OTTAWA – Bell and Telus fired back at Rogers over the telecom’s claim the cross-band spectrum caps proposed by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) for the upcoming 3800 MHz spectrum auction are “wildly anti-competitive”.
As Cartt.ca reported last month, comments submitted to ISED’s Consultation on a Policy and Licensing Framework for Spectrum in the 3800 MHz Band, shows the country’s telecoms are divided on which, if any, pro-competitive measures should be adopted for the upcoming 3800 MHz spectrum auction.
Rogers submitted initial comments to the consultation claiming a proposal by ISED to introduce cross-band spectrum caps (which would apply across the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands) is “wildly anti-competitive for facilities-based competition,” and arguing the measure “could destroy facilities-based competition between the two national networks.”
The telecom considers Bell and Telus to have a single, combined national network due to their network sharing agreement, and therefore claimed the Bell/Telus network would be allowed to benefit from twice as much spectrum as Rogers itself would have access to. Rogers argued there was no justification for this when Bell and Telus combined have only “about half again as many customers”* as it does.
In its reply comments submitted to the consultation last month, Telus disputed this claim, arguing Rogers “quotes incomplete and/or inaccurate subscriber data to make its points.”
Telus’ submission said, “Rogers reports a subscriber ratio of 1 to 1.6 for Rogers versus TELUS and Bell, relying on 2021Q3 subscriber statistics cited from a recent CWTA study.” However, Telus argued Rogers’ ratio has omitted “millions of connected devices supported by TELUS,” which “include tablets that consume significant capacity – as much, or more than smartphones.”
Telus makes the case in its submission that both it and Bell individually support more subscribers than Rogers, contrary to Rogers’ own claims. Based on a complete set of data, “a 100 MHz cross-band cap still marginally favours Rogers,” Telus argued.
While still emphasizing its opposition to spectrum caps, in its initial comments to the proceeding Rogers also indicated if ISED ultimately felt spectrum caps were necessary, they should be designed in such a way that Bell and Telus combined would not be able to acquire more spectrum than Rogers itself would have access to.
In its own reply comments, Bell called this proposal “a blatant attempt to convince the Department to impose an unprecedented new rule that would allow Rogers to secure more spectrum than either of its two largest competitors.”
Rogers argued, however, consumers will suffer if the spectrum cap (as proposed by ISED) is implemented. According to the company’s reply comments, “a tight cross-spectrum cap that does not address the anti-competitive nature of Bell and Telus’ spectrum pooling arrangement will irreparably damage the competitive landscape of the Canadian wireless market, with consumers ultimately suffering.”
Bell argued despite what Rogers says, there is nothing anti-competitive about its arrangement with Telus.
“Contrary to Rogers’ continuous use of the term “anti-competitive spectrum pooling”, there is nothing anti-competitive about the network sharing arrangement between Bell and Telus,” its submission reads.
“All subordinate spectrum licence applications were reviewed by the Department and approved by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. In addition, there is, and was, nothing preventing Rogers from entering into similar arrangements – and they have done so on a significant basis.”
At this point, ISED “is carefully considering the comments received from stakeholders and will release a decision on the licensing framework for spectrum in the 3800 MHz band in the coming months,” an ISED spokesperson told Cartt.ca.
*A previous version of this article said this was half as many customers in error.
