Broadcast
Telecoms want CRTC to review wireline voice service regulations
Regulatory | | May 15, 2025
Several telecoms are asking the CRTC to launch a proceeding looking at how much it should regulate residential and business wireline voice services.
BCE Inc., Telus Corp., Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink, Quebecor Inc., and Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. (SaskTel), made their arguments in interventions to an application filed with the regulator by the Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA), which represents 21 independent incumbent telecom companies in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec.
Because many small incumbent local exchange carriers (SILECs) providing wireline phone services are former monopoly service providers in their local service areas, they are still subject to “extensive tariff regulation” where they are not already forborne from regulation, the ITPA wrote in a Part 1 application filed to the CRTC last month.
The ITPA pitched that the regulations its members are still subject to no longer make sense, given that wireless services have brought with them increased competition in pricing and overall services offered. The group is asking the CRTC to forbear from regulating SILECs’ local exchange services, meaning that instead of regulating this group of businesses itself in their relevant areas, the CRTC would rely on market forces to do the work to protect consumer interests.
In this case, rather than the CRTC making a decision on the ITPA’s application alone, the CRTC should launch a broader proceeding to determine how much of a hand it should have in regulating the wireline voice service market, the responding telecoms state.
SaskTel’s take is that an overall review of the wireline forbearance “environment” is a good idea.
“Given the move away from reliance on traditional wireline services: from a market perspective; from a technology perspective; and even from a regulatory perspective; it is likely that local wireline services should be forborne in their entirety,” states an intervention signed by Sasktel director of regulatory affairs Kevin Spelay.
Quebecor is also in favour of a follow-up proceeding, as is Telus.
“Although the ITPA has asked for forbearance, the primary issue is whether the local forbearance regime needs to be reviewed,” Telus stated in its intervention.
“The evidence adduced in the ITPA’s application supports the need for a broader review of the local forbearance regime. The large ILECs are experiencing similar competition in the voice services market in their own serving territories from the providers of mobile wireless, [voice over internet protocol (VoIP)] over broadband, and VoIP over satellite. As a result, the commission should include the local forbearance regimes of both the small and large ILECs in its review,” it said.
Telus noted customers also, in many regulated exchanges, have access to the internet from at least one provider. That’s in addition to service from at least two satellite providers, it said, citing coverage maps for Xplore Inc. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp.’s (SpaceX) Starlink covering 100 per cent of the country, “and their satellite services are able to support voice calls using VoIP technology.”
“As a result of the technological innovations in mobile wireless, broadband, and satellite, at least one independent facilities-based telecommunications service provider is available to offer voice services to customers in virtually all regulated exchanges across Canada,” Telus said.
“Therefore, the landline voice services of not just ITPA members, but also the large ILECs’, are subject to multiple sources of effective competition in their home exchanges.” Bell says such a broader proceeding should be launched on an “expedited basis.”
“What is the purpose of the continued regulation of these services considering current market dynamics and what regulation is necessary to meet that purpose?,” the company questioned.
Bell wants to know whether the requirement that at least one competitor in relevant areas be a facilities-based, fixed-line service provider should be eliminated, “in light of evidence submitted on the record of the proceeding initiated by the ITPA’s application.”
Bragg’s Eastlink, meanwhile, more specifically asks for a wholesale review of the SILEC framework.
Eastlink operates as a SILEC in some parts of Ontario under the affiliate Persona Communications. It agrees with the ITPA that the current regulatory framework for SILECs is “no longer appropriate given the significant competition and widespread availability of alternative voice services.”
It says those factors, “and other market factors such as competitors overbuilding SILEC’s networks through government funding, make it appropriate to undertake a wholesale review of the SILEC framework.”
The ITPA has asked for an extension of a week to reply to the interventions, to May 27, noting it has a small staff and would rely on external consulting that is unavailable to it in the time leading up to the original deadline of May 20.
