Superior loses fight against TBayTel over digital roaming

The CRTC has settled a digital roaming dispute between Superior Wireless and Thunder Bay Telephone (TBayTel) with TBayTel coming out on top. The commission ruled that Superior’s customers were not subjected to unjust discrimination when TBayTel cut off digital roaming. The following is an edited excerpt of Telecom Decision 2006-33. The commission considers that because other wireless service providers’ customers are permitted to roam on TBayTel’s digital network in area Tel-24, while Superior’s customers are not, Superior and its customers are subject to discrimination by TBayTel within the meaning of section 27 of the Act. At the same time, the commission notes that discrimination in and of itself is not contrary to the Telecommunications Act. The commission notes that, unlike Superior’s network, the networks of the wireless service providers whose customers are permitted to roam on TBayTel’s digital network in area Tel-24 do not overlap with TBayTel’s network in that territory. Accordingly, the commission considers that the circumstances applicable to those service providers’ customers are very different from the circumstances pertaining to Superior’s customers. In this regard, the commission notes that the only wireless service provider whose network, like Superior’s, does overlap with that of TBayTel in area Tel-24 is Rogers Wireless, which does not have a roaming agreement with TBayTel. The commission agrees with TBayTel’s submission that the purpose of roaming is to enable a wireless customer to obtain service outside the area where the customer’s service provider is licensed to operate. The commission notes that this view is consistent with the Mobility Canada Agreement referred to by TBayTel in its Feb. 2, 2006 response to commission interrogatories. Based on the record of this proceeding, the commission considers that Superior is using TBayTel’s facilities in area Tel-24, and hence roaming arrangements, to provide service to its customers where it does not have network coverage in area Tel-24. The commission considers that this use of roaming is inconsistent with the purpose of roaming arrangements in general and with the 2001 roaming agreement in particular. The commission also considers that the degree of competition in the wireless market is a significant consideration. 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 28, 2003, the commission considered that the wireless market was characterized by rivalrous behaviour and was robustly competitive. The commission considers that the robustly competitive nature of the wireless market suggests that the commission should exercise restraint with respect to the application of its powers under subsection 27(2) of the Act. The commission considers that an important issue in this proceeding is the impact of TBayTel’s actions on Superior’s customers. Based on the record of this proceeding, the commission finds that while Superior customers have been affected, they do have options available to them to mitigate such impact, including the possibility of roaming on TBayTel’s analog network in area Tel-24. In light of the above, the commission finds that TBayTel has not unjustly discriminated against Superior and its customers.

Superior loses fight against TBayTel over digital roaming

News | June 1, 2006

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