Quebecor hits out at Bell’s ‘unfounded’ IBW extension request

Quebecor Inc. has urged the CRTC to deny a BCE Inc. request to indefinitely postpone its consultation on access to fibre in-building wire in multi-dwelling units, labelling Bell’s arguments “unfounded” and “obviously exaggerated.” In a French-language letter responding to Bell’s request for the consultation on an appropriate access tariff to be suspended, Quebecor regulatory affairs vice-president Denis Beland characterised the application as “nothing less than a delay strategy.” In its application, Bell called for the CRTC to suspend the consultation until the regulator determines the “unprecedented situation” resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic had abated, Bell had been given “sufficient” time to examine all of its wiring that had been accessed by other internet service providers, or any other date the CRTC considered just and reasonable. The deadline for interventions had already been pushed back to May 7 by the CRTC due to COVID-19, instead of the initial deadline of April 2. In the letter, dated April 17 and not yet published on the CRTC’s website, Quebecor states Bell’s argument that the CRTC should adopt the same logic as when it approved a 90-day extension for Bell to install one-way toll trunks between its networks and those of Rogers Communications Inc.’s is "obviously false.” Quebecor claimed that trunk deployment required physical work, while the work required as part of the in-building wire consultation was “mainly conceptual,” and the field verification work that was required did not include “rigorous planning and physical work.” Quebecor alleged in the letter that Bell had seemed to state that all of its staff were required to maintain network performance during the COVID-19 crisis, something it claimed was “obviously exaggerated.” “If we take the example of Videotron, although our technical teams are working hard to maintain the performance of our network, we are still able to bring together the stakeholders concerned to discuss and prepare our intervention,” Quebecor said. Quebecor also said Bell’s claim that it needed to survey its wiring at every site where Cloudwifi Inc. and other internet service providers had accessed it before filing its intervention was “simply not credible.” “An exhaustive tour of all MDUs where competitors use fiber optic building cabling, as proposed by Bell, will not contribute materially to the factual background of the proceeding. The time has now come to define the access models and move on to implementing these models,” Quebecor said in the letter. Quebecor also argued that the CRTC should adopt a temporary access framework to in-building wire, proposed by Cloudwifi, if it did decide to grant Bell’s extension request, stating it was “the only way to ensure minimally robust competition for residents of all MDUs pending the conclusion of the proceeding.” On April 9, the CRTC ordered all companies who have accessed Bell’s in-building wire to provide a list of all connections to it by May 11, four days after the deadline for interventions closes. In a January submission for a temporary in-building tariff, Cloudwifi said the rate should be set at 52 cents per subscriber, per month. Only customers connected to Bell’s in-building wire prior to Dec. 16, 2019 are allowed to have access to the cabling, unless express permission is granted by Bell, after the CRTC modified its initial ruling and started the consultation about an appropriate access tariff. The CRTC had originally ruled in June last year that companies could get access to Bell’s in-building wire for a “reasonable” fee and said it was of the preliminary view that all internet service providers and “potentially” all telecommunications service providers must allow access to fibre in-building wire. In its letter, Quebecor stated it had requested access to Bell’s in-building wire in July last year, but that request had been denied by Bell due to a lack of an approved access framework. In a separate letter to the CRTC, Rogers Communications Inc. supported Bell’s extension request, claiming it would be “reasonable and appropriate” to suspend the proceeding until Bell had been able to “analyze and assess” the list of connections and conduct site visits. It argued there was a “clear connection” between understanding how companies had accessed Bell’s in-building wire and the appropriate rates, terms and conditions for fibre in-building wire access in MDUs. “Based on our experience operating fibre facilities in numerous MDUs, Rogers agrees with Bell that it will take a considerable amount of time for Bell to conduct MDU site visits and to properly assess the fibre connections Cloudwifi and others have implemented,” Rogers said in its letter. Rogers also requested that the CRTC require all internet service providers who had accessed the in-building wire belonging to all telecommunications service providers (TSPs) prior to Dec. 16 last year to provide a list of all their connections, claiming Cloudwifi had taken a “cavalier approach” to interconnecting with Rogers’ facilities. “Rogers shares Bell’s concerns that if a TSP is unable to fully assess the nature of all existing and past interconnections to its fibre IBW (including the identification of improper conduct and connections, as well as any resulting damage), it will not be able to properly comment on the appropriate rates, terms and conditions to govern such interconnections,” Rogers said in its letter to the CRTC. The CRTC intervened in another dispute between Bell and Cloudwifi again last month, when it ordered Bell to sign a Special Master Agreement for Local Interconnection (MALI), necessary for Cloudwifi’s application to become a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) to progress. According to the CRTC’s website, a MALI between Bell and Cloudwifi was lodged on Friday. — With reporting by Adam Langenberg at alangenberg@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

Quebecor hits out at Bell’s ‘unfounded’ IBW extension request

News | 04/20/2020 4:36 pm EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Related Stories

Judge rejects broadcasters’ request for increased fine in set-top box case

News | 05/19/2023 2:05 pm EDT

CRTC must implement a reasonable test for FTTP rates: Péladeau

News | 05/11/2023 5:44 pm EDT

CRTC approves claims for broadband rollout

Briefs | 05/05/2023 1:40 pm EDT

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us