Bell subsidiary says resources to implement local competition in Que. area scarce, even for incumbent, justifying 5-month delay

A BCE Inc. subsidiary told the CRTC that approving a five-month period for it to implement local competition in the low-density market of Upton, Que., is reasonable, considering the commission approved the same time frame for the company three years ago when Telus Corp. also requested to enter one of its markets. In mid-October, Bell’s Maskatel filed a plan with the CRTC for establishing local competition in Upton after Quebec-based telecom company CoopTel notified the company of its intentions to compete in the area. In a Wednesday French-language reply, Maskatek implied that CoopTel’s concerns -- filed in an October intervention in which it told the commission that it does not believe that Maskatel, or its parent company, need five months to make the necessary technological changes -- were overstated. “We note that only three years ago, a period of five months for the implementation of local competition in our sectors of St-Éphrem and St-Victor following a request from Telus, was deemed reasonable as much by Telus as the commission,” Maskatel wrote, according to translation. According to a 2006 CRTC decision, small incumbent local exchange carriers (SILECs) must file an implementation plan with the commission within 30 days of receiving an expression of interest from an LEC or carrier requesting to use competitor services within a SILEC’s territory. The implementation plan must include details like how customer transfer procedures would be managed and plans to include local number portability (LNP). In its initial plan, Maskatel told the commission that it would take five months, dating from when its plan is approved, to implement the necessary changes to local number portability (LNP) because it is working with “relatively old technology” (a Nortel DMS-10 switch) for which the expertise “is relatively limited,” and it would need to work with a third-party to implement the changes. It added that should those dates fall in the summer, it would take longer because of “other work” that is carried out by the network during that time. CoopTel argued in its intervention that “it is hard to believe” that Bell would not be the third-party in question, and said that Bell used, and may still currently use, DMS-10 switches in its other low-density markets, making it “hard to believe that there is no expertise available.” “Contrary to Cooptel's presumptions, the competent resources to implement portability on DMS-10 switches are scarce, both at Maskatel and at Bell. In addition, Maskatel and Bell's internal network processes have been developed separately, regardless of whether we now belong to the same corporate group,” Maskatel wrote in its reply.

Bell subsidiary says resources to implement local competition in Que. area scarce, even for incumbent, justifying 5-month delay

Brief | November 24, 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

Bell subsidiary says resources to implement local competition in Que. area scarce, even for incumbent, justifying 5-month delay

Brief | November 24, 2021

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Legal dispute between Bell, Rogers over Discovery channels ends

Rogers buys Bell’s stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment for $4.7B

Iristel asks CRTC to penalize Northwestel for disconnection in billing dispute

Woman sues Bell, Nordia after alleged privacy breach by call centre employee

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us