By Ahmad Hathout
The CRTC confirmed Monday that carrier access agreements must be signed before mandated wireless service can be provided to competitors.
With that, the regulator rejected Quebecor’s request to vary that same finding in the summer of 2024 on the basis that signing a separate access agreement with Bell was unnecessary because the terms of that access were already established when the CRTC picked Bell’s rate at final offer arbitration (FOA) on October 10, 2023, and that Quebecor’s subsidiaries had already been roaming on the telco’s network as MVNOs. Quebecor, which alleged Bell was forcing it to sign a separate agreement as a delay tactic, further argued that the commission’s direction to the parties that they come to an agreement by September 12, 2024 contradicted its own position because it was establishing an agreement date before one was signed.
But the CRTC upheld its decision, pointing to both the need for such a separate agreement per both Bell’s tariff and the regulatory framework.
“The requirement for an MVNO access agreement to establish the commercial starting date is consistent with Bell Mobility’s tariff and the MVNO access framework,” the CRTC said on Monday. “The Commission’s decision to set a target date to finalize the agreement was intended to ensure timely implementation of the MVNO access service. It did not displace the requirement for an MVNO access agreement, nor did it imply that MVNO service could be operational by that date without an agreement.”
While the CRTC acknowledged that Quebecor’s existence on Bell’s network is technically similar to MVNO service, “roaming access is intended to provide only incidental wireless access when retail customers are outside of their home network’s coverage area, whereas MVNO access provides permanent access to the host network,” so its roaming access did not grant it MVNO access the day after the FOA decision.
As a result, the CRTC also rejected Quebecor’s request to force Bell to retroactively compensate it for the higher roaming rate it had been paying since October 2023 and the September 2024 date it set for the parties to come to an agreement.
Quebecor did not respond to a request for comment in time for publishing.
While Ontario Commission Bram Abramson agreed with the majority, he cautioned about letting two asymmetrical parties figure their own way to cement a mandatory access agreement.
“Where a tariffed obligation is contingent on a private agreement, the risk is compliant delay, and the issue one of misaligned incentives, not bad faith,” Abramson writes.
“The Commission has tools to address this,” he continues. “It can specify mandatory provisions, limit the scope of permissible negotiation, impose binding timelines, and provide for defaults that execute when unsuccessful negotiations exhaust those timelines. Each reduces the extent to which implementation depends on bilateral leverage.”
Photo via Bell
