Despite some in-building wire competition, barriers remain: CloudWifi

In a CRTC proceeding set to determine whether competitive access for in-building wire (IBW) will be mandated in multi-dwelling units (MDUs) like condominiums, CloudWifi Inc. has rejected BCE Inc.'s argument that the prevalence of competitive local exchange carriers in MDUs in the Bell footprint is evidence that the regulator should not mandate access to incumbent IBW. In its May interventions on the proceeding, Bell had argued that a limited survey of its Greater Toronto Area footprint found that competitors had installed their own IBW in 471 properties — 194 of them by Beanfield Technologies Inc. — meaning there was no need for the regulator to mandate access to existing IBW for competitors like CloudWifi. In a response to CRTC questions about how the IBW regime should function, posted to the regulator's website Friday, CloudWifi said that "Beanfield is an example of isolated or limited duplicability," and therefore doesn't satisfy the CRTC's need for the existing regime to show an ability for competitors to duplicate an offered competitive service. CloudWifi pointed to a previous CRTC regulatory policy, holding that isolated or limited duplicability "does not necessarily indicate that they are able to deploy facilities on a widespread basis sufficiently to discipline the exercise of incumbent carriers’ upstream market power in relation to relevant downstream markets.” Beanfield is not an appropriate example of the landscape facing competitors seeking to install fibre IBW in MDUs, CloudWifi's responses argued, nor does Beanfield’s limited installation of IBW represent its ability to discipline Bell's market power. "Beanfield has been in business for 30 years. This indicates that they have been able to wire less than seven buildings per year on average," CloudWifi wrote. "If Beanfield is a reasonably efficient carrier, it would take them hundreds of years to build enough fibre IBW to discipline Bell’s market power in the retail internet market in MDUs." The commission had asked providers to give examples of instances in which companies had not been able to install fibre IBW, and to detail barriers and constraints new entrants would face. Bell submitted that the question was misguided, saying it was "concerned" that the question would lead the consultation to centre around specific cases, "rather than requesting comprehensive information," the company wrote. "As currently framed, the question risks eliciting anecdotal evidence of rare instances where a TSP experienced fibre IBW installation challenges which could be devoid of the larger context, in which fibre IBW installation is not a problem." CloudWifi, on the other hand, said that it is generally restricted to installing fibre IBW during the construction process. An entrant aiming to compete with incumbents in an already-built MDU, however, would have to install its own ducts, CloudWifi argued. "In order to install new ducts, the entrant must X-ray the concrete slabs and then drill or ‘core’ these slabs to install new ducts. Finally, new conduit must be installed. All of this is much more expensive than installing IBW in the ducts which the landlord provides during construction," the company wrote. In its response, Telus Corp. acknowledged that there can be barriers for the installation of IBW beyond the physical aspects of MDUs. "Instead, the more significant challenges arise in the form of uncooperative third parties, such as landlords, strata councils, building managers, and riser managers," the company wrote. "On occasion, these third parties can introduce delay to a project, attempt to limit the number of carriers operating in a building, or attempt to impose unreasonable fees and other terms and conditions on the deploying carrier." In its answers, Telus argued that the CRTC has the authority to force third parties to allow competitor carrier access to buildings in order to lay their own wiring. This, rather than mandating access on incumbent carriers, Telus argued, is the preferable regulatory solution and would solve the problem "without harming the Canadian telecommunications system." The proceeding stems from a dispute between Bell and CloudWifi, in which CloudWifi sought access to existing Bell IBW to provide internet to three condos in the Toronto area. A 2019 CRTC ruling granted CloudWifi access to Bell's wires for a "reasonable fee," though a CRTC ruling on a review-and-vary application from Bell initiated a wider consultation on ISP access, of which last week's responses are a part. In July, the regulator declined a CloudWifi request to impose an interim scheme that would allow small ISPs like itself to access incumbent wiring. — With reporting by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca and editing by Tim Forster at tforster@thewirereport.ca

Despite some in-building wire competition, barriers remain: CloudWifi

News | November 26, 2020

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

Despite some in-building wire competition, barriers remain: CloudWifi

News | November 26, 2020

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Supreme Court rules CRTC cannot grant telcos access to public property to install wireless equipment

Bell accuses Rogers of undue preference over Shaw Direct channel placements

Google asks court to reverse Streaming Act contribution decision

Music Canada looks to intervene in appeal against CRTC streaming service levy

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us