IBW access is unnecessary if small ISPs can install their own: Bell

Two small internet service providers who install their own fibre in-building wire in multi-dwelling units (MDUs) have been used by BCE Inc. and Telus Corp. to justify their argument that mandating third party access is not necessary. In interventions to the CRTC’s consultation process on whether access should be mandated, who should be able to access it and at what rates, Bell and Telus argue fibre in-building wire (IBW) fails to satisfy the regulator’s “essential facility” criteria. In its intervention arguing the CRTC should not mandate access to fibre IBW, Bell states the technology fails both the “input” and “competition” components, and the practicality and feasibility of other providers to install their own fibre IBW in MDUs means it also fails the test’s “duplicability” component. Expanding on its duplicability argument, Bell says a limited survey of the greater Toronto area found other telecoms had installed fibre IBW in 471 MDUs. Fibre internet provider Beanfield Technologies Inc. had wired up the most MDUs, installing fibre IBW in 194 properties, while its website states it provides service in more than 700 commercial and residential buildings in Toronto. “The examples below do not simply show that a competitor can deploy IBW fibre, but rather that a competitor can duplicate IBW fibre and offer retail services in competition with another facilities-based provider in that same MDU,” Bell’s intervention states. Bell also refers to an intervention by Vancouver-based telecom Novus Entertainment Inc., stating it makes “a raft of compelling evidence corroborating our evidence, which is that competing service providers almost always have the ability to install their own fibre IBW.” In its intervention, dated April 3, Novus says the company’s experience is that “all of the facilities based service providers install their own vertical or in-building wiring and if an additional facilities based service provider gains access to a building there is generally room in the risers for additional vertical wiring.” “In other words, there is no reason why a company which has built a network cannot also install its own vertical or in-building wiring to serve customers,” Novus states in its intervention. Novus argued all companies should install their own in-building wiring if able to do so and stated instances where a new entrant to an MDU needed to connect to a competitor’s fibre IBW to provide service to a customer “would be exceedingly rare.” In those instances where installing fibre IBW was impossible, the provider seeking to connect to another company’s IBW should pay a one-time “connecting fee equal to the amount for installing in-building wire in that building,” Novus stated in its intervention. Beanfield said mandating fibre IBW interconnection is “unnecessary and, in fact, unhelpful in MDUs which are not only the likeliest but, we believe, demonstrably the most successful ecosystems facilities-based competition in Canada,” and instead called for the CRTC to “consider a new vision for competition within MDUs” and release guidelines around access to pathways and common areas of any building with multiple residential or commercial units. The CRTC would also play an enhanced mediator-arbitrator role to settle disputes and issues not covered by the guidelines. Bell asked for access to fibre IBW not to be mandated at all, but said if the CRTC did decide to mandate access, that it should follow a similar model to that proposed by Novus, and only be granted where a lack of riser capacity prevents a competitor from installing their own IBW. In that scenario, a letter from the building owner confirming that lack of capacity would also be required for access. Bell said it was unable to suggest an appropriate access fee for fibre IBW until the CRTC had ruled on the design of the sharing system and the conclusion of a CRTC review into the appropriate costing methodology for wholesale service rates. Telus, which also referred to Novus’ installation of fibre IBW, echoed Bell’s argument that fibre IBW failed the essentiality test, and the CRTC should not mandate access. If access was mandated by the CRTC, Telus stated in its intervention, “any regulated rates must be fully compensatory, based on sound analysis of the carrier’s Phase II costs.” The CRTC’s consultation stems from a dispute over Cloudwifi Inc.’s access to Bell’s fibre IBW to provide internet services to three condo buildings in the Toronto area. In June last year, the regulator ruled that all connection to in-building wire in multi-dwelling units (MDUs) could occur until an “appropriate” rate for access to it had been set through a consultation process that is currently ongoing. But in a December 2019 ruling on a Bell review-and-vary application, the CRTC banned all companies, except CloudWifi, from accessing in-building wire until access rates had been set. In April, the CRTC rejected Bell’s request to delay the consultation process until the COVID-19 pandemic had abated, or Bell had been given time to check its IBW in every apartment where Cloudwifi had connected to it. Cloudwifi’s intervention states that competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) should have to provide 30 days notice of their intention to connect to a competitor’s fibre IBW, but argued no cost for access should be required because companies who had installed IBW had “largely recovered their initial investment” and there were minimal repair and maintenance costs. Other models proposed include Shaw Communications Inc.’s assertion that access should be granted to all facilities-based providers, at commercially negotiated rates, regardless of whether it was possible for that provider to install their own fibre IBW. Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. supported a similar model, but said it was willing to permit all telecommunications service providers (TSPs) to access their fibre IBW. Rates should be negotiated between parties, with CRTC mediation available as a “back stop,” SaskTel argued in its intervention. Teksavvy Solutions Inc. proposed the CRTC grant all TSPs third party access at an interim rate of $0.00, then hold a follow-up proceeding to set an access rate, “which may or may not end up being different than the interim rate once all the evidence is collected and assessed.” -- With reporting by Adam Langenberg at alangenberg@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

IBW access is unnecessary if small ISPs can install their own: Bell

News | 05/25/2020 4:22 pm EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Related Stories

Champagne most lobbied minister in Canadian government, survey finds

Briefs | 03/22/2023 12:56 pm EDT

All sides endorse Mazier’s internet bill in committee

News | 03/21/2023 3:59 pm EDT

CRTC changes costs awards for Rogers

Briefs | 03/13/2023 1:03 pm EDT

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us