Bell files review and vary over Videotron pole access decision

BCE Inc.’s Bell Canada has filed a Part 1 review and vary application over a CRTC decision imposing fines of $7.5 million for denying Quebecor Inc. subsidiary Videotron access to poles. The commission ruling came down in June. Bell maintains there are several errors in law and in fact that call for the decision to be rescinded. In the ruling, the CRTC found that there were three violations of the Telecommunications Act committed by Bell. It levied administrative monetary penalties (AMP) of $2.5 million per violation. Bell maintains that each violation concerned “exactly the same facts”, according to the 57-page application filed Sept. 13 and published on the commission website Thursday. “The proceeding leading to decision… did not indicate that the commission was considering the imposition of multiple AMPs,” the company writes. “Had we known, we would have addressed this point in our interventions.” The ruling resulted in improper penalty stacking, according to Bell, and sought to punish the telecom rather than promote compliance with the Telecom Act. “Pursuant to the principles of natural justice, Bell Canada ought to have been made aware that the commission was considering the imposition of multiple AMPs and afforded an opportunity to address not only whether and, if so, the quantum of an AMP but also the appropriateness of imposing multiple AMPs,” the application states. A decision last year found that Bell was in violation of the Telecommunications Act and the regulator was of the preliminary opinion that an AMP could be assessed. Levying three fines goes against common law principles, the incumbent telecom said. It further asserted that the commission did not apply the right test to determine whether an AMP was appropriate. If a competitor had violated the rules the fine would have been in the hundreds of dollars, not millions, the company added. The application calls for the commission to draw from the experience of other AMPs which have been assessed. The first example cited involved the Canada Transportation Appeal Tribunal and Canadian Pacific Railway Co., while the second was an AMP imposed by the Competition Bureau on Rogers Communications Inc. property Chatr Wireless that saw the penalty slashed from $7 million to $500,000. The last was a CRTC fine under Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation of $1.1 million that was cut to $200,000. Among the firm’s contentions is that the CRTC ascribed an anti-competitive intent to Bell’s moves without evidence. It further states that there were safety concerns surrounding Videotron’s deployment on the poles, and that Bell did not have similar safety issues. “The act of deployment on poles in non-compliance with construction standards was without our approval and without anti-competitive intent and no evidence on the record is indicative of the contrary,” Bell stated. During the proceeding into the alleged violation the commission should have accounted for good faith errors, construction standards and work delays, Bell maintains. None of the violations were the result of intentional conduct, it added. Videotron claimed financial losses from Bell’s actions without providing proof those numbers were accurate. Bell is particular faults the commission for stating those losses amounted to “several hundred thousand dollars” “The record does not explain how the numbers were derived or how Videotron attempted to mitigate its alleged losses with respect to delayed access to four poles in urban areas,” the application notes. The CRTC used the several hundred thousand dollars loss figure in the decision when Videotron itself said that it suffered a loss of only $181,135. Videotron did not provide data to back up those claims, Bell stated. “It is also inexplicable why the AMP imposed on Bell Canada should be 41 times greater than the losses alleged by Videotron,” the company writes. Bell claims Videotron is guilty of at least 40 tariff and/or construction violations in eight different categories, including installation on or in Bell structures without a permit request; cables placed on strands without authorization; and cables placed on strands despite permit denial. Some of the details were redacted as they were filed in confidence with the regulator. In one instance the Videotron strand was 0.74 metres of Hydro-Quebec’s wires while construction standards demand a one-metre clearance. Bell’s strands met the criterion, the firm asserted. It is willing to let Videotron lease temporary capacity on Bell’s network. –Reporting by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca.

Bell files review and vary over Videotron pole access decision

News | September 23, 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

Bell files review and vary over Videotron pole access decision

News | September 23, 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