By Ahmad Hathout
The CRTC on Thursday confirmed a preliminary view that regional mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) should have access to shared wireless networks even when an agreement is reached with just one of the carriers.
The commission determined Thursday that the network sharing agreements between Bell and Telus make them one national network “that results in both carriers being national wireless carriers that possess market power,” upholding a view on which it asked for comments in October.
To deny regional players access to parts of that contiguous network would, therefore, confer on the large telcos an undue preference and an unreasonable disadvantage to competitors, the regulator ruled.
“The Commission considers that if Bell Mobility and TELUS serve their own customers using each other’s facilities through a network-sharing agreement, then regional wireless carriers and their end-users may be unjustly discriminated against, and Bell Mobility and TELUS may be conferring upon themselves an undue preference,” the CRTC said Thursday.
Beside the administrative cost savings of avoiding negotiating two separate agreements, the CRTC also said access to the shared network could lead to lower wholesale roaming rates “since regional carriers would be able to bargain with either Bell Mobility, Rogers, or TELUS to obtain national roaming coverage and could select the most competitive rate. Having lower wholesale costs for regional carriers makes them more effective competitors because it improves their margins and ability to compete on price.”
The CRTC is asking that both Bell and Telus file revised tariff pages to reflect this new order within 30 days.
The commission’s preliminary view was supported by Rogers, Quebecor, Cogeco, Eastlink, Ecotel, the Competitive Network Operators of Canada, the Independent Telecommunications Providers Association, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
But Bell and Telus put up some resistance, arguing there’s no undue preference or disadvantage here. Both argued that regulatory intervention was unnecessary because wholesale roaming regimes already ensure access to both their networks at competitive rates with dispute resolution and arbitration (the CRTC’s MVNO framework relies on commercial negotiations, with the regulator acting as an arbiter when those deals cannot be reached).
Telus also said it doesn’t have network control over Bell’s facilities, and the CRTC’s view raises legal, technical and practical challenges, including the two not being allowed to coordinate access rates to their facilities. The regulator, however, noted that Telus has already negotiated MVNO rates with regional carriers for access to Bell’s network, and that both telcos have “collaborated to determine compensatory arrangements that allow both parties to offer roaming services to their retail customers.
“The Commission considers that there are no technical or operational reasons that would prevent Bell Mobility and TELUS from providing access to the full shared network for wholesale roaming,” the CRTC said. “This is supported by the fact that Bell Mobility and TELUS already provide regional carriers with access to the shared network for MVNO access. In addition, as Cogeco submitted, network-sharing agreements are currently in place between Rogers and TBayTel and between Quebecor and Rogers, and this demonstrates that from a technical and operational standpoint, even carriers whose services are based on different technologies can successfully roam on each other’s networks.”
Photo via SaskTel
