In-footprint seamless handoffs hurt competition: Bell to CRTC

BCE Inc. is asking the CRTC to rescind its order to make seamless handoffs available for in-footprint coverage gaps, arguing that the order is harming competition by mandating Bell, Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp. to make the revised changes in its wholesale mobile wireless roaming service tariffs. In a review and vary application filed with the commission Tuesday, Bell argued that the commission's April 2022 decision went beyond the scope of the proceeding, and erred in law by expanding the scope of its seamless roaming determination from a year previously. In its April 2021 wireless review the CRTC determined that seamless roaming – the prevention of dropped calls and data sessions when customers move between service areas – must be offered by the national carriers under their wholesale domestic roaming tariffs. Bell said the mandate to make seamless roaming available at the boundaries of in-footprint coverage gaps runs contradictory to its 2021 decision and a “marked departure” from its position that the seamless handoffs only be provided at the perimeter of the network. In-footprint roaming occurs when a wireless carrier’s retail customers roam on another carrier’s network while they are within their home carrier’s network footprint. “Mandated in-footprint seamless handoffs would disincentivize competition through innovation and investments that are fully within the competitors' ability to achieve, and instead allow competitors to avoid important investments in their own network that would benefit their customers by relying on mandated access to the national carriers' networks and ultimately reducing the overall quality, reliability, and resiliency of Canada’s telecommunications infrastructure,” Bell wrote. Bell added that no party explicitly asked the commission to impose seamless handoffs throughout its network footprint. “The commission's contemplation of seamless handoff was for the explicit purpose of avoiding dropped calls and data sessions when a regional wireless carrier's subscriber moves outside that carrier's network footprint to an area served by a carrier from whom the regional wireless carrier has purchased a wholesale roaming service.” As a result, the national carriers had no opportunity to make a case against the CRTC’s position which was formulated without sufficient evidence regarding its technical feasibility, according to Bell. “This failure to consider evidence on in-footprint coverage gaps before adding them to the scope of seamless roaming has resulted in serious uncertainty as to the feasibility, potential costs, and burden on resources for seamless roaming itself because the parties now find themselves having materially different views on the scope of seamless roaming and what it entails,” Bell said. The incumbent added that there is no consensus on the definition of in-footprint coverage gaps, or whether the coverage gaps must be defined by a boundary. Bell argued that the commission erred in law because it did not apply the essentiality test, “despite in-footprint seamless handoffs being a new service that was never before implemented by most of the carriers.” The test requires that three factors be meet to determine whether a wholesale service is essential: whether the facility is required as an input by competitors to provide telecommunications services in a relevant market; whether withdrawing mandated access would result in the lessening of competition; and whether or not it is feasible for competitors to duplicate the functionality of the facility. The CRTC, in its April 2022 decision, said it drew upon the reasoning of its 2017 conditions for wholesale mobile wireless roaming service tariffs. In that decision it required the national wireless carriers to provide in-footprint wholesale roaming. In 2017 the commission “reasoned that there is no solid and stable boundary to a wireless network, coverage gaps are inherent to the nature of mobile wireless services, and significant time is required for smaller wireless carriers to expand their facilities and fill coverage gaps. Therefore, given the overlapping nature of public mobile networks, in-footprint roaming and occasional traffic offloading are important to the quality of roaming services,” the regulator wrote in its April decision. “This reasoning is also pertinent to in-footprint roaming in the context of seamless roaming.” Bell said relying on its 2017 decision rather than applying the essentiality test was inappropriate because the circumstances of both proceedings differ, therefore, it does not substitute for procedural fairness. Firstly, Bell argued, in 2017 the commission was bringing its policy on in-footprint roaming in line with the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development's conditions of license, which “explicitly exclude seamless hand-offs and therefore, if anything, militate against expanding them across the entire network footprint of the regional carrier.” “Second, in that case the commission was considering what measures were appropriate to prevent or limit roaming in circumstances in which it would otherwise occur by default. The Commission determined that an absolute prohibition on in-footprint roaming was not appropriate but that certain measures should be taken to limit it.” Bell submitted that had the commission conducted the essentiality test it would have found that competitors can duplicate seamless handoffs by filling in their own gaps at no great cost. “There is no serious doubt that gaps can be filled in, given what the regional wireless carriers have done elsewhere in their networks and what the national carriers have done themselves,” the incumbent wrote. Bell noted that the commission, in 2021, determined that seamless handoffs at the perimeter of a wholesale roaming customer's network was necessary because regional carriers such as Shaw Communications Inc. and Quebecor Inc.’s Videotron submitted that dropped calls at the “periphery of their networks are a key reason why their customers switch from their services to the national wireless carriers' services.” The companies told the commission at the time that evidence suggested that dropped calls occur thousands of times per day near the borders of the regional wireless carriers' networks and only cells at the perimeter of a regional wireless carrier's network would need to be upgraded to implement seamless roaming. “The costs and other challenges relevant to the expansion of a regional wireless carrier's network beyond its existing footprint are not the same for the business case relevant to eliminating coverage gaps within their footprint, where they have the benefit of existing customers and established network facilities,” Bell wrote in its Part 1. The company added that it would undermine the commission’s 2021 policy which aimed to foster healthy competition, and contravene the objectives of Canadian Telecommunications Policy to enhance efficiency and competitiveness in the industry. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca.

In-footprint seamless handoffs hurt competition: Bell to CRTC

News | July 6, 2022

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

In-footprint seamless handoffs hurt competition: Bell to CRTC

News | July 6, 2022

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telecoms testing their networks for the future of quantum connectivity

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’

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us