Incumbents reject Mitel’s concerns about STIR/SHAKEN rollout

Incumbent telecom providers have pushed back against a recent Part 1 from Mitel Networks Corp., which asked the CRTC to mandate inclusion for resellers in the STIR/SHAKEN anti-fraud-call technology. Shaw Communications Inc. and BCE Inc. both asked the commission to dismiss Mitel’s Part 1, suggesting that its concerns about STIR/SHAKEN were premature or speculative. Mitel’s Part 1 argued that resellers would be at a competitive disadvantage if they were excluded from the STIR/SHAKEN framework. Its concerns were directed primarily towards the Canadian Secure Token Governance Authority (CST-GA), the agency responsible for implementing the framework. The CST-GA is composed of 12 telecommunications companies, including Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, and Videotron. That agency determined that only providers that obtain telephone numbers directly from the numbering authority would be able to participate directly in the STIR/SHAKEN framework. Mitel argued that this would put some companies -- for example, those centred around voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services -- at a competitive disadvantage, because they would not be able to attest that calls originating from their services were fully authentic and not fraudulent. Mitel claimed that this is a stricter requirement for participation than in the United States, which is implementing the same system this year. Mitel also contended that if it were to seek out those attestations for its customers’ calls, it could be required to seek out Delegate Certificates which could require extra cost or effort. In response, Bell labelled Mitel’s concerns “premature and speculative”, noting that the standards for Delegate Certificates have not been set yet, and that the CRTC has yet to sign off on numerous elements of the implementation for STIR/SHAKEN. Bell also suggested that companies like Mitel could eliminate its concerns by registering as a Canadian carrier with the CRTC. “Were Mitel to pursue this option, it would meet the CST-GA's eligibility requirement as a non-dominant Canadian Carrier with direct access to Canadian telephone numbers and this would therefore obviate the need for the Commission to issue the direction sought. “ In its intervention, Shaw acknowledged that Mitel could face additional certification costs under the STIR/SHAKEN protocol, but dismissed its concerns about these being unreasonable. “Mitel should consider the cost of administering delegate certificates as a necessary cost of doing business when STIR/SHAKEN is in use... there is also no evidence that TSPs that will provide delegate certificates will do so at ‘very high prices’.” Meanwhile, Telus Corp. filed an intervention that was more sympathetic to Mitel’s concerns, stating that STIR/SHAKEN would work best if companies like Mitel were not required to obtain delegate certificates via other providers. “For STIR/SHAKEN to live up to its potential, all TSPs must be accountable for their own certifications and no TSPs must be expected to certify calls on behalf of another TSP.” But Telus also pushed back on Mitel’s suggestions that larger companies had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour in their preparations for the rollout of STIR/SHAKEN, defending the work of CST-GA, of which Telus is a member. “The CST-GA has, at all times, acted with the best of intentions in satisfying the Commission’s expectations efficiently and expeditiously, and the public will benefit from the CST-GA’s achievements.” The STIR/SHAKEN framework is currently scheduled to be deployed in June 2021, after being pushed back from September 2020. — Reporting by Tim Forster at tforster@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

Incumbents reject Mitel’s concerns about STIR/SHAKEN rollout

News | February 10, 2021

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