Bell misunderstands CRTC toll-trunk order: Telus

Three companies are disputing claims from BCE Inc. that it would be unduly harmed by the CRTC’s decision to include all competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) in receiving toll-free traffic. Telus Corp., Quebecor Inc. on behalf of Videotron, and Distributel Ltd. have all filed interventions with the commission in a review and vary application filed by Bell in July. Bell is seeking approval to only deploy one-way toll trunks to Rogers Communications Inc., based on tariff language it submitted to the CRTC which said Bell will receive originating toll-free traffic from “retail end-users destined for the Company’s toll-free telephone number customers over one-way toll trunks deployed” to Roger’s switches. Bell’s application came after the CRTC ordered it to change the language in May to include all competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) instead of the Rogers-exclusive language submitted by Bell. The CRTC wrote in May that Bell “will receive toll-free traffic regardless of its origin destined for the company’s toll-free telephone number customers over one-way toll trunks deployed to a CLEC’s network(s).” In its application, Bell argued the commission was wrong to expand its scope without proper notice earlier this year and requested that the order be stayed until the CRTC makes a decision on its review and vary application, but the three intervenors disagree with its demands. Telus opposes Bell’s demand for a stay and the review and vary request by arguing Bell has misunderstood the order. It said that though the order removed wording applying the arrangement only to Rogers, “this does not mean that Bell is immediately required to interconnect with other CLECs.” “Bell’s request for a stay is based on the misunderstanding that the effect of the Order was to expand Decision 2019-390 to other service providers,” instead of just Rogers, Telus said. “While the Order did include the Commission’s expectations in this regard, these expectations do not constitute a binding directive. Accordingly, Bell’s request to stay, review and vary the Order should be denied,” Telus wrote in an intervention. The company asserts that the CRTC recognized that other companies like Telus could be seeking similar interconnection arrangements with Bell, and that the language originally proposed by Bell limiting the application of the tariff to Rogers would require a tariff amendment every time Bell implements an interconnection with another CLEC, causing an unnecessary regulatory burden and delays. It said the Rogers-exclusive language could also cause uncertainty, “which could have led CLECs to conclude that the arrangement was only open to Rogers, or perhaps led Bell to conclude that it had no obligation to negotiate reasonably with other CLECs for a similar arrangement.” “Bell will still have the opportunity to negotiate new interconnection arrangements before they are implemented. The challenges raised by Bell as alleged ‘irreparable harm’ can be addressed in negotiations. If negotiations ultimately fail, they can be brought to the Commission.” In the end, Telus said that “rather than launching a general proceeding on the matter, the Commission should remain open to resolving any impasses in negotiations between ILECs and CLECs.” In other interventions, Distributel argues that Bell’s request for a stay should be rejected because the company failed to show it will suffer irreparable harm without one, and Quebecor wrote that it agrees with the Commission’s determinations. Quebecor said in its French-language intervention the decision is a positive for competition in the market on toll-free call routing. It said LECs will have the choice of multiple providers to work with, which can only benefit consumers through fairer competition. It also noted the decision will decrease the level of congestion through Bell’s switches and will force the company to be more open to ideas on how to improve the quality of its service. - Reporting by Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

Bell misunderstands CRTC toll-trunk order: Telus

News | August 26, 2021

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

Bell misunderstands CRTC toll-trunk order: Telus

News | August 26, 2021

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Streamers challenge ‘restrictive’ CanCon definitions in audio proceeding

Bell looking to CRTC for clarity on mobile PES requirements

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

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us