Bell has accused Québecor of refusing to enter into crucial cell digital community operator (MVNO) entry agreements.
This comes a month after Québecor accused Bell, in a Half 1 utility to the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Fee (CRTC), of undue delays in granting entry to its community for the launch of its MVNO service.
The CRTC set out an preliminary coverage in 2021, permitting regional cellphone suppliers to compete as MVNOs throughout Canada. Underneath this coverage, giant cellphone firms should share their networks with rivals who’re in a position to serve in areas that incumbent carriers don’t function.
The Fee then established a deadline for regional suppliers to barter MVNO entry agreements with incumbent carriers. If they can not come to an settlement, they will ask the CRTC to set the speed by way of a course of often called last supply arbitration (FOA), whereby every firm submits its proposed fee.
Québecor and Bell entered into FOA final yr and, in October, the CRTC ended up siding with Bell for Québecor’s entry to its wi-fi community,
Proper after that, Québecor introduced the launch date of Oct. 11 for its MVNO service, which it mentioned Bell didn’t honour. Consequently, Québecor requested the CRTC to use the speed retroactively to that date and impose a financial penalty on Bell for the alleged inappropriate and anti-competitive delays.
Bell, as an alternative contends that Québecor has refused to enter into the MVNO entry service settlement that might then set up the beginning date for the launch of the service.
“Bell has persistently acted expeditiously and in accordance with its tariffs; Québecor is just asking the Fee to grant it an unjustified windfall fee from Bell,” the corporate mentioned in a reply to Québecor’s Half 1 utility.
The telco added, “Québecor’s true motivation in its utility has nothing to do with the launch of its MVNO service to customers or with the contents of Bell’s proposed MVNO entry settlement. It’s merely to extract a windfall retroactive fee from Bell (and Telus) for its roaming utilization on Bell and Telus’ networks.”
MVNO and roaming are two totally different companies, and granting Québecor’s request can be imposing a roaming fee that was not decided in accordance with the Roaming Tariff or the Roaming Settlement, Bell argued.
Bell additionally famous that Québecor companies had already launched on present roaming agreements with Bell following the CRTC’s FOA resolution in October.
Telus, which additionally gives MVNO service to regional carriers in its community space through an settlement with Bell, additionally intervened within the dispute between the 2 firms, asking the CRTC to disclaim Québecor’s retroactive fee adjustment request.
“Whatever the existence of any Bell/Québecor MVNO service settlement, the Fee can’t pressure Telus to cost charges aside from the home roaming charges for site visitors,” affirmed Telus.
Québecor has till tomorrow to file its reply to Bell’s allegations.
