By Ahmad Hathout
Internet service provider Fibernetics is accusing Rogers of undue preference by allegedly refusing to allow the independent telecom to use a third party transport service at the same building it already uses Rogers facilities to haul leased internet traffic back to its own office.
For years, the Cambridge, Ont.-based telecom said it has been leasing, via the third party internet access (TPIA) regime, capacity from Shaw, which was gobbled up by Rogers last year. In that configuration, the telecom hauls the internet traffic using Rogers’s ethernet transport mile to its own Calgary office.
But in a Part 1 application filed last week, the independent telecom said it requested in mid-August a second TPIA arrangement with Rogers at the same interconnection point, but this time using a third party to haul the traffic back to its office. Fibernetics claims in the application that the third party, with which it had a firm offer for service on October 16, offers three times the capacity of Rogers while being cheaper to lease per month.
Rogers allegedly told Fibernetics that the nearest interconnection point at which it can provide that second TPIA interconnection service was at a building half a kilometre away from the one it currently uses, which Fibernetics said would increase its transport costs and take at least 32 weeks to complete.
Fibernetics said it went back to Rogers about its request to have its third party connect to the same Rogers building, saying that the third party already has fibre running in that building and not at the alternative location Rogers proposed. It also said it warned Rogers that it appeared like the company was providing itself an undue preference by insisting on the other location.
On October 3, Fibernetics alleges that visual inspections were made by all parties involved, including a Rogers technician, and all allegedly agreed that a “fibre meet-me point within the building made the most sense as the third party fibre and terminal hardware were already present” in the building Fibernetics would like to use.
That same day, however, Fibernetics alleges Rogers denied the request and insisted on the alternative location.
“Rogers is clearly providing an undue preference toward itself, in having the meet-me point for its own self-provided transport service (which Fibernetics is currently leasing) within the TPIA building, yet for any other party the backhaul service meet-me point is located a half kilometre away in a fibre vault (with a different address),” the application said.
“Rogers has exercised its power as a dominant carrier and is insisting on an inefficient meet-me point for TPIA service to the detriment of Fibernetics and all potential backhaul providers,” Fibernetics alleges in the application.
“The relief that Fibernetics is requesting to address the situation is equally straightforward,” it added. “An order requiring Rogers to comply with the using a POI that is already established, available, and ready to use.”
