Bell, Telus oppose broadening roaming network access for smaller players

Stakeholders have responded to the CRTC’s call for comments on providing greater access to the roaming networks of BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. (also referred to as TCI in the documentation). The two incumbents are opposed to the idea, while competitors are in favour. The CRTC offered the view that the shared networks should be considered as one, and that competitors would only negotiate one deal with incumbents rather than multiple deals. For its part, Telus maintains that the existing roaming framework is sufficient. It believes the commission’s view is harmful to facilities-based competition. “The preliminary view rests on a fundamental misconception about the degree of integration between Telus’ and Bell’s operations and ownership structures,” the western telecom wrote in its abridged intervention. “Given the nature of Telus’ and Bell's next generation network reciprocity agreement (NGNRA), it is potentially damaging to facilities-based competition to impose further wholesale obligations in the wireless marketplace.” The agreement does not set up a shared network in terms of ownership or integrated operations, the firm maintains. Even if access were mandated, smaller players would still have to negotiate deals with Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. for access to SaskTel’s grid. Telus’ partner Bell agrees with its position. “These network reciprocity agreements are highly complex and are negotiated to ensure that independent network operators can compete as facilities-based providers in every region in which they offer services, and are inextricably linked to the billions of dollars in investments in their networks made by each of the operators,” Bell wrote on Nov. 6. “Imposing a condition on Bell and Telus’ network reciprocity agreement would interfere with these pro-competitive agreements, without any evidence of a need to depart from the existing approach to wholesale domestic roaming.” The Bell intervention was also abridged, with certain matters filed in confidence with the commission and redacted for the public. READ MORE: - CRTC looking at ‘inflexible’ international roaming fees, rates in Canada The Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC) heartily endorsed the notion of access. “CNOC supports the commission’s preliminary view that regional wireless carriers should have access to the full shared national network of Bell Mobility Inc. and Telus Communications Inc. when subscribing to either company’s wholesale roaming service,” the lobby group wrote in its initial submission Nov. 6. “Doing so will improve wholesale roaming service supply conditions for regional wireless carriers.” If Bell and Telus do not provide entry to their networks, it could raise concerns about undue preference and unjust discrimination, CNOC alleged. Cogeco Communications Inc. argued the regulator can mandate wholesale roaming access under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. It further posited that the same reasoning applied to mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) should apply to roaming. It wants coherent regulations and the application of consistent frameworks. “The commission must factor in the importance of wholesale roaming service to provide national coverage that enables retail customers of regional service providers to use their devices wherever they go,” the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) states in its intervention. “Otherwise they would be severely limited in terms of where they have connectivity.” Denial of access to the two incumbents’ grids leaves smaller players with only one option, negotiating with Rogers Communications Inc., PIAC argued. “Regional wireless service providers have spent unnecessary resources and time entering into multiple roaming agreements to obtain nation-wide coverage,” Rogers said. “If the regional wireless service providers had access to the Bell-Telus shared network through a single roaming agreement, they would be empowered to better negotiate with all three national carriers.” The Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA) called on the CRTC to apply MVNO rules in this case. “It would be an understatement to say that the current mobile virtual network operator and the wholesale roaming regimes are linked,” ITPA said. “From the end-customer’s perspective they are, in fact, integral to each other and from the perspective of a wireless service provider wishing to use these services, it makes no sense to prolong the different treatment of the shared national network of Bell Mobility and Telus.” Bragg Communications Inc. subsidiary Eastlink supports the CRTC’s view on opening up access. “It is inequitable for regional wireless carriers to be denied access to the shared network for roaming while Bell and Telus continue to have the benefit of what is, in practical terms, a national network,” the company stated. In a two-page intervention, Quebecor Inc. said it agreed with the regulator’s position. In recent replies filed by the parties to the others’ arguments after their interventions were publicized, Cogeco found allies for its initial intervention. “CNOC, ITPA, Eastlink and Quebecor all agree with Cogeco that access to the shared network of Bell and TCI should be mandated and not left to commercial negotiations,” the Quebec firm stated in its reply. “These parties agree that mandating access is necessary to address the power imbalance between national and regional carriers, submitting that commercial negotiations alone would not lead to fair and reasonable outcomes.” PIAC wants the commission to reject the incumbents’ stance. It disputes the Telus assertion that the current framework allows for lower rates. The telecom thinks that commercially negotiated rates would be lower than tariffed rates. “There is no evidence on record to indicate that the negotiation process would lead to lower rates,” the lobby group said. “On the contrary, PIAC remains concerned that this commercial process risks leading to higher rates, with smaller service providers burdened with additional arbitration process(es) to reach just and reasonable rates.” Rogers vice president of regulatory matters Howard Slawner coined a new word in his Nov. 18 reply comments, using the portmanteau “Belus” to describe the shared network. “Improved wholesale roaming access to the Belus network is necessary to help neutralize a small amount of the anti-competitive effects that the Belus joint network has cast over the entire wireless market for many years,” he alleged. “Bell’s claim that it and Telus ‘are facilities-based competitors in every region in which they offer services and make correspondingly large investments in Canada's telecommunications networks' is misleading.” Eastlink accused Bell and Telus of misconstruing the issue before the CRTC. The national players have advantages which come to the forefront during access negotiations, the company said. In response, Telus said it “maintains that the difference in the treatment by one partner to the network sharing agreement of the other partner, versus its treatment of regional carriers and their end-users is not unjust, and does not amount to an undue preference.” The western incumbent also argued that the MVNO regime is distinct from the roaming access framework and should not be considered in this case. In its own reply, Bell stated that wholesale roaming is meant to be a temporary measure for people to use while traveling. Reciprocity agreements give significant benefits to Canadians, it argued. In its reply, Quebecor quoted extensively from other competitive carriers and said it shares their concerns. On Nov. 21, after the deadline for submissions, Quebecor’s Freedom Mobile launched a campaign to bring down roaming fees. “When traveling, Canadians shouldn't have to choose between staying connected or breaking the bank,” Jean B. Péladeau, senior vice president of marketing at Freedom said in a statement. “We believe wireless should be affordable, reliable, and worry-free for all Canadians, even when traveling.” According to the Freedom news release, Canadians pay up to $16 a day for wireless roaming charges. That means a week-long vacation can accumulate more than $400 in roaming charges, the company said. ppark@thewirereport.ca

Bell, Telus oppose broadening roaming network access for smaller players

Regulatory |
By Paul Park
| November 22, 2024

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, Telus oppose broadening roaming network access for smaller players

Regulatory | By Paul Park | November 22, 2024

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

CRTC consulting on new consumer protection measures

CRTC launches consult on cabinet order to revisit interim wholesale decision

BDUs oppose OUTtv carriage application, while community supports it

Terrestar takes CRTC spectrum revenue decision to Federal Court of Appeal

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Regulatory |
By Paul Park
| November 22, 2024