TNW pushing ahead with Part 1 despite WiFi MVNO decision

TNW Wireless Inc. is still hopeful the CRTC will rule in its favour in a Part 1 complaint to force BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. to negotiate roaming plans so it can implement its proposed national WiFi-based wireless service, according to company president Lawry Trevor-Deutsch. The company has told the CRTC it is going ahead with the complaint, even though the regulator declined to mandate wholesale access for WiFi-first mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) last week. “We feel that the decision that was made week doesn’t really affect our original Part 1,” he said in a phone interview. That decision was prompted by a WiFi-first service offered by Iristel Inc.’s Sugar Mobile, and reaffirmed that large telecoms don’t have to allow Sugar Mobile or similar services to roam on their networks. In the wake of the ruling, the CRTC sent a letter to TNW asking if it wanted to go ahead with the application. TNW has maintained its service is different from Sugar Mobile. It first filed a Part 1 complaint with the CRTC in July 2017 to make Bell and Telus provide it with wholesale roaming agreements so that it can move forward with its proposed Internet Personal Communication System (iPCS). “Our contention with iPCS is that we were always compliant with the existing rules in place. We were never asking for a change in rules, we were not asking the CRTC to change the regulatory environment,” Trevor-Deutsch said. He said iPCS is different from Sugar Mobile because TNW is a facilities-based carrier while Sugar Mobile was an MVNO. “The difference is that we use our network exclusively for every call. We use WiFi not as an extension to our home network, but as a way of remotely accessing our home network,” he said, adding it’s not much different from WiFi calling used by large carriers. “We’re always using our equipment and we’re always using our spectrum. Every call, whether it’s on WiFi or whether it’s on our system, our footprint, uses our licensed wireless spectrum, and that makes it completely different than the Sugar model,” he said. However, wireless providers disagreed with the company’s arguments, telling the CRTC the service doesn’t qualify for mandatory roaming. In its letter to TNW, the CRTC gave TNW until April 13 to supplement its initial application and the other companies until May 3 for additional reply comments. TNW Wireless is “completely independent” from the TNW assets purchased by Distributel Communications Ltd. late last year and has no relationship with Distributel, Trevor-Deutsch said.

TNW pushing ahead with Part 1 despite WiFi MVNO decision

Brief | March 28, 2018

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

TNW pushing ahead with Part 1 despite WiFi MVNO decision

Brief | March 28, 2018

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus sales people promoting illegal TV pirating service to entice customers, Bell alleges

Telus accuses Bell, Rogers of hindering television rollout at CRTC hearing

Iristel arguments in interconnection fight with Bell, Northwestel dismissed again by CRTC

Bell says broadcasters, streamers should pay into fund for mandatory services

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us