GATINEAU – Last summer Cloudwifi, a Kitchener-based ISP that operates mostly in the apartment and condo space, filed an application with the CRTC requesting an order stating Bell Canada can’t interfere with a customer’s use of the inside wire.
The CRTC agreed with the independent ISP but Bell appealed saying because Cloudwifi was not a local exchange carrier (LEC) or a BDU, it had no legal, regulatory, or other rights of use or access to the facilities at issue. On July 17, 2019, the Commission asked interested parties for applications on the review of CRTC decision 2019-218 and 2019-219 regarding Cloudwifi’s access to inside Building wire in two residential multi-unit buildings.
Besides the request to change its decision, Bell wants to be granted a stay of the decision while the Commission deals with its application. The July 17 letter’s purpose “sets out an expedited process for comments on Bell Canada’s request for interim relief.”
The deadline for the first round of comments was July 24th. Telus, Shaw, Rogers, Québecor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), Cogeco and Cloudwifi filed comments.
The traditional test to determine if stay should be awarded is threefold:
1. The serious issue to be determined. (Ed note: This is easy to determine: If Cartt.ca writes about it, it is serious.)
2. Irreparable harm. This is the heart of the issue. As Telus says: “Bell may very well suffer irreparable harm if access is required on terms and conditions that do not effectively protect the integrity of its network.”
Québecor, for its part argues, in French, that Bell’s argument about the complexity of connecting, is exaggerated and if damage was incurred, it was because Bell’s failure to engage in a commercial dialogue, consistent with its practice of anti-competitive behaviour, reads the Québecor filing.
3. The third test is balance of convenience. Here, the Commission looks at who suffers the most in granting or not stay. Again, parties are split on this one.
Telus, Shaw, Rogers and Cogeco agreed that Bell should be granted a stay
PIAC, Québecor and, of course, Cloudwifi are against.
PIAC, for its part, wrote its frustration at not being notified: “We note for the Commission that PIAC participated actively in Cloudwifi’s original application that led to Telecom and Broadcasting Decision 2019-218 and the resultant TNC 2019-219. We would have thought that those parties would have been included in Bell’s distribution; however, PIAC was not copied on the application. We believe this slight oversight betrays Bell’s lack of regard for consumers and competition.”
It should be mentioned, too, that PIAC received cost awards on June 21st for its participation in this process.
Bell’s reply is due today (July 29th). We wonder if they will copy PIAC.”
It appears that a seminal issue is at play here, whether fibre should be viewed in the same way as copper in terms of access to inside wires and, yet there is little participation from parties. Nothing makes the CRTC staff more nervous than a less than fulsome record.
