GATINEAU – A Bell Canada application seeking the forbearance of wireless access service (WAS) has support from network partner Telus, saying there are plenty of alternatives. Rogers Communications, on the other hand, opposes it, noting that it’s not as simple as saying there are alternatives, and that therefore WAS can be forborne.
The CRTC has dealt with WAS on two separate occasions, the most recent being its wholesale services decision 2015-326. A 2012 decision also delved into WAS. Both times, the Commission has chosen not to forbear from regulating it and allowed wireless service providers to continue to avail themselves of the regulated tariff to interconnect with incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).
Bell filed the application on January 29, arguing because its revenue from WAS has been declining for several years and now stands at a low level, and that there are more “cost-effective and commercially desirable alternatives”, the Commission should forbear from regulating the service.
On this latter point, Bell pointed to wireless service providers (WSPs) becoming Type II competitive local exchange carriers (a wireless CLEC, or WCLEC) as one such more efficient option. Beside, the company added in its application, the vast majority of wireless customers are with a wireless company affiliated to an ILEC, CLEC or a small ILEC. This means they have the network connections in place that avoid the need for WAS.
Rogers noted in response it’s not true in all cases that becoming a wireless CLEC is more efficient. The company said that in small exchanges wireless carriers only have to deploy one connection whereas a wireless CLEC has to deploy many.
“In other words, becoming a WCLEC makes sense solely in exchanges where the traffic volume justifies the segregation of the traffic and the deployment of many different trunks. This is clearly not the case in small exchanges,” it argued.
Even though Bell contends that 99% of WSP customers are affiliated with a CLEC, ILEC or small ILEC, it doesn’t tell the whole story as not all of these affiliate providers operate in the same footprint as the affiliate WSP.
“There are therefore many parts of the country where a particular WSP has no such affiliate and therefore no alternative but to use the ILEC as its interconnecting carrier. Extending its CLEC presence into every area the WSP operates in is not economically feasible as many exchanges simply could not support an additional local carrier,” reads the Rogers intervention.
The Commission must also determine the quality and capacity of the connections in the case a WSP wants to connect to an unaffiliated CLEC before it can forbear from WAS.
“The existence of a CLEC therefore does not create a competitive WAS wholesale market.” – Rogers Communications
“For example, a new CLEC offering VoIP nomadic services to residential end-users in a small exchange might not represent a viable alternative for a large WSP like Rogers. Will the said CLEC still be in business in two years? Do they have enough backhaul capacity? Can we trust them? These are all very basic questions that a WSP must answer before migrating its live traffic away from the ILEC. The existence of a CLEC therefore does not create a competitive WAS wholesale market,” added Rogers.
Telus agreed with Bell that there are alternatives to WAS in all incumbent territories such as registering as a CLEC, connecting through an affiliated CLEC or an unaffiliated CLEC. Besides, it noted that since the wireless CLEC rules were relaxed in 2012 and combined with the acquisitions of Public Mobile and Mobilicity, “the need for WAS is now less than any party might have expected just five years ago, and the demand figures reflect that.”
The western-based incumbent communications company also noted that its WAS revenue has decreased. While it kept revenue figures for the 2008 to 2013 period confidential, the decline is evidence that WAS alternatives are not just theoretical.
“Wireless carriers are actively using these alternatives to avoid ILEC WAS charges. With the alternatives available everywhere in the ILECs’ territories, WAS is not a required input and therefore the input component of the Essentiality Test is not met,” argued Telus.
The company said that while the CRTC should forbear from regulating WAS in the more populated regions, the access service should remain regulated in smaller areas. Rogers acknowledged that this may be an alternative it could live with.
While the Canadian Network Operators Consortium also opposed Bell’s application, Wind Mobile supported it, noting that it no longer requires WAS and now prefers to interconnect as a wireless CLEC. The company “is also migrating its legacy WAS interconnections to wireless CLEC interconnections,” it said in its reply.
