GATINEAU – In August 2018, Cloudwifi, a Kitchener-based ISP that serves Canadian business and residential customers in nine cities and operates mostly in the apartment and condo space, filed an application with the CRTC requesting an order stating Bell Canada cannot interfere with a customer’s use of the inside wire.
Bell had disconnected Cloudwifi’s customers, says the company.
Cloudwifi had been using Bell’s in-building wire (IBW) to connect its customers in two residential apartment buildings in Toronto and Kitchener. In September 2018, Commission staff indicated they expected Bell Canada would not disconnect Cloudwifi’s customers at the two buildings while the Commission considered the issues raised in the application.
In Bell’s view, 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.
Bell also argued that fibre should not be considered the same way as traditional wires.
It has been CRTC policy for 20 years to mandate access to IBW to allow for consumer choice in providers.
On June 21, 2019, the Commission issued its determination, that Cloudwifi had no right to access the IBW since the rules required them to be either a registered cable company or a registered telephone provider.
However, the Commission also determined that an ISP should have access to IBW and therefore Cloudwifi was entitled to continued access in those two buildings. That determination only applied to Bell.
On the same date, the Regulator launched a process to decide if that measure should apply to all other facilities-based ISPs.
Bell then fired an application, on July 9th, requiring the Commission to reverse its decision on the basis that the existing interconnection regime applied to fibre IBW.
Bell asked for a speedy process and complained that fibre inter connection requires a different skill set and Cloudwifi’s employees were not qualified to do it. So, Bell requested a stay because of the potential damage to its installations.
To follow up on Bell’s application, the Commission, on July 17, sent a procedural letter setting timelines to an expedited process.
Parties have until July 24 to comment on Bell’s application, and Bell has until July 29 to respond.
All timelines included in the June decisions are suspended for now.
