Companies must negotiate with Bell for MDU fibre IBW access or install their own, CRTC decides

Companies using BCE’s Inc.’s fibre in-building wire (IBW) must now reach a commercially negotiated agreement for access after the CRTC determined access to fibre IBW in multi-dwelling units (MDUs) will not be mandated because it found it is not an essential service and can be duplicated. Tuesday, the commission issued its determinations on IBW in MDUs, including that it is extending modified MDU access to all carrier internet service providers (ISPs) who will now have access to copper IBW on the same basis as local exchange carriers (LECs). The commission wrote in its Tuesday decision that it is giving companies that were permitted to use Bell’s fibre IBW 180 days to cease and desist their use or to reach a commercially negotiated agreement with Bell. They must also provide at least 90 days’ notice to affected customers of changes to their service. A competitor’s choice to access end-users by means of reselling or leasing fibre IBW will instead be subject to a commercial agreement between the owner of the IBW, and without a tariff being required, the commission determined. Competitors will still have the option to install their own fibre IBW in an MDU under the MDU access condition. Despite Cloudwifi, Shaw Communications Inc., and TekSavvy Solutions Inc. arguing during the proceeding that requiring duplication of access to fibre IBW would be “an inefficient use of resources and might inconvenience MDU residents where construction is required to accommodate additional IBW,” and that mandating IBW would enhance competition, innovation, and affordable prices, the commission wrote in its decision that the public good consideration does not apply to the essentiality test when determining if fibre IBW is an essential service. “The Commission considers that the public good policy consideration does not apply to access to fibre IBW because such access does not have a strong connection to social or consumer welfare, public safety, or public convenience. In addition, the commission does not consider that competition and consumer choice qualify as public good considerations,” it wrote in its decision. The commission also determined that access to fibre IBW “should be forborne from regulation.” It's of the view "there are no significant barriers to installing fibre IBW in MDUs, that fibre IBW competition has occurred over at least three years prior to the start of this proceeding, and that fibre IBW competition will continue to occur in the future if access to fibre IBW is forborne from regulation,” it wrote in its decision. According to the Telecommunications Act, if competition is sufficient to protect the interests of users, the commission should refrain, to the extent that it considers appropriate, from exercising any power. “The commission’s determinations in this proceeding will help to facilitate the orderly development of the Canadian telecommunications system, which includes supporting ongoing investments in growth technologies,” the CRTC wrote in its decision. “Consumers in MDUs will continue to have choice among service providers for their internet, television, and voice communications services, via fibre.” The proceeding was initiated following a long 2018 dispute between Cloudwifi Inc. and Bell in which the former requested the CRTC order Bell to give it access to its fibre connections. The CRTC, in June 2019, ruled it would extend those rights to the small ISPs, which don’t have to be a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC, or home phone company) or an exempt broadcast distribution undertaking (BDU, or TV company), provided they pay a “reasonable fee.” At the time, it initiated a consultation proceeding to determine if MDU access should be extended to all carrier ISPs, and potentially to all telecommunications service providers (TSPs), and whether they should all have access to LECs and other service providers’ IBW in MDUs on the same basis as registered competitive LECs regardless of technology. In December 2019, after Bell filed a review and vary application, the CRTC upheld its June decision while initiating a new tariff proceeding on ISP access to incumbent MDU infrastructure and amending its previous consultation to include an exploration of what would constitute a fair price for access to the newer — and more complicated — fibre infrastructure in MDUs. Around that time, CRTC chair Ian Scott allegedly met with Bell CEO (then chief operating officer) Mirko Bibic weeks after the company filed an appeal of the commission’s 2019 wholesale rates, more recently raising questions about the regulator's decision making processes. -- Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca

Companies must negotiate with Bell for MDU fibre IBW access or install their own, CRTC decides

News | July 27, 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

Companies must negotiate with Bell for MDU fibre IBW access or install their own, CRTC decides

News | July 27, 2021

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

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

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

Telecom industry players look to Senate for greater copper theft prevention

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us