No merit to TNW’s roaming request, telecoms say

Most of Canada’s major wireless providers were of the same mind on an application by TNW Wireless Inc. asking the CRTC to compel BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. to enter into roaming agreements with TNW, telling the regulator in interventions that its service doesn’t qualify for mandatory roaming. TNW filed a Part 1 in July arguing that its proposed national WiFi-based wireless service is substantially different from one proposed by Iristel Inc.’s Sugar Mobile, which CRTC already ruled doesn’t qualify for mandated roaming. TNW said that using its iPCS technology means “users’ devices de-register from any roaming partner network which halts the use of any Visited Public Mobile Network (VPMN) spectrum.” That argument is irrelevant, Telus responded. “The Commission’s policies in this regard are not premised on an understanding that all of a device’s consumption occurs through (or simply while registered to) the VPMN. Rather, they are based on the view that mandating the provision of roaming to Wi-Fi based service providers would be inconsistent with facilities-based competition.” Telus added that TNW is “seeking a form of mandated access that the Commission has already, repeatedly, decided not to mandate,” and TNW hasn’t distinguished its service from those the CRTC already ruled don’t qualify. TNW’s arguments that its iPCS technology is different are “without merit and demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulatory wholesale wireless framework, particularly as it relates to the use of public Wi-Fi.” In its application, TNW said that its technology would allow subscribers to use its 850 MHz licensed spectrum “remotely through an Internet Wi-Fi connection in Canada and around the world.” Bell responded that “TNW's new 'wrinkle', whereby it proposes to backhaul this public Wi-Fi-originated traffic back to its home network and onto its Radio Access Network (RAN) in Northern British Columbia and the Yukon, does nothing to alter the fact this is public Wi-Fi originated traffic.” Telus said that TNW’s “artifice is nothing more than a weak attempt at regulatory gaming, an effort to find a loophole in the rules whereby a carrier could exploit a small licensed network footprint for mandated network access to sell a mobile wireless service on a national basis,” but that no such loophole exists. Bell argued that iPCS “results in a situation where TNW fails virtually each one of the Commission's indicia of non-incidental roaming.” Other wireless providers backed Bell and Telus in separate interventions. Quebecor Inc. wrote that TNW’s description of iPCS indicates the company will backhaul traffic from the rest of Canada to the areas where it has spectrum, but that doesn’t make it a network operator. “Videotron, for example, backhauls data traffic from its customers as they roam in all thirteen Canadian provinces and territories and over 200 other countries around the globe. Under TNW’s engineering logic, Videotron could today claim to be a network operator in all these locations. Such a claim would, of course, be nonsense,” Quebecor said. Rogers Communications Inc. argued that TNW’s plan is meant only to take advantage of a perceived loophole, given that the company’s application “does not explain a single tangible benefit that the connection back to its mobile wireless network and RAN provides.” While Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains has directed the CRTC to reconsider its previous decision that WiFi-based MVNOs don’t qualify for mandated roaming, that decision still stands, until the resolution of a proceeding to review it. TNW, Bell and Telus do have one area of agreement — all three parties are now asking the CRTC to postpone the decision on their roaming dispute until after that process is done. “To the extent the Commission's wholesale roaming rules may change, TNW's request should be deferred until the new rules, if any, are clarified,” Bell said. TNW asked the CRTC, in a July 28 procedural letter, to consider whether its iPCS technology falls within the definition of a “home network” as part of that proceeding and to decide on the roaming disagreement separately after it issues its decision in that case. The CRTC hasn’t yet posted a response to that request on its website. — With reporting Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Charelle Evelyn at cevelyn@thewirereport.ca

No merit to TNW’s roaming request, telecoms say

News | August 10, 2017

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

No merit to TNW’s roaming request, telecoms say

News | August 10, 2017

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