Inter-carrier Wi-Fi roaming, is it anticompetitive?

Mark Wolinsky recently commented to Report on Wireless that at the time the inter-carrier Wi-Fi roaming agreement was signed in August 2003 he felt it to be anticompetitive towards independent Wi-Fi operators (see lead article). RoW editor Perry Hoffman expressed similar concerns to CRTC chair Charles Dalfen in the fall of 2003. The following are his responses via an email dated Sept. 22, 2003. Report on Wireless: Canada’s wireless carriers inked an agreement last month about implementing roaming standards between their cellular networks and their Wi-Fi networks. In this type of situation, the mobile wireless operators have the ability to now exert their market dominance to the detriment of the small independent Wi-Fi operators. Does this raise any competitive issues in the eyes of the Commission? Charles Dalfen: Agreements of this type have often been used, in the past, to promote early adoption of emerging technologies and services, and to extend geographical coverage of such services. In the wireless sector such segments have been used to govern the roaming of mobile subscribers, for the delivery of short-message service (SMS) messages and for the sharing of infrastructure, including towers. RoW: Don’t you think that this type of scenario could potentially lead to a Microsoft situation where it signed agreements with computer manufacturers to promote its Internet Explorer browser at the expense of Netscape Communications’ Internet browser? CD: The Commission has the jurisdiction pursuant to subsection 27 (2) of the Telecommunications Act to deal with situations where a Canadian carrier, including a wireless carrier, has in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, either unjustly discriminated or given an undue preference towards any person including itself. RoW: Would the Commission intervene is this type of situation where one part of the Internet service segment was being shut out of the market due to the wireless carriers’ dominance? CD: In the event that a party, including a Wi-Fi operator believed that the actions of a wireless carriers has or would result either in unjust discrimination or an undue preference, it could file an application with the Commission. Similarly, the Commission could on its own motion investigate the situation. RoW: What would it take for the Commission to intervene in this area? CD: Any Commission determination is dependent on the facts of the particular case before it. For example, in Application by Microcell regarding alleged contraventions of section 27 (2) of the Telecommunications Act by Rogers Wireless and Bell Mobility, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-26 April 2003, the Commission considered allegations that a resale and roaming agreement between wireless carriers controlled by the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) raised competitive concerns. In that case, after considering all of the facts, the Commission concluded that the particular resale and roaming agreement did not inhibit competitive rivalry. Any Commission consideration of the Wi-Fi roaming agreement would, likewise, be dependent on the particular facts.

Inter-carrier Wi-Fi roaming, is it anticompetitive?

News | October 21, 2004

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us