By Ahmad Hathout
A broadband consulting firm wants the CRTC to clarify that internet networks built using public dollars in southwestern Ontario are subject to the commission’s new wholesale internet framework.
Ontario-based Broadlytics Inc. filed a Part 1 application with the CRTC this week asking it to rule that networks built under the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology Inc. (SWIFT) project be made to comply with the commission’s ruling on access to the aggregated fibre regime – meaning third-party access to the builds’ middle- and last-mile fibre networks. Otherwise, it says, those builds cannot uphold an obligation to open access.
“The Applicant requests that the Commission affirm that because SWIFT itself holds ownership rights in the underlying infrastructure (51% of assets), funded by public taxpayer grants, the SWIFT program and its recipient carriers are subject to the same wholesale obligations that apply to other federally regulated carriers,” the Part 1 argues.
It requests that the CRTC “affirm that any carrier or operator that has accepted public funding under government broadband programs where open access networks were central in funding consideration – including, but not limited to, the [SWIFT] initiative – has contractually and regulatorily acquiesced to wholesale open access obligations,” the application continues.
Broadlytics President Adam Ross Hill, who has worked with regional carriers on applications for SWIFT money, told us that the SWIFT build guidelines are meant to align with the current regulated wholesale internet regime, which no longer focuses on disaggregated access. The 2015 disaggregated framework required competitors to own or lease their own transport networks to get mandated access to competitors’ last-mile fibre, with the drawback being far more interconnection points competitors would have to make.
The application asks the CRTC to “clarify that SWIFT-funded networks cannot rely solely on disaggregated interconnection points that create unreasonable barriers for competitors, and must instead make public all interconnection frameworks, network design topologies, approved electronic customer premise equipment requirements and provide aggregated access points of interconnect, consistent with current Commission policy.”
Hill said, from his RFP experience, they would “submit these points of interconnect under a guideline that it’s the current wholesale regime … subject to change if the CRTC were to ever change those guidelines. And, of course, the CRTC has changed those guidelines.”
The regulator started to really peel away from the disaggregated idea – which it later called impractical for competitors – in November 2023, when it ordered Bell and Telus to temporarily open their aggregated fibre networks to competitors in Ontario and Quebec. It then made permanent that regime across the country in August 2024, but again spared the cable companies from the obligation.
Broadlytics claims in its application that “certain carriers” funded by SWIFT “argue that they are not subject to the Commission’s aggregated wholesale access rules, or they have attempted to frustrate access by placing points of interconnection in locations inconsistent with the Commission’s rationale for requiring aggregated HSA and FTTP models.”
“Incumbents are required to provide aggregated FTTP access nationwide. Exempting SWIFT-funded carriers would establish a two-tier system where publicly funded networks face weaker obligations than private carriers,” the Part 1 says.
Hill says he would like clarity on questions including: “What constitutes as open access? … Are these regional providers now party to the wholesale agreement because they’ve agreed to provide open access services even on parts of their network? … Where does a part of the network stop and start? … Is it just part of that network?”
In a request-for-information email thread with SWIFT, Hill claims many of the interconnect locations proposed in the SWIFT RFP responses – still governed by the disaggregated framework – were in hard-to-reach areas. “This all but assured that third parties could not connect to points of interconnects without incurring substantial construction costs, leaving the awarded recipients as sole providers on the ‘open access network,’” he wrote.
What’s more, Broadlytics claims it’s not easy to obtain information on these builds because SWIFT and the carriers have allegedly neglected to publish “any key performance indicators demonstrating the effectiveness of public open access infrastructure from the funding, or how many of the carriers who received funding have secondary carriers providing services on the last mile infrastructure components of their open access networks,” the application continues.
Hill, who has his own ambitions of being a reseller, is seeking from SWIFT information including methods to participate in the open access network; the number of open access customers for all project areas where a third-party has provided services; a timeline on the implementation of aggregated access for SWIFT project recipients to honor the open access requirements; and a “fair and transparent working model” for any interested telecommunication service provider to access the network.
“If they’re going to mandate open access network builds to the public, there has to be a clear framework on how the public and those TSPs are able to get the access they need to it,” Hill said.
His firm is also asking the CRTC to clarify that SWIFT’s 51 per cent public ownership stake brings these networks under its jurisdiction and wholesale rules; determine appropriate interconnection points throughout the network that are “fair and equitable” to those who wish to access the network; and prevent any public financial infrastructure asset transfer from SWIFT to build recipients until a “permanent framework for a promised taxpayer funded open access network is in place, and recipients of funding have demonstrated end to end functionality acceptance of open access interconnection.”
When reached for comment, SWIFT’s Executive Director Barry Field told us that the organization is still reviewing the Part 1 application and cannot address its claims at this time.
“That said, I can confirm that SWIFT requires adherence to Open Access principles in all contracts with our ISP partners, and we defer to the CRTC on all matters of regulatory policy,” Field told us. “Neither SWIFT nor our partners operate under any assumption that our funding agreements exempt them from regulatory obligations.”
The not-for-profit, municipally-led SWIFT project was launched years ago as a broadband expansion initiative initiated by the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, with support and funding from member municipalities, the governments of Ontario and Canada, and build contributions from private telecoms.
Its mission is the “construction of open-access high speed networks to encourage service providers to expand broadband infrastructure in underserved and rural areas.”
Screenshot of coverage region via SWIFT
