By Ahmad Hathout
Telus is asking the CRTC to reconsider part of a July decision that determined Every-Day Computers (Ev-Com) satisfied the spectrum requirement to become a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) under the regulated framework — and to scrutinize broadly the spectrum being used to claim eligibility.
Ev-Com filed the initial application in January asking the CRTC to order Telus to provide access to its wireless network under the MNVO regime. But while the regulator ruled in July that Ev-Com did not satisfy all the requirements to get mandated access – namely, that it had not established a home network and was not offering retail services – it satisfied the criterion that it must hold a spectrum licence at the tier 4 level.
In a review-and-vary application made public Friday, Telus is asking the CRTC to revisit that finding on the grounds that Ev-Com’s Wireless Broadband Services spectrum – which are not obtained via competitive auction – is not intended to provide commercial services and that spectrum is expiring in March 2027, making any supposed use for a future public network deployment unachievable.
“The Commission’s interpretation of the spectrum license eligibility criterion in this decision, namely that holding any tier 4 spectrum for any minimal amount of time is sufficient to meet the spectrum requirement, is inconsistent with the test set out in the MVNO Framework established in TRP 2021-1302 and TD 2022-2883, when read contextually,” the application reads.
Telus also claims Ev-Com’s stated intention to transition to another spectrum band for the MVNO still does not make it eligible because the non-competitive local licensing (NCLL) in the 3.9 GHz band is not qualified for mandated access. The telco reasons that the spectrum does not have interference protection, so it cannot be used for exclusive, protected public mobile coverage and it does not have a tiered geographic service area structure.
“NCLL is clearly intended to serve highly localized services and is not designed to support the expanding coverage of commercial, publicly accessible RANs,” Telus claims, noting its intended use cases are in universities/colleges, stadiums, shopping centres, office buildings and for fixed wireless services in remote communities.
Telus claims that allowing the CRTC’s spectrum finding to stand will undermine the regulator’s intent to have MVNOs invest their revenue into building their own networks when it mandated access to the networks of the national telecoms and SaskTel in April 2021, thereby rejected a full MVNO regime that the larger players argued would create only resellers.
“The Commission’s narrow interpretation of the spectrum holding requirement in TD 2026-163 is indicative of a broad-based MVNO framework, which it explicitly rejected, and inconsistent with the core principle of its established facilities-based MVNO framework.”
But Baljinder Basra, founder, CEO and CTO of Ev-Com, claims that if Telus believes the WBS spectrum is improper for MVNO access, then why did it “setup talks originally in early 2026 and had provided draft agreements in early 2026”?
“The claims that some have that Ev-Com will not have a path forward past 2027 is absurd, and downright liable for defamation at this point,” Basra told us. “It’s tiring to see the company we built be brought down or delayed by national incumbents who refuse to share the scene for all Canadians to enjoy competition. We would love to invite TELUS to have proper discussions with us, but their team has time and time again refused, and has stonewalled on a few topics.
“To have a multi-billion-dollar company use outdated information without using correspondence from its team is embarrassing. We used NCLL in our original Part 1 Application to show one path, and that again was stressed as not the ‘main goal,’” Basra continued. “We have proved to everyone that NCLL was not a path forward, and it being on the 3.9Ghz band would not be able to reach most user handsets. This again was ignored by TELUS, and we brought forward a response to ISED and the CRTC outlining these concerns.
“If the MVNO framework is to be given a serious look into, it would have to be towards small startups, not major corporations looking to enter into a market, like we saw Quebecor do when it came into the market,” he added. “Small, rural TSPs should be able to have some sort of variance when it comes to spectrum, and if only three or two major telecoms have all the spectrum, it should be allowed to be shared with smaller providers.”
Asked about Basra’s claims, Telus declined to comment because the matter is before the CRTC, instead deferring to the regulator’s July conclusion that Ev-Com is not eligible for mandated MVNO access.
According to Ev-Com’s original CRTC application, Telus had effectively served as the arbiter of the CRTC’s intent, stonewalling the company because the Vancouver-based telco believed Ev-Com’s spectrum holding didn’t qualify it for mandated access.
“The mandated MVNO framework was designed to enable regional competition, not to create a circular ‘chicken-and-egg’ barrier where a new entrant must launch a national retail service before they can sign the roaming agreement required to make that service viable,” Basra told us at the time. “TELUS is attempting to act as a secondary regulator by auditing our government-issued spectrum licenses and imposing ‘eligibility’ tests that do not exist in the Tariff.”
Ev-Com has said without the ability to roam on the telco’s network, there will be areas where its service drops, which is “commercially fatal” to its viability: no customer wants to subscribe to an unreliable service, and launching a broken product to satisfy criteria to roam would damage its brand, it said.
