Hard handoffs the norm in North America, Rogers and Bell say

Seamless roaming from one wireless network to another isn’t the norm in North America, incumbent wireless carriers Rogers Communications Inc. and Bell Canada say. “When Rogers’ customers pass from Rogers’ network to third party networks, their calls also drop as do those of other carriers,” Rogers wrote to the commission in response to a complaint Wind Mobile filed with the CRTC in October. Rogers said there is only one “limited exception” to hard handoffs in three areas along the Canada-U.S. border, where AT&T and Rogers share the same frequency. In those areas, Rogers said it has established arrangements for “seamless handoffs”—where calls are not dropped when customers leave one network and connect to another—to avoid customer calls going to the wrong carrier on the wrong side of the border. “In other border areas, Rogers’ customers experience dropped calls when they cross the U.S. border regardless of whether they wish to roam on AT&T, T-Mobile or other U.S. wireless carriers,” Rogers said in a Nov. 12 submission to the CRTC. “There is no discrimination against WIND because hard handoff is the norm in North America.” Last month, Wind Mobile filed a complaint with the CRTC, accusing Rogers of refusing to offer Wind seamless roaming services while advertising that Chatr, the new Rogers’ discount brand, is offering “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.” Wind filed the complaint under section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act, which says no carrier can provide telecom services that “unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference” toward itself, others, or “subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.” Wind asked the commission to direct Rogers to offer it the same seamless call handoffs it provides to Rogers customers, including services provided under Rogers’ Chatr and Fido brands. But Rogers, along with Bell Canada, says hard handoffs are the industry standard. In a comment submitted with the commission on Nov. 12, Bell Canada argued the issue of seamless roaming does not amount to an undue preference partly because hard handoffs are “the prevalent and dominant commercial roaming standard in Canada, the U.S and Europe.” “Bell Mobility historically has roaming agreements with virtually all domestic carriers, including MTS Mobility, SaskTel Mobility, Thunder Bay Tel Mobility, Telebec and Northern Telephone,” Bell wrote. “These roaming agreements are still in place. The network interconnection has always been established through a roaming clearinghouse. Each operates utilizing hard handoff.” Rogers added in its submission that its customers also lose their calls when moving to third-party carriers. “When customers use Rogers’ services, including the Chatr service, and roam onto a third party’s network, their calls are also dropped. There is no seamless handoff capability,” Rogers said. Rogers has asked the CRTC to deny Wind’s application, adding that the company is trying to appeal to a “sympathetic regulator” instead of going to the proper authority, Industry Canada. “WIND also appears to be shopping for a sympathetic regulator. The CRTC has historically not regulated carrier’s marketing activities leaving this area of regulation to the Commissioner of Competition and the courts,” Rogers said. Rogers argues Wind participated in the 2008 spectrum auction knowing that Industry Canada had set a policy that it would not require seamless handoffs as conditions in the licences awarded to successful bidders. Telus Communications Co. also commented on the complaint in a Nov. 12 submission. Telus and Bell argued the matter is not within the CRTC’s jurisdiction because it involves licence conditions set by Industry Canada. They said Industry Minister Tony Clement is the proper authority to address the issue. The licence conditions must be evaluated “in light of the AWS policy framework established by the Minister and other related documents referred to by WIND in its application. The Minister is the appropriate person to decide these issues, not the CRTC,” Telus wrote. In a another submission dated Nov. 12, new entrant Mobilicity argued the matter is within the CRTC’s jurisdiction, alluding to a 2009 Supreme Court decision, Bell Canada v. Bell Aliant Regional Communications, which said the commission should consider the objectives under section 7 of the Telecom Act “in the exercise of all its powers.” Mobilicity said the commission should consider the policy objectives of increasing “the efficiency and competitiveness” of the market and creating “reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians.” “Industry Canada’s jurisdiction under the Radiocommunication Act is separate and distinct from the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Act,” Mobilicity wrote. Mobilicity supports Wind’s complaint that Rogers refuses to provide seamless handoffs to competitors while targeting the new entrants with its marketing and discount brand. Mobilicity said Rogers’ Chatr brand launched on July 28 “in the same five cities in which Mobilicity currently operates or plans to operate.” It added: “Chatr markets itself as the ‘The no worries network,’ stating that ‘With chatr, you’ll have no worries about dropped calls.’” Wind has until Nov. 22 to reply to the comments. Following that, the commission is expected to take up to six months to issue a decision. Wind and Mobilicity have also filed complaints about the launch of Chatr with the Competition Bureau. sdoyle@thewirereport.ca

Hard handoffs the norm in North America, Rogers and Bell say

News | 11/16/2010 11:06 pm EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us