The independent company TekSavvy is asking the federal telecommunications regulator to urgently standardize the rules on competition in the provision of internet services, in a context of shrinking market for small providers.
The Chatham, Ont.-headquartered operator appeared before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on Friday, the final day of hearings the federal regulator was holding this week on competition in regarding internet services.
During this series of hearings, the CRTC surveyed around twenty groups to find out their opinion on the possible establishment of a national framework that would allow small providers to sell fiber optic internet services to their customers in paying their rivals to use their networks.
Smaller players should get a taste of these rules in Canada’s two largest provinces starting next May. The CRTC announced last November that it would temporarily force Bell and Telus to provide their competitors with access to their fiber optic networks to the home in Ontario and Quebec within six months.
The CRTC made this interim decision in order to stimulate competition for internet services. The review it is currently conducting aims to determine whether it should make this decision permanent and, if so, whether it should apply it to other provinces.
Speaking as the final presenter, TekSavvy Vice President of Regulatory and Carrier Affairs Andy Kaplan-Myrth called the CRTC’s review “the most critical regulatory proceeding ever for TekSavvy.”
He recalled that TekSavvy had lost more than 100,000 subscribers since its peak reached in 2019, in a regulatory context unfavorable to independent companies.
“I want to assure people that we are here, that we are still providing services. But we cannot continue to wait in the hope that the regulatory regime will one day catch up,” Kaplan-Myrth warned.
“We have been operating on hope for a very long time. This hope has vanished among certain competitors. We are always here. I don’t know for how long, but no rational enterprise rests on hope forever. »
Asked about the possibilities related to the sale of the company, Mr. Kaplan-Myrth acknowledged that “as any company would, I think we have considered a range of options for our future.” But he reiterated that TekSavvy has not changed ownership and is not currently for sale.
CRTC President Vicky Eatrides noted earlier this week that competition between internet service providers has diminished in recent years, as many independents have been bought out by larger players.
She also noted that independent businesses that are still doing business continue to have fewer subscribers than before.
Mr. Kaplan-Myrth called TekSavvy “one of the few significant competitors that is still around.”
Different issues
Large companies like Bell have opposed a framework for wholesale fiber, arguing that requiring the company to open its network to competitors would hurt its business case for investing in growth.
However, for TekSavvy to be competitive, Kaplan-Myrth stressed that it must be able to offer fiber optic internet service, which comes with faster speeds and better reliability compared to cable. .
“The combination of speed and increased reliability means that there is a growing subset of customers who do not view other types of internet as a sufficient substitute,” he explained.
He added that TekSavvy is primarily a wholesale telecommunications competitor, but has also built its own fiber optic network in and around Chatham — an investment that “would not have been possible for us without our operations wholesale “.
Furthermore, the Canadian Competitive Network Operators revealed Friday during their own testimony before the CRTC that several of the independent providers they represent are preparing to offer wholesale fiber optic Internet access in Ontario and Quebec under the new temporary rules when they come into force on May 7.
The group’s president, Paul Andersen, downplayed the concerns expressed by Bell and other major suppliers.
“You have heard from incumbents that a wholesale access regime would hamper investment incentives. This is a myth and the threats of reducing investments are not credible,” he argued.
“We are not proposing that businesses get free access. Companies building networks should be entitled to a reasonable return on investment, which would be sufficient to encourage further investment. »