Editor’s note: This story has been updated on March 2 with a comment from Quebecor.
By Ahmad Hathout
TORONTO – Bell is temporarily pausing its next generation 9-1-1 network until further notice, according to a Friday email from a Bell technician seen by Cartt.
“Bell Canada is advising all Originating Network Providers of a temporary embargo for NG9-1-1 Onboarding and Go-Live activities,” said Richard Little, a technical network specialist for Bell’s emergency services division said in the email to representatives of the providers. “The embargo will continue until further notice.
“ONPs will be notified once our planned resumption of activities is known,” Little added.
In a statement, a Bell spokesperson told Cartt that the company is on target for the March 2025 implementation date and “in fact, some carriers are already fully onboarded and transmitting live 9-1-1 calls over the network.” Bell declined to elaborate on the email.
In November, Bell filed a Part 1 application to the CRTC accusing Videotron of not paying certain 9-1-1 fees. Videotron filed its own Part 1 a month later saying Bell should not be able to charge for two separate 9-1-1 networks at the same time when it is only using one network. It added that the transition to the new network – which would allow for callers to send video and medical information to first responders – is taking too long. Videotron is asking for a refund of the portion of costs that has gone to a network it is not using and revised rates because the older rates are too high.
“Once again, Bell’s attitude says a lot about its complete disregard for a matter that is vital to the safety of Canadians,” Quebecor said in a statement. “This shutdown by Bell means they are not meeting their regulatory obligations as a 9-1-1 service provider. They are required to provide Next Generation 9-1-1 service and it was supposed to be in operation by March of last year. This also supports our most recent filings with the CRTC, in which we argued that Telecom Service Providers should not be required to pay twice for 9-1-1 services, especially for services they’re not even receiving. Videotron’s proposal to pay 9-1-1 fees based on actual usage would allow Canadians to access 9-1-1 services at a fair and reasonable price and force Bell to quickly implement NG9-1-1 service.”
A central component in Bell’s intervention in the matter is the claim that both existing 9-1-1 network and the next generation 9-1-1 network are fully functional. What’s lagging is onboarding for certain carriers and public safety answering points (PSAP), those entities that receive the calls from the originating point.
Bell said some carriers are fully transmitting their subscriber phone traffic over the network, some are done onboarding and testing activities but have yet to launch their live traffic, and others are still testing or awaiting vendor fixes to correct errors during the testing process.
“Although Videotron lays the blame for delays in the transition to NG9 1-1 on ILECs [such as Bell], the reality is that there are material technical and operational challenges involved with: a) the launch of an entirely new IP-based 9-1-1 network; and b) conducting such onboarding activities without risking the successful delivery of live emergency 9-1-1 calls,” Bell said.
“The varying stages of readiness of carriers and PSAPs during the transition period demonstrates that both the E9-1-1 and the NG9-1-1 networks must coexist in order for 9-1-1 calls to be able to transit from one network to the other network,” Bell added.
Bell added that the commission intended for there to be simultaneous rates for both networks to be charged during the transition period.
It noted that a letter sent from Pierre Karl Peladeau, CEO of parent company Quebecor, to the minister of innovation in December about eliminating the simultaneous payments for the two networks shows that the most senior people at the company know that regulatory change, not a refusal to pay, is the proper avenue.
“To the extent a party disagrees with a regulation, the appropriate course of action is to submit an application to review and vary the Commission’s past determinations in this respect or, where it is justified to do so, propose a new regulation,” Bell said in the submission, published on the CRTC website in the middle of this month.
“It is unacceptable for a carrier to cease complying with a regulation simply because it disagrees with that regulation, as Videotron has done,” Bell added. “Under the circumstances a significant Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) against Videotron is warranted.”
Telus, the other ILEC responsible for administering the new 9-1-1 system, added in its own submission that Videotron “demonstrates a lack of understanding” of the 9-1-1 regime and its requests should be denied. The Vancouver-based company said the obligations of Videotron and of the ILECs are radically different, with the latter having to handle a number of other tasks that carriers like Videotron don’t, such as dealing with local governments and PSAPs. It added that the current 9-1-1 system needs to remain up while the transition to the new IP-based system takes shape, thus requiring payments for both.
SaskTel, another ILEC implementing the new network, fully backed Bell’s submission without much elaboration.
Rogers, a fellow cable company, supported Videotron’s argument that fees for the current 9-1-1 services are too high, saying they are “inflated and stale.” It is asking for a review of those older rates. “Millions of dollars are still being collected by the ILECs while various network elements should be completely paid for,” Rogers said in its submission.
Cogeco also took Videotron’s side on the matter in its own submission. “Telecommunications service providers should not have to pay for service that is not only not functional, but further, whose in-service date remains unknown due to a number of technical factors,” it said, adding it has no problem with having two simultaneous networks until the decommissioning of the older one in 2025.
“Telecommunications service providers are not benefiting from the NG 911 service,” Cogeco added. “Further, they are unnecessarily funding Bell and other ILECs on an ongoing basis, in an exercise that is contrary to the CRTC’s own rate-setting principles.”
Cogeco is asking the CRTC to reimburse providers for the fees already paid and for the ILECs not to charge until the new network is in service.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre alleged that the ILECs have an incentive to move slowly on implementing the new network – to reap two payments. It agrees with Videotron that the existing 9-1-1 rates should be revisited to account for amortization of the network, but that Videotron should not withhold funds while this reconsideration takes place.
“The problem is that the Commission has created this problem, this untenable structure, and it is not the fault of either or both Bell and Videotron that it is both unworkable and effectively designed to bring them into conflict,” PIAC said in the submission.
