CRTC should not fine Telus, Iristel, for traffic stimulation violations: PIAC

A national non-profit consumer advocacy group is asking the CRTC not to fine Iristel Inc. and Telus Communications Inc. administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) for having breached the Telecommunications Act, arguing it would not serve any effective purpose, in a long-running dispute over calls to the 867 area code. In an intervention dated Jan. 17, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) told the CRTC that the commission’s preliminary view to fine both companies in the range of $750,000 to $1.25 million “would unnecessarily cause fear and regulatory uncertainty in the industry and not serve any effective purpose, either for general or specific deterrence.” PIAC’s intervention is in response to a call for comments, issued by the commission in Aug. 2020, asking the public whether a financial penalty was appropriate for the companies. The commission issued the consultation concurrently with a decision in which it found Iristel granted itself an undue advantage by allowing the use of 867 numbering plan area (NPA) telephone numbers by certain customers based in distant locations, thus increasing the connection costs for other carriers. The 867 area code covers Canada’s three northern territories. The commission also found in its 2020 decision that Telus “deliberately” discriminated against Iristel and its affiliate Ice Wireless Inc., their customers, and Telus’ own customers, by reducing the capacity of certain toll circuits, and the ability to complete calls in the 867 NPA. “Both Iristel and TCI acted in a way that was self-serving. Such behaviour, which undermines the establishment of an orderly telecommunications system in Canada and the efficiency and competitiveness of that system, cannot be tolerated,” the CRTC wrote in its Aug. 2020 decision. PIAC argued to the commission in Monday’s intervention that although the termination of phone calls to the 867 area code has been a long-standing issue, it is now sorted and, therefore, in its view, it would be more appropriate to issue a warning with a “clear indication” that penalties would be imposed if repeated incidents occur. “This would provide the two companies a final opportunity to review their practices and ensure that no such violations transpire going forward, and if they do, they would be engaging in such violations with the knowledge that AMPs could be imposed, which would be more fair than imposing fines now,” PIAC wrote in its intervention. PIAC further argued that the operations of a smaller entity like Iristel would be undermined if AMPs were imposed, and it noted that the commission’s own regulations stipulate that “the purpose of a penalty is to promote compliance with and not to punish.” “Such powers should be exercised responsibly and to achieve an effective and necessary outcome. Imposing AMPs in this instance would not achieve any effective purpose as it just entails this one long-standing dispute and imposing fines after the fact lacks any rationale except as to punish these entities,” PIAC wrote in its intervention. PIAC instead proposed that the CRTC enforce more stringent reporting and monitoring measures if the commission was keen on imposing further regulatory action. “Imposing such high AMPs in this instance would affect the trust in the enforcement process and make it unpredictable, resulting in unnecessary regulatory tension,” the advocacy group wrote. The 867 dispute began in Nov. 2016 when Rogers Communications Inc. accused Iristel of engaging in traffic stimulation by driving up the volume of phone calls to the Northwest Territories in order to benefit from the area’s high traffic termination rates. A year later, the regulator ordered Iristel to cease the use of 867 area code numbers to connect callers to a Toronto-area radio station audio stream. In Aug. 2018, Telus and Iristel filed a pair of Part 1 applications with the former alleging that Iristel had resumed stimulating traffic shortly after the Dec. 2017 decision. Iristel, a few days later, alleged that Telus was deliberately causing some calls from Telus users to Iristel end users to fail and went so far as to sue Telus in Oct. 2018 seeking $135 million for the allegedly terminated phone calls. The regulator issued an interim decision in Nov. 2018, requiring Telus to ensure calls between both companies were completed. It also set an interim rate for calls to and from Iristel’s operating territory at $0.038 per minute. In its final 2020 decision the commission cut Iristel’s long-distance termination rate retroactively – dating back to Nov. 23, 2018 – by 74 per cent, from $0.038 per minute to $0.0098125 per minute. Both Iristel and Telus opposed the CRTC’S final Aug. 2020 decision for different reasons – in a pair of review and vary applications – which the regulator ultimately upheld in Dec. 2021. It also reopened the consultation on what level of fine the two companies should pay, if any. The latest development in the long-running dispute is that Iristel is now asking the Federal Court of Appeal to overturn the regulator’s decision in an application for leave to appeal filed last month. — With reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

CRTC should not fine Telus, Iristel, for traffic stimulation violations: PIAC

News | 01/19/2022 5:00 pm EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us