By Ahmad Hathout
Bell is claiming that it has not been able to fully launch fibre internet service in British Columbia and Alberta because Telus has allegedly refused to provide adequate systems for the setup.
Bell CEO Mirko Bibic announced in November that the telco had been running a trial for internet service in Kelowna, British Columbia using Telus’s network, with the expectation that it would fully launch internet services – with plans to bundle content and mobile – this month.
But that has not happened yet because Telus has failed to provide the requisite systems to do it, namely an automated — as opposed to a “largely, if not entirely, manual” — ordering and provisioning process Telus promised in October 2024. Bell says such an automated system is needed for it to scale the service.
“The ordering process that Telus provides to wholesale customers in Alberta and British Columbia is so poor as to be unworkable,” Bell alleges in its response. “By way of illustration: Bell provides wholesale customers with access to an API, which Telus does not; Bell makes confirmed installation dates available [redacted] the same day, while Telus takes one to two business days to provide confirmed installation dates; and for speed changes not requiring a technology change, Bell’s process is seamless for the end user, while Telus’ process requires a prolonged end-user service outage. Further, Telus’ systems are designed to disadvantage wholesale customers from competing for current Telus customers.”
Bell said in a statement to Cartt: “As announced at our Investor Day last fall, Bell is putting customers first by launching Internet services in British Columbia and Alberta under the CRTC’s wholesale fibre policy. Bell’s western launch will bring the benefits of enhanced competition, including great bundles and lower prices, to consumers in BC and Alberta. Unfortunately, TELUS is disadvantaging these consumers by failing to provide a workable activation and installation process, which is impeding Bell’s ability to launch. Western Canadians already pay more on average for broadband that consumers in Ontario and Québec and continued delays deny them greater affordability and choice.”
Telus denies these claims in a reply dated Wednesday — which it deferred to when asked for comment — calling them “incorrect and disingenuous.” Telus says Bell should have filed a complaint to the CRTC if it believed Telus wronged it on wholesale access instead of taking retaliatory action by allegedly degrading its services in Ontario and Quebec. Bell said in response that filing a complaint to the CRTC would have delayed wholesale competition in western Canada “by months, if not years.”
Regardless, Telus says even if Bell had a legitimate grievance, it has no bearing on its interim relief application. “The Commission cannot condone this kind of behaviour.”
Bell alleges that there was an example of Telus being moved by retaliatory action. Bell claims that it attempted to launch 1.5 Gbps internet service using Telus’s network in October 2025, but was told that wasn’t possible until later this year because the required equipment was not available from the manufacturer.
“In response, and as permitted under its tariff, Bell enforced reciprocity by suspending Telus’ eligibility for 1.5 Gbps speeds from Bell,” Bell said. “As soon as that action was taken, Telus suddenly discovered that it could in fact deliver 1.5 Gbps speeds in compliance with its tariff and agreed to do so within days. This was a deliberate and calculated attempt by Telus to block implementation of the Commission’s framework in Alberta and British Columbia that was only remedied when there were commercial consequences for Telus.”
Bell’s claims come in response to a complaint filed by Telus to the CRTC alleging that Bell has been “degrading” the Vancouver-based telecom’s access to Bell’s fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) network in Ontario and Quebec. Telus is asking the CRTC to force Bell to restore services before the alleged start date of the degrading – January 14 – and refrain from changing service it provides to Telus without consent.
Despite heavy redactions in the back-and-forth submissions, Telus’s reply document, dated Wednesday, references alleged changes in Bell’s API and functionality once available on a portal system that is now available on another interface.
“Contrary to Telus’ assertions, Bell has not taken inappropriate self-help or denied Telus access to mandated services,” Bell says in its response document. “Bell has not prevented Telus from accessing mandated wholesale HSA over FTTP or removed functionality necessary to make mandated wholesale HSA service workable.”
“The data conclusively proves that Telus has and continues to have workable access to Bell’s mandated wholesale HSA, including the ability to place new orders and to modify the service of existing end-users,” Bell claims. “Telus has placed new orders and modified existing end-users every single day.”
Bell admits there was an initial adjustment period, which it called “at most” a “temporary inconvenience,” but Telus’s volume of new orders has returned to “normal levels.” In parts of the response, dated Monday, it claims Telus’s failure is of its own making.
Telus disputes how Bell characterizes the problem: “Bell’s description of the degradation of the Service as an ‘update’ is misleading,” it claims in the reply document. “If the degradation were truly an ‘update’ … [it] would have provided enough advance notice to allow its customers to update their own systems.”
“Bell did neither, because the so-called ‘update’ was a degradation intended to weaken its strongest competitor,” Telus further alleges.
Bell is asking the commission to reject Telus’s application or else it will “cement” the “current inequity” and deprive “all ISPs and Western consumers of the benefits of the Commission’s wholesale HSA framework.”
If these allegations are true, then it would bely Telus’s claim that it welcomes Bell in western Canada.
Last year, Telus filed an undue preference complaint claiming Bell is deliberately obstructing its ability to introduce its broadcasting services over the larger telco’s last-mile fibre facilities in eastern Canada. A month later, Bell accused Telus of unfairly treating some of its newly branded TV services in light of Telus signing a distribution deal for Rogers’s competing channels. That same month, Bell filed an application in the Ontario Superior Court accusing Telus of training and using door-to-door salespeople to pitch an unlicensed IPTV application to get customers to switch to Telus internet services. Telus claimed it dealt with these “rogue” agents.
Telus has publicly stated numerous times that a key part of its strategy to gain market share in eastern Canada is to package and delivery services, including premium television content, over internet it can wholesale from competing telecoms where it doesn’t have infrastructure.
