholesale domestic roaming rates charged by the incumbents during the wholesale wireless hearing, disclosing only the industry average. “Rogers submits that there is no compelling reason for the Commission to abandon its position on the confidentiality of wholesale roaming rates,” Rogers wrote. “Vaxination has … not demonstrated that any public benefit in disclosure will outweigh the material financial loss that will result for Rogers and others.” Telus, which also urged the CRTC to deny the request, argued that there “is simply no reason why a member of the public such as Vaxination, which is not a telecommunications carrier and does not hold any mobile spectrum licences, has any requirement to view interim roaming rates. These parties will never be roaming partners of nor do they have any direct interest in the rates being charged by one carrier to another for roaming.” — With reporting by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Shruti Shekar at sshekar@thewirereport.ca

Big carriers defend interim tariff terms

News | July 29, 2015

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

Big carriers defend interim tariff terms

News | July 29, 2015

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

CRTC finalizes terms of Uvagut TV distribution

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

CRTC announces changes to Broadband Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us