By Ahmad Hathout
Quebecor is asking the CRTC to vary a decision related to its subsidiaries’ access to Bell’s mobile wireless network and to get the telco to reimburse it for amounts paid in excess of the mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) tariff established by the CRTC.
For about a year now, the company’s telecom subsidiaries, Videotron and Freedom Mobile, have been paying Bell regular roaming rates to operate as MVNOs in certain areas as Quebecor grows its business as a fourth player. Quebecor says these rates are “considerably higher” than the MVNO rates proposed by Bell and picked by the CRTC during final offer arbitration (FOA).
One day after the FOA decision, on October 11, 2023, Quebecor’s subsidiaries started marketing their services as an MVNO operating on Bell’s network. But there was a wrinkle: When Quebecor asked for an MVNO access agreement based on the commission-established tariff, Bell required it to first sign a standard off-tariff network access agreement that laid out the terms of that connection. Quebecor appealed on the basis that it believed that was an unnecessary step.
The CRTC said this summer that Quebecor had to sign a separate MVNO access agreement with Bell before the application of the commission-imposed tariff to access the telco’s mobile wireless network. The commission then directed the companies to come to an MVNO agreement by September 12, 2024.
But therein lies one of several problems with the CRTC’s decision, according to Quebecor’s application to review-and-vary made public this week: The CRTC failed to consider that Quebecor’s subsidiaries have already been operating as MVNOs on Bell’s network since October 11, 2023.
In other words, if Quebecor is required to sign a separate network access agreement, how are its subsidiaries operating as MVNOs on Bell’s network without one?
It also argues the CRTC cannot say that the parties must sign a commercial agreement as a prerequisite for access while also establishing a date (September 12) for that access before that agreement is signed – unless Bell could’ve provided that service without what Quebecor still calls an “ancillary” agreement.
“The Commission therefore recognized that, in fact, it was entirely possible for Bell to provide the services and for Quebecor Media to operate as an MVNO even in the absence of such an agreement,” Quebecor argues in its application. “It is in reality an ancillary agreement whose purpose is to complement the Tariff and whose negotiation must not harm the parties.”
(It is worth noting that the CRTC has previously “directed” or “ordered” companies to come to MVNO agreements to increase competition in the market, but those were merely expectations and not hard deadlines carrying penalties.)
Quebecor is also arguing that the commission is unfairly penalizing it by setting a date of September 12, 2024, instead of making the agreement retroactive to October 11, 2023, despite finding issues in Bell’s position.
First, Quebecor argues the CRTC found in its August decision that Bell should have provided Quebecor with a draft access agreement before the FOA decision, which Quebecor claims would’ve resolved the issue.
Second, the CRTC also found that Bell included in its access agreement a clause that the CRTC said would “impose a significant additional burden on the MVNO (Quebecor).”
How can it be, Quebecor asks, that Bell was rewarded with a “windfall” in the higher rates Quebecor’s subsidiaries have been paying for 11 months when it found deficiencies in Bell’s access agreement and conduct, which Quebec alleges were a deliberate delay tactic?
“Having to pay Bell excess access charges … substantially impedes our ability to deploy our facilities in areas where we rely on wholesale MVNO access,” Quebecor says in its application.
“The above reasons,” it continued, “demonstrate that the Decision achieves an unfair result, highly prejudicial to Quebecor Media, contrary to the objectives of the Commission’s policies, in addition to rewarding Bell for deficient behaviour.”
