Bell has implicated Québecor of declining to participate in essential mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) gain access to contracts.
This comes a month after Québecor implicated Bellin a Part 1 application to the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), of excessive hold-ups in giving access to its network for the launch of its MVNO service.
The CRTC set out a preliminary policy in 2021permitting local cellular phone service providers to contend as MVNOs throughout Canada. Under this policy, big cellular phone business should share their networks with rivals who have the ability to serve in locations that incumbent providers do not run.
The Commission then developed a due date for local service providers to work out MVNO gain access to contracts with incumbent providers. If they can not pertain to a contract, they can ask the CRTC to set the rate through a procedure referred to as last deal arbitration (FOA), in which each business sends its suggested rate.
Québecor and Bell participated in FOA in 2015 and, in October, the CRTC wound up siding with Bell for Québecor’s access to its cordless network,
After that, Québecor revealed the launch date of Oct. 11 for its MVNO service, which it stated Bell did not honour. Québecor asked the CRTC to use the rate retroactively to that date and enforce a financial charge on Bell for the supposed improper and anti-competitive hold-ups.
Bell, rather competes that Québecor has actually declined to participate in the MVNO gain access to service arrangement that would then develop the start date for the launch of the service.
“Bell has actually regularly acted expeditiously and in accordance with its tariffs; Québecor is merely asking the Commission to approve it an unjustified windfall payment from Bell,” the business stated in a reply to Québecor’s Part 1 application.
The telco included, “Québecor’s real inspiration in its application has absolutely nothing to do with the launch of its MVNO service to customers or with the contents of Bell’s proposed MVNO gain access to arrangement. It is just to draw out a windfall retroactive payment from Bell (and Telus) for its roaming use on Bell and Telus’ networks.”
MVNO and roaming are 2 various services, and approving Québecor’s demand would be enforcing a roaming rate that was not identified in accordance with the Roaming Tariff or the Roaming Agreement, Bell argued.
Bell likewise kept in mind that Québecor services had actually currently released on existing wandering arrangements with Bell following the CRTC’s FOA choice in October.
Telus, which likewise supplies MVNO service to local providers in its network location through an arrangement with Bell, likewise intervened in the conflict in between the 2 business, asking the CRTC to reject Québecor’s retroactive rate change demand.
“Regardless of the presence of any Bell/Qu ébecor MVNO service contract, the Commission can not require Telus to charge rates aside from the domestic roaming rates for traffic,” verified Telus.
Québecor has till tomorrow to submit its reply to Bell’s accusations.