By Ahmad Hathout
The CRTC accepted late last month a request by Quebecor for the regulator to determine a rate for its access to Telus’s wireless network.
The carriers had tried to come to a commercial agreement and a commission-staff-assisted mediation on the rate for access through the mobile virtual network operator framework but could not come to amicable terms.
The regulator will now choose which rate – Quebecor’s or Telus’s – is most appropriate for that access, which will allow the Montreal-based telecom to further expand into new territory.
Telus had opposed going to final offer arbitration (FOA) because the parties were allegedly still in negotiations, citing how close their rate structures were to each other.
Telus accused Quebecor of trying to get rates through the commission that it would otherwise not get in the marketplace. It, furthermore, warned that accepting Quebecor’s FOA request would make common the use of this process of last resort instead of through commercial negotiations, which it said is contrary to the existing policy of this being an exception rather than the rule.
But the CRTC determined that Quebecor met all the criteria for there to be a final hearing, including that it was a dispute involving only the single issue of rates; the issue affected both parties, who were unable to resolve the dispute using other methods; and the resolution does not require a new – or a change in an existing – policy.
Both Quebecor and Telus must provide relevant information, including a list of MVNO agreements they have entered and their rates, by February 13.
Quebecor is currently in a dispute with Bell over access to the telco’s wireless network after the CRTC selected Bell’s rate through FOA. Quebecor is now accusing the latter of stalling on access, while Bell is accusing the other of not signing a standard commercial agreement.
In a previous FOA process, the CRTC selected Quebecor’s rate over that of Rogers, which prompted the cable giant to go to court over the matter because it claims, in part, the decision runs counter to the “just and reasonable” provision under the Telecommunications Act.
