Bell wants to protect its “quasi-monopoly” on optical fiber, denounces Quebecor

(Gatineau) Bell Canada “infuriates Canadians” by threatening to further reduce its investments in its fiber optic network if the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decides to allow small internet service providers to use their competitors’ networks to offer their services.

This was stated by the President and CEO of Quebecor, Pierre Karl Péladeau, when he spoke Thursday morning as part of the hearings being conducted by the CRTC this week on the subject of competition in internet services.

During his testimony, Mr. Péladeau insisted that it is “high time” that Bell and Telus are subject to the same rules as cable distributors and that they are forced to allow small operators to sell internet services using their fiber optic networks.

“It is, obviously, all Canadians who will benefit,” he argued.

In an interim ruling issued in November, the CRTC temporarily required Bell and Telus to provide competitors with access to their fiber-to-the-home networks in Quebec and Ontario within six months.

Arguing that investments in its fiber optic network are less profitable in this context, Bell then appealed this decision to have it annulled, which is proof of its “habitual obstruction”, in the opinion of Mr. Péladeau .

“This deplorable initiative, although not surprising, goes completely against the government’s instructions. Bell is seeking by all means to protect its quasi-monopoly on services (fiber optics to the home) and to torpedo the council’s efforts.

“It’s still, excuse the expression, quite strong coffee. But with the “Big Three”, nothing can resist their desire to maintain their oligopoly,” said Mr. Péladeau, referring to the three large telecommunications companies: Bell, Rogers and Telus.

Following the ruling in November, Bell responded by reducing its network spending by $1.1 billion by 2025, including a reduction of at least $500 million starting this year.

Mr. Péladeau, however, sees it as a strategy “worthy of Bonhomme Sept Heures” on the part of Bell.

“Everyone knows that if it failed to replace its obsolete copper wire network with optical fiber, its revenues would have melted like snow in the sun,” he said.

In a written statement, Bell spokesperson Jacqueline Michelis said “consumers in Quebec and the rest of Canada are paying lower internet prices due to intensified competition from facilities-based providers.”

“With the right regulatory framework, companies that invest billions to build world-class fiber optic networks will continue to offer consumers more competition and greater value than those that simply want to resell on others’ networks,” he said. she declared.

Offers

The hearings being conducted by the federal telecommunications regulator this week aim in particular to determine whether it should make its provisional decision from November permanent and, if so, whether it should apply it to other provinces.

Mr. Péladeau maintained that this decision began to put an end to the “regulatory asymmetry” which disadvantages cable distributors like Quebecor, who were already required to offer resale on their networks, compared to telephone companies.

He argued that since the wireline presence of Videotron, a subsidiary of Quebecor, is still limited outside Quebec, allowing it to sell services to its customers using the networks of its rivals would help it expand its service offering. in other provinces.

“The key to success in allowing incumbents to continue to invest while sharing their network is to implement fair and reasonable rates,” said Mr. Péladeau.

To ensure these rates remain fair, Quebecor is asking the CRTC to impose a uniform national rate based on speed bands.

“Such a situation will ensure stability and consistency in the offers, all for the benefit of the consumer. Since there will be no price difference between the different holders, the latter will have no other choice but to distinguish themselves by other means, notably, and this is very important, the quality of the service. underlined Mr. Péladeau.

Quebecor is also calling for the imposition of a safety net to prevent abuse and the establishment of predatory pricing.

In addition to Quebecor, Cogeco and Rogers also testified before the CRTC on Thursday, after Bell and Telus did so on Wednesday. The hearings will end on Friday.

Beware of impacts on capital spending, says Rogers

Rogers Communications said the telecommunications regulator should phase out its current approach to access to wholesale networks.

Appearing before the CRTC, Rogers’ chief technology and information officer Ron McKenzie urged the regulator to prioritize the costs incurred by companies like Rogers when they build network infrastructure.

“The decisions you make in this process will impact both the scale and pace of this capital expenditure and could undermine the business case for the most difficult investments, including those in regional rural areas across the country,” said Mr. McKenzie.

“If these investments were not large and risky, our wholesale competitors would make them rather than rely on our infrastructure,” he added.

He said that at a minimum, wholesalers should be required to compensate companies like Rogers through rates that properly ensure cost recovery “and sharing in the enormous risks we take.”

The CRTC is in the middle of a hearing that could impact the extension of a November ruling requiring telephone companies Bell Canada and Telus to temporarily allow wholesale access to their fiber optic internet networks in Ontario and in Quebec.

The interim ruling did not apply to Rogers as a cable operator. However, rules have long existed that require cable companies to offer Internet access to third-party resellers at a fixed rate.

Dean Shaikh, Rogers’ senior vice president of regulatory affairs, argued that this imposed a “disproportionate burden” on cable operators. Rogers supports phasing out wholesale access requirements, with Shaikh noting that larger companies could still negotiate deals with smaller providers on access rates to their networks.

“Wholesale mandates that are too broad or that favor one type of network technology or competitor over others undermine the primary source of competition in the market,” he said. If the CRTC disagrees, a fair and minimally intrusive wholesale regime is the best way to advance policy objectives. »