By Ahmad Hathout
TekSavvy is the latest telecom to submit a review-and-vary application since cabinet’s recommendation to revisit a part of the CRTC’s decision on the wholesale internet framework, with the independent last week asking for clarity on access to new fibre builds inside the telcos’ footprint as well as when wholesalers will be able to access the cable companies’ last-mile fibre builds on an aggregated basis.
The CRTC made two exemptions in its August decision: that Bell and Telus will be shielded from the aggregated last-mile fibre regime for five years to allow them to recoup their investments and avoid disincentivizing that spending; and cable companies would also be shielded for an indefinite period largely because their builds constitute a relatively minor portion of fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) services compared to the telcos.
But TekSavvy is conveying in its review-and-vary application that the industry hasn’t gotten a clear answer from the decision about whether the first exemption applies to the telcos’ new builds inside their operating territory, and for how long wholesalers will be locked out of access to the cablecos’ last-mile fibre networks on an aggregated basis.
On the first exemption, TekSavvy writes: “The Decision notably does not make any findings of fact that new builds in the ILECs’ existing FTTP territories, such as new developments or multi-dwelling units (MDUs) in already served urban areas, would need any such additional incentives to be built,” the indie telecom said in the application, asking for the commission to allow for that new-build access in the telcos’ operating territory.
“Connecting new developments and multi-dwelling units in territories with existing FTTP facilities is typically much less costly than building out to new areas in which the ILEC did not previously offer FTTP services,” TekSavvy added. “In existing FTTP territories, the proximity to Incumbents’ existing adjacent infrastructure would greatly reduce the cost of new builds compared to building out to a new territory, and the ability to expand into an MDU or development as it is being built avoids the costs of retrofitting. There is therefore little reason to expect that new developments and MDUs within ILECs’ existing FTTP-serving territories require any additional incentives to build.”
TekSavvy also says there isn’t clarity on whether the definition of “new” builds applies when, for example, an MDU is torn down and replaced in the telco footprint. “The list of addresses provided by some of the ILECs is granular to the unit number, suggesting that some ILECs may intend to interpret it in this way, whereas the Decision uses the terms ‘locations’ or ‘premises’, suggesting something less granular than a single unit number,” the application says.
“This lack of clarity for new construction at existing ILEC FTTP-served addresses on its own warrants clarification,” it added. “Without it, TekSavvy expects to face uncertainties about whether individual units in newer buildings are capable of being served, and consumers in newly-built housing in existing Incumbent territories, including in large urban centres, will face limited competitive options for no policy upside.”
On the cableco exemption, TekSavvy argues the commission is going the way of the disaggregate regime, which, since 2015, allowed for competitor access to the last-mile of fibre in exchange for getting their own traffic transport (middle-mile) facilities. But that regime turned out years later to be expensive and unworkable for competitors, who say they didn’t have the necessary regulatory certainty to make proper business decisions.
“An indeterminate exemption from the aggregated FTTP mandate for Cable Carriers, without any transition plan at all, would be a parallel situation to the stalled disaggregated access regime,” TekSavvy says in its application. “ILECs were in effect granted an indeterminate, unstated regulatory head start that was not established based on any definite policy choice to exempt them for a certain period of time, but, rather, was an inadvertent result of regulatory delays in establishing the disaggregated access regime.
“As the Decision stands, it invites the possibility that the Cable Carriers will be required to offer aggregated FTTP services on their networks but provides no indication of the point at which such access could be triggered,” TekSavvy said, adding the commission hasn’t identified at what point do cableco fibre builds become significant enough to be worth opening for competitor access.
Given the uncertainty about telco networks, the telecom said it has prioritized getting new customers on cable networks. Now that the majority of its customers are on said networks, “these subscribers risk being similarly lost as their connections may be transitioned by the Cable Carrier towards networks exempt from mandated wholesale,” the application said, adding cablecos may focus on FTTP facilities to protect against access because of the decision.
“This type of delay is likely to mean that by the time any aggregated FTTP services were mandated on Cable Carriers’ networks, competitors would have already faced years of competitive harm due to a shrinking footprint and lack of competitive access,” the application adds. “This again parallels the situation with competitive access to FTTP, in which competitors have lost and continue to lose significant subscribers on the ILECs’ networks while waiting for overdue, feasible access.”
TekSavvy filed its application in the same week that Rogers and, jointly, the Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC), Cogeco and Eastlink filed their own review-and-vary applications.
Those other applications asked for Rogers, Bell and Telus to be banned from using the aggregated wholesale access regime everywhere, regardless of technology. The filings came after the federal cabinet recommended that the CRTC revisit whether that ban should be applied at least to the aggregated last-mile fibre networks of Bell and Telus in Ontario and Quebec.
The CRTC said it will launch a public consultation on the matter.
