GATINEAU — In an application filed last week, Eastlink has asked the CRTC to review and vary its mid-February decision regarding the terms and conditions of access to cable carriers’ aggregated wholesale high-speed access (HSA) services (also known as third-party Internet access services).
In the decision issued February 14, the CRTC clarified the rules for resellers, saying they can offer HSA services on a wholesale basis to other resellers. The CRTC also directed Eastlink and other cable carriers to make a number of revisions to the terms and conditions of their wholesale HSA services.
While Eastlink doesn’t reference the general decision or most of the various revisions it required the cable carriers to make, the company has asked the Commission to reconsider its decision to deny Eastlink’s proposal to include a provision in its TPIA tariff that would allow the company to apply credit limits to customers.
In its R&V application, Eastlink suggests “the Commission failed to recognize that Eastlink’s primary concern is not protecting ourselves against late payment, but rather mitigating the significant financial risk we will inevitably bear when faced with non-payment.”
Setting credit limits is a common business practice and would allow Eastlink “to ensure that a customer is able to pay the amount owed up to the credit limit, which will minimize our risk should there be a default in payment.”
Eastlink says the Commission seems to have denied its request to be able to set credit limits “on the basis that it felt that Eastlink was already able to rely on existing tariff provisions that ensure that the customer would pay, such as our right to apply interest on overdue amounts. With all due respect, existing provisions do not mitigate or protect against the risks to Eastlink that the credit limit provisions were intended to address,” Eastlink writes in its R&V application.
Eastlink notes the Commission’s determinations regarding the company’s right to charge interest and cost recovery for pursuing payment being covered in the rate “are not relevant to credit limits as those provisions do not relate to non-pay, but to incentivizing payment.”
In a redacted section of its R&V application, Eastlink also says the ongoing Covid-19 situation has created a fundamental change in the company’s circumstances, which creates further reasons for allowing the company to include a credit limit provision in its TPIA tariff.
“These recent events have revealed that a number of TPIA customers have publicly described financial impacts and risks to their business as a result of the pandemic.” – Eastlink
“These recent events have revealed that a number of TPIA customers have publicly described financial impacts and risks to their business as a result of the pandemic, which raised additional concerns for Eastlink that there may be a heightened risk that Eastlink will be left with TPIA customers who do not pay, such that Eastlink and our retail customers will be forced to bear these losses,” reads Eastlink’s application.
Eastlink suggests the deposit provision in its tariff (allowing Eastlink to demand a deposit based on the credit history of the customer) combined with some credit limit would provide the most reasonable method for the company to manage risk and would minimally impact the TPIA customer.
“Combining a deposit with a credit limit allows us to minimize our risk of loss without having to seek a deposit worth two months of MRC [monthly recurring charges]. If the customer cannot pay when it reaches its credit limit, Eastlink would be able to limit the loss sooner, and apply the deposit to the balance, thereby reducing the amount of non-pay Eastlink must absorb. This is not a burden for the customer, who should be able to manage their business and make partial payments to the credit threshold,” Eastlink writes.
In the concluding section of its application, Eastlink submits there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Commission’s decision, and the company asks the Commission to vary its decision.
