By Ahmad Hathout
Quebecor’s plea that the start date be retroactive for its access to Bell’s wireless network on mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) rates flies in the face of the CRTC’s requirement that an agreement for that access first be signed, Bell is arguing to the regulator.
The CRTC ruled this past summer that Quebecor must sign a separate network access agreement on top of a commission-established tariff agreement to access Bell’s network on MVNO rates. Quebecor alleged in a review-and-vary application challenging that decision last month that the regulator failed to consider that Freedom Mobile and Videotron are already operating as MVNOs without such an agreement, and that the CRTC had contradicted itself by both requiring such an agreement and establishing a hard date (September 12, 2024) to come to an agreement with no guarantee that the parties would sign the agreement in question.
Quebecor has asked the CRTC to backdate the MVNO agreement to October 11, 2023 – when it started marketing its services – and force Bell to pay the difference between the higher roaming rates it pays for access and the yet-to-be instituted MVNO rates picked by the commission in final offer arbitration in August.
In a response posted Tuesday, Bell says it is irrelevant how Quebecor markets its subsidiaries and how it interprets a date to come to an agreement established by the commission: the CRTC already established the prerequisite for that access in the separate network agreement that it says other providers require as well.
“The Commission has correctly determined as a matter of law that an MVNO access agreement must be entered into before the MVNO access service and associated rate will apply,” Bell said in its reply. “Even if this requirement caused delay, and regardless of who was at fault for that delay, it would remain a requirement and would not amount to a preference (let alone one that was undue). But in any event, Bell did not act unreasonably, and the Commission did not make any such finding.”
Bell also argues – in response to Quebecor’s claim that Bell intentionally delayed access – that squabbles over the drafting of an MVNO access package “did not eliminate the need for an MVNO access agreement to initiate the MVNO access service” under the regime’s framework.
Quebecor argues the CRTC is unfairly penalizing it by setting the date (September 12, 2024) for access almost a full year from October 11, 2023, even though the regulator itself found deficiencies on Bell’s part: it didn’t provide Quebecor a draft access agreement before the FOA decision, and that Bell included in its access agreement a clause the CRTC found would put an undue burden on Quebecor.
But Bell alleges Quebecor misunderstood the CRTC’s point on this.
“The Commission stated, ‘when the Commission directed Bell Mobility and QMI to enter into an MVNO access agreement in the FOA decision, it expected them to negotiate reasonable ancillary terms and conditions in good faith’ adding that ‘it should be possible for parties to negotiate such terms quickly,’” Bell said. “The facts show that Bell made genuine efforts to work with QMI in good faith to finalize the MVNO access agreement, while QMI repeatedly and unnecessarily delayed progress and ignored the Commission’s rules and decisions.
“QMI’s approach effectively blocked any chance for the parties to resolve their disagreements,” Bell alleges. “Any outstanding issues could have been easily clarified and addressed had QMI raised them sooner…”
Bell further alleges that it is Quebecor, not Bell, that is seeking a windfall payment by demanding it pay retroactive fees. Quebecor has alleged that Bell has unjustly enriched itself by deliberately delaying access on those lower MVNO rates. But Bell argues that Quebecor has been making payments – regardless of how much – that are owed to the telco because, at the end of the day, the prerequisite agreement for the lower MVNO rates had not been fulfilled.
