Big providers get behind Bell in CloudWifi fight

The country's largest telecoms are siding with BCE Inc. in its fight against a CRTC decision that ruled providers including CloudWifi Inc. can access only its fibre wires in multi-dwelling buildings. Earlier this month, BCE Inc. said it would suffer “irreparable harm” should the CRTC decision stand This week, the country’s biggest telecom companies filed interventions that agree with Bell. Rogers Communications Inc., Telus Corp., and Shaw Communications Inc. all say it is unfair to Bell that the CRTC is giving internet service providers like CloudWifi access to only its fibre in-building wire (IBW), and before a consultative process is initiated to outline the changes between fibre and copper wire. The CRTC has since suspended certain deadlines for the proceeding. In its intervention, Rogers says that the “harm Bell would suffer … could not be quantified or compensated.” The Rogers submission further calls on the commission to establish a “full proceeding to address the timeframes and modalities of obtaining consent for the transfer and use of fibre IBW on an industry-wide basis before imposing any obligation on any one carrier to make its in-building fibre available to third parties,” having called the existing process “procedurally unfair” to Bell. Telus, too, wrote in its submission that “irreparable harm” would result for Bell if the “integrity of its network” was not protected, echoing Bell’s initial claim earlier this month that “untrammeled and unregulated expanded access to our fibre IBW risks further serious and permanent harm to these facilities.” Shaw also pointed to the “threat to the security and integrity of Bell’s network” should an operator like CloudWifi get access to the multi-dwelling units. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre said Bell’s claim fails the test for ‘irreparable harm’ needed for a suspension of a CRTC decision. The only thing Bell illustrated initially, PIAC says in its submission, “is one Cloudwifi installation that they would have preferred was performed differently; however, there is no evidence that either the feared harms Bell raises have materialized in relation to that installation or that other installers would do similar work.” Bell’s potential losses are, PIAC continues, “highly quantifiable. “Bell could easily provide, from its technicians, the number of ‘botched’ installs, their location, the estimated technician time and equipment replacement, etc.” Bell already logs all of these costs, we expect, and could provide that quantification.” Quebecor Inc., for its part, said in its filing that it thought Bell’s claims were “exaggerated,” according to a translation of the filing from French, and encourages the commission to reject Bell’s request for a suspension of the decision. Bell is also going to Federal Court over the decision.

Big providers get behind Bell in CloudWifi fight

Brief | July 31, 2019

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 providers get behind Bell in CloudWifi fight

Brief | July 31, 2019

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Ontario prison long-distance rates case back at the CRTC

Matt McGowan new senior VP of business solutions at Bell Media

Supreme Court dismisses TekSavvy’s wholesale rates appeal

Bell expanding content distribution with majority stake in global distributor

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us