Cable companies and competitors wade into Telus forbearance application

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that cable companies and other telecom competitors have waded into the debate regarding Telus Corp.’s forbearance application for the city of Fort McMurray AB (NL, Oct. 27/06), stating that the ILEC’s application should be denied. But at the same time, like-minded ILECs support Telus’ application. In a joint submission, Bell Canada and Bell Aliant argue that the CRTC has to adopt Telus’ proposal for a smaller forbearance region because under current rules, ILECs would have to lose much more than 25% market share before they could apply for forbearance. In the Ottawa economic region, for example, Bell estimates that it would have to lose 100% of its residential customers in exchanges where competitors offer service in order to file a forbearance application. The companies note that SaskTel’s chances of meeting forbearance criteria are equally slim in many parts of its serving territory because the local forbearance regions (LFRs) are too large geographically. "In other words, in places like Yorkton and Prince Albert, where cable telephony entry will occur, it is likely there will never be local service economic deregulation unless an alternative geographic market definition is adopted," reads the two companies’ submission. Bell and Bell Aliant suggest that the commission should expand the scope of acceptable relevant markets to include local exchanges in addition to LFRs. "Formally recognizing local exchanges as acceptable geographic markets will benefit consumers by reducing regulatory lag in the evolution to fully competitive market conditions, increase the level of regulatory certainty in the industry and lower regulatory costs related to needlessly debating the local exchange market definition in every local forbearance application that uses such a definition," states their submission. Competitors, however, agree with comments from Shaw Communications Inc. that Telus’ application is nothing more than an application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2006-15, the CRTC’s forbearance ruling (NL, Nov. 9/06). The cable companies – Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Inc. and Quebecor Media Inc. – argue that Telus’ suggestion that the LFRs as set out by the commission isn’t appropriate and should be subject to a review and vary petition not a forbearance application. "This kind of charge should not be allowed through the ‘back door.’ It is clear that through its application, Telus is seeking to re-argue its original position in favour of using overlapping service areas as the relevant local market. In this case, Telus argues that the local exchange service as a valid proxy for the overlap," write the companies, adding this was rejected by the CRTC in its decision. Telus also requested in its application that it be excused from having to provide the competitor quality of service (CQoS) indicators. Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. notes that according to the CRTC’s decision alternate proposals for providing the CQoS criteria aren’t open to debate. The Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc. (CCSA) also objects to Telus’ request to be removed from having to meet the CQoS requirements. The association, which represents many of the country’s small cable system operators, notes that many of its members rely on ILECs’ facilities to provide local telephony services. "Granting Telus’ application for local forbearance in Fort McMurray when it has yet to satisfy CQoS standards would fundamentally alter the commission’s forbearance framework," writes the CCSA.

Cable companies and competitors wade into Telus forbearance application

News | December 8, 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