BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BELL CANADA PURSUANT TO PART VII OF THE CRTC TELECOMMUNICATIONS RULES OF PROCEDURE, SECTIONS 7, 24, 27, 47, 55, 60, 61, AND 62 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION 1 OF THE ORDER ISSUING A DIRECTION TO THE CRTC ON IMPLEMENTING THE CANADIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY OBJECTIVES REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW, RESCIND AND VARY THE DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER LINE TECHNOLOGY DIRECTIVE IN TELECOM DECISION CRTC 2010-637 REPLY COMMENTS OF BELL CANADA
8 OCTOBER 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0
THERE IS BROAD SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF TECHNOLOGICAL NEUTRALITY UNDERLYING BELL'S DSL APPLICATION .............................................. 2
3.0
INTERVENERS' ATTEMPTS TO RE-OPEN THE RURAL BROADBAND EXPANSION REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ASSOCIATED WITH ILEC DEFERRAL ACCOUNT-FUNDED PROGRAMS ARE IMPROPER AND OUT OF PROCESS ............ 4
4.0
THE COMPANIES' BROADBAND EXPANSION SERVICE DOES NOT PREVENT COMPETING WIRELESS CARRIERS FROM ACCESSING BELL'S TRANSMITTER TOWERS ......................................................................................................................... 10
5.0
BELL'S USE OF BELL MOBILITY'S NETWORK TO DELIVER BROADBAND SERVICES TO THE APPROVED COMMUNITIES IS APPROPRIATE .......................... 12
6.0
BELL'S AMENDED HSPA+ PROPOSAL IS SUFFICIENTLY DETAILED AND ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS ......................................................... 12
7.0
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 13
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.
Pursuant
to
the
procedures
set
out
in
the
Commission
staff
letter
dated
16 September 2010 as affirmed in the Commission's letter dated 4 October 2010, Bell Canada (Bell or the Company) files these Reply Comments to address comments from interveners on its application for the review, variation and rescission of specific directives in Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-637, Follow-up to Telecom Decision 2008-1 – Proposal by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada to dispose of the funds remaining in their deferral account (Decision 2010-637), dated 31 August 2010, (the Bell DSL Application)1. The Company is filing its reply in respect of its parallel review and vary application relating to the deferral account interest and other calculations (File No. 8662-B2-201014638) separately. The specific relief requested by the Company in the Bell DSL Application is as follows: -
A declaration rescinding the directive at paragraph 35 of Decision 2010-637 that Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) (collectively, the Companies) must provide broadband services to the 112 communities approved for inclusion in their deferral account-funded broadband expansion program in various prior Commission decisions2 using legacy Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology rather than the High-Speed Packet Access+ (HSPA+) wireless broadband technology proposed by the Company (the DSL Technology Directive); and
-
Declarations that (a) the wireless retail and wholesale broadband proposals provided in the Application comply with the Commission's determinations in Decisions 2006-93, 2007-50 and 2008-1 (collectively, the Deferral Account Decisions), and (b) approve the amended wireless broadband proposal.
1
2
3
The Application was filed under Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules), sections 7, 24, 27, 47, 55, 60, 61, and 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and section 1 of the Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, P.C. 2006-1534, Canada Gazette Part II, No. 26, SOR/2006-355, 14 December 2006 (the Policy Direction). Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-50, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-15 - Use of deferral account funds to expand broadband services to certain rural and remote communities (Decision 2007-50), 6 July 2007, as amended in Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-50-1, 27 July 27; Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-1, Use of deferral account funds to improve access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities and to expand broadband services to rural and remote communities, 17 January 2008 (Decision 2008-1); Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-13, DERY Telecom - Application to review and vary certain determinations in Telecom Decision 2007-50, 21 February 2008; and Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-21, Follow-up to Mitchell Seaforth Cable T.V. Ltd. - Application to review and vary the determinations in Telecom Decision 2007-50 with respect to the community of Dublin, Ontario, Telecom Decision 2007-110, 6 March 2008. Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9, Disposition of funds in the deferral accounts, 16 February 2009, (Decision 2006-9).
-2-
2.
These Reply Comments address the comments filed by the following six parties, all
dated 4 October 2010: -
Barrett Xplore Inc. (BXI) and Barrett Broadband Networks Inc. (collectively, Barrett);
-
Bragg Communications Inc., operating as EastLink (EastLink);
-
MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream);
-
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC);
-
Quebecor Media inc. on behalf of itself and Vidéotron ltée (Vidéotron) (collectively, QMI); and
-
Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers).
3.
These Reply Comments are structured as follows: Section 2.0 discusses interveners'
support for the principle of technological neutrality as it applies to Bell's proposal. Section 3.0 addresses interveners' improper and out-of-process requests to re-open the regulatory framework associated with ILEC deferral account-funded broadband expansion programs. Section 4.0 clarifies that the Companies' proposed Broadband Expansion Service (BES) does not prevent competing wireless carriers from accessing Bell's transmitter towers. Section 5.0 addresses the appropriateness of Bell's use of Bell Mobility's network to deliver broadband services to the approved communities and Section 6.0 addresses and refutes allegations that Bell's amended HSPA+ proposal is not sufficiently detailed.
Conclusions are provided in
Section 7.0. 2.0
THERE IS BROAD SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF TECHNOLOGICAL NEUTRALITY UNDERLYING BELL'S DSL APPLICATION
4.
Technological neutrality is the key theme underlying the Bell DSL Application. In large
part,
the
Application
is
based
on
the
proposition
that
the
Commission
erred
in
Decision 2010-637 by directing the Companies to expand broadband into the communities that were approved for inclusion in the Companies' deferral account-funded broadband expansion program using a legacy wireline DSL model instead of using a wireless model that is based on the very latest HSPA+ technology.
5.
Of the six parties that filed comments, none object to or disagree with this foundational
technological neutrality principle. To the contrary, three interveners, namely MTS Allstream, Barrett and PIAC, agree that the Companies should be provided with the flexibility to select the technology that would deliver broadband services to the approved communities provided it
-3satisfies the Commission's requirement that the broadband services offered using deferral account funds in the approved communities are comparable to those provided in urban areas (i.e., in terms of rates, terms and conditions, upload and download speeds and reliability), (hereafter referred to as the Urban Service Comparability Requirement). MTS Allstream fully supports the principle of technological neutrality and the right of the
6.
service provider to select the technology that efficiently meets the Commission's broadband service requirements for the approved areas.4
Barrett went further and expressly supports
Bell's request to use HSPA technology in satisfaction of the Commission's deferral account eligibility requirements. Barrett states that the Commission "ought not to dictate the use of one technology over another, provided that the technology in question satisfies the technical and other service characteristics established by the Commission as an eligibility requirement for use of deferral account funds".5 It agrees with Bell that the principle of technological neutrality, as embodied in the Policy Direction, is "essential to adhere to if Canadian carriers are to be encouraged to continue to invest in new technologies in order to offer Canadians advanced telecommunications services".6 PIAC states that even though the Commission majority found that the Companies' original wireless broadband proposal failed to meet the Urban Service Comparability Requirement, "the fact that it features a different technology doesn't violate principles of technological neutrality."7 Significantly, PIAC does not oppose Bell's Application. PIAC's main point is the need for
7.
the Company to demonstrate the superior capabilities of its HSPA+ proposal to deliver affordable, high quality services.8 This is demonstrated both in the Application and in Section 5, below. 8.
The Company modified its original HSPA+ wireless service proposal to address each of
the concerns that led the Commission to conclude that the proposal did not comply with the Urban Service Comparability Requirement. Attachment 1 to the Application demonstrates that the retail HSPA+ wireless broadband services available under the amended proposal mirror the attributes of the Companies' existing retail legacy DSL services, in terms of price, transmission
4 5 6 7 8
MTS Allstream 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 12. Barrrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraphs 3 and14. Barrrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 5. PIAC 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 8. PIAC 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 11.
-4speeds, usage allowance and other features, in Ontario and Québec9.
In addition, Bell's
proposed retail HSPA+ wireless broadband services provides a choice of monthly usage allowances in Ontario and Québec consistent with the monthly usage allowances available with its retail legacy DSL services10 as opposed to the 2 GB monthly usage allowance under the Company's original proposal. As well, the amended proposal will provide the same optional usage insurance plan, as offered to the Company's legacy DSL customers.11
Finally, it is
noteworthy that the proposed retail wireless broadband services actually exceed important elements of existing retail legacy DSL service offerings in terms of both upload and download speeds, as explained at paragraph 27 of the Application.12 The wholesale wireless broadband services the Company plans on offering under its amended proposal are also modeled on the Companies' existing Gateway Access Service (GAS)13, as shown in Attachment 2 to the Application. Clearly, the Company's amended proposal will offer affordable and high quality state-of-the-art wireless HSPA+ broadband services to both retail and wholesale customers.
3.0
INTERVENERS' ATTEMPTS TO RE-OPEN THE RURAL BROADBAND EXPANSION REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ARE IMPROPER AND OUT OF PROCESS
9.
A number of interveners have attempted to re-open and reargue long-settled
Commission determinations relating to the rural broadband service expansion regulatory framework that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bell DSL Application. The Company addresses these briefly in the following paragraphs and explains why they should be summarily rejected.
9
10
11 12
13
As noted at paragraph 23 of the Bell DSL Application, in Ontario, two retail HSPA+ services will be offered, namely: "Home Zone Wireless" and "Home Zone Wireless Plus" services. In Québec, the following three services will be offered: "Home Zone Wireless Basic", "Home Zone Wireless" and "Home Zone Wireless Plus" services (hereafter collectively referred to as the Home Zone Wireless services). These services address the Commission's first comparability concern. Exactly the same number of retail service options will be made available in the approved communities as are currently available in urban areas of the Companies' serving territories in Ontario and Québec. In Ontario, Home Zone Wireless service customers will have a choice between a 2 GB or a 25 GB monthly usage allowance, while in Québec, a choice between a 1 GB, 5 GB or 60 GB monthly usage allowance will be available. That is, the option of 40 GB additional usage at a monthly rate of $5.00 per month. First, the upload speed associated with the proposed Home Zone Wireless and Home Zone Wireless Plus services in Ontario will be up to 1 Megabit per second (Mbps) and up to 3 Mbps, respectively, rather than the upload speeds of up to 800 Kilobits per second (Kbps) and up to 1 Mbps associated with the Companies' corresponding retail legacy DSL service offerings. In Québec, the upload speeds will be up to 500 Kbps, 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps, rather than speeds of up to 500 Kbps, 800 Kbps and 1 Mbps. Second, the download speeds available in Ontario will be up to 2 Mbps and 7 Mbps compared with up to 2 Mbps and 6 Mbps with the corresponding existing retail legacy DSL services in Ontario. As specified in Bell Canada's and Bell Aliant's General Tariff (GT) Item 5410, available at: http://www.bce.ca/en/aboutbce/regulatoryinformation/tarrifs/index.php/ItemView.asp?Tariff=GT%20%20%20&Pa rt=%20%20%205%20%20%20%20%20%20&Item=%205410%20%20%20%20%20
-53.1
This Application has nothing to do with revisiting the Commission's 19 February 2007 cut-off date for alternative broadband service providers (ABSPs) to seek exclusion of areas from ILECs' proposed rural broadband expansion programs
10.
A number of interveners14 have asserted that if Bell is permitted to re-file or propose a
new technology for its deferral account-funded broadband expansion program, then the Commission should reopen its 19 February 2007 cut-off date as the operative date for having considered requests from ABSPs to exclude communities that ILECs proposed to include in their respective broadband expansion programs on the basis that ABSPs already served or had firm plans to serve such communities as of that date.
11.
Barrett urges the Commission to re-open the process to allow competitors to
demonstrate whether they currently offer eligible broadband services in the communities approved for inclusion in the Companies' broadband expansion program.15 In a similar vein, Rogers argues that Bell's Application should be dismissed on the basis of its assertion that the large majority of the 112 locations approved for inclusion in that program are already served by HSPA service by Bell or Rogers.16 QMI makes similar claims17 and also notes that Vidéotron also has plans to serve some of the approved areas.18
12.
These claims are improper and should be rejected. They are tantamount to a request
for the review and variance of the finality of the Commission's 19 February 2007 cut-off date, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the very narrow issue raised by the Application, namely ensuring the Commission adopts the regulatory measure that most efficiently and least intrusively meets the Commission's Urban Service Comparability Requirement.
13.
The Commission confirmed the notion of a cut-off date in Telecom Public
Notice CRTC 2006-15, and determined in its 10 March 2006 letter that that date would be 19 February 2007. In addition, the Commission has already reaffirmed the appropriateness of "sticking" with this date, notwithstanding its acknowledgement that technology and market developments are dynamic. It confirmed the ongoing appropriateness of that cut-off date when
14 15 16 17 18
See Barrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 14; Rogers 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 11; and QMI 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 53. Barrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 14. See, for example, Rogers 4 October 2010 comments, paragraphs 4, 14 to 1, and Attachment 1 to Rogers' comments. QMI 4 October 2010 comments, paragraphs 28 to 31. QMI 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 30.
-6it dismissed BXI's application to have the Commission re-open that cut-off date in Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-111, Barrett Xplore Inc. – Application to review and vary certain determinations in Telecom Decision 2007-50, (Decision 2007-111), 22 November 2007. It is worth reprinting the Commission's reasons for rejecting its request: The Commission recognized the dynamic nature of the broadband service marketplace within the confines of a regulatory process when, as part of the Telecom Public Notice 2006-15 proceeding, ABSPs were given an opportunity to request the exclusion of communities from the ILECs' proposals on the basis of both their current and planned service areas. The Commission appreciates that plans can change over time, but agrees with Bell Canada et al. that in any regulatory proceeding certain dates must be established that apply to all parties. In order to ensure that the process is fair, predictable, and transparent, all parties are expected to adhere to these timelines subject to any requests for extension that the Commission may grant. If BXI had concerns with the absence of a milestone in the established process for updating its served and planned communities, this specific issue should have been raised at an early stage so that all parties and communities could be treated equally.19 [Emphasis added] 14.
These reasons for continuing to adhere to the 19 February 2007 cut-off date for ABSPs
to justify the exclusion of proposed areas that would be included in the deferral account-funded broadband expansion programs based on their then existing and planned service areas remain as valid, if not more so, today. The ILECs have spent considerable time and resources to identify the communities they originally proposed to include in their deferral account-funded programs. The proceeding to determine whether broadband services were already available in those areas, or if ABSPs had plans to serve those areas, spanned a period of close to two years. In addition, Bell has spent considerable time consulting with government and community representatives regarding the areas that were finally approved for the program.
If the
Commission were to re-open the process, all of this effort will have been wasted, and the lengthy process that led to the selection of the approved areas would start all over again, ultimately causing further delays in the roll-out of broadband to the approved communities to the detriment of potential subscribers. Moreover, there would be no guarantee that other ABSPs would not come forward in the future and request further reviews similar to those sought by Barrett and others now, serving only to add further regulatory uncertainty to this already lengthy process.
19
Decision CRTC 2007-111, paragraph 18.
-7With respect to the availability of Rogers' HSPA network in Ontario and Québec, it is
15.
noteworthy that in its New Release dated 2 November 2006, Rogers announced the launch of High Speed Data Packet Access (HSDPA) in the Golden Horseshoe area in southern Ontario, from Oshawa to Niagara Falls, including the Greater Toronto Area, (Brampton, Burloak, Etobicoke, Hamilton, Mississauga, North York, Oshawa, Scarborough, Richmond Hill, Pickering, Newmarket, Markham, St. Catharines, Oakville, Burlington, Toronto, Niagara Falls) on 2 November 200620 prior to the 19 February 2007 cut-off date referenced above.
With
reference to the expansion of its HSPA network, Rogers' 2006 Annual Report states: "We'll continue rolling out this new network technology across many more Canadian markets in 2007 enabling exciting new broadband services on wireless phones and devices."21
Further, in
October 2007, Rogers announced the expansion of its HSPA network to the following additional areas:
Ottawa/Gatineau, Kingston, Sudbury, Barrie, London, Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph,
Windsor, Greater Montreal, Québec [City], Chicoutimi and Trois-Rivières.22 Rogers had every opportunity to inform the Commission of its HSPA network expansion plans in advance of the 19 February 2007 cut-off date. It did not do so.
16.
Rogers' claim that the HSPA networks of Bell and/or Rogers cover 98 of the
112 approved communities is similarly irrelevant.
The Commission's Urban Service
Comparability Requirement as applied in Decision 2010-637 requires that the broadband services that will be made available in the approved communities are comparable to the Companies' legacy DSL services offered in urban areas.
Therefore, simply identifying
communities that are part of the approved list of areas that currently have HSPA services does not address the operative question, which is whether the HSPA services in those areas are capable of delivering a download speed of up to 6 Mbps in Ontario and up to 7 Mbps in Québec in accordance with the Urban Service Comparability Requirement. The simple answer is "no". Indeed, Bell will be required to implement significant network upgrades involving the addition of additional radio carriers, for example, in these areas in order to satisfy that requirement and
20
21 22
See: http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=investor_1_1&investor_1_1_actionOverrid e=%2Fportlets%2Fconsumer%2Finvestor%2FshowNewsDetail&investor_1_1yearInSelection=2006&investor_1_ 1BusiUnit=RCI&investor_1_1NewsID=1411027644&investor_1_1selectedPageIndex=0&investor_1_1fromNewR eleasePage=RCI&_pageLabel=IR_LANDING Rogers' 2006 Annual Report, p. 2, available at: http://www.rogers.com/cms/investor_relations/pdfs/annual/Rogers_Communications_Annual_Report_2006.pdf Rogers' News Release, dated 16 October 2007, available at: http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=investor_1_1&investor_1_1_actionOverrid e=%2Fportlets%2Fconsumer%2Finvestor%2FshowNewsDetail&investor_1_1yearInSelection=2007&investor_1_1 BusiUnit=RCI&investor_1_1NewsID=1510164289&investor_1_1selectedPageIndex=1&investor_1_1fromNewRel easePage=RCI&_pageLabel=IR_LANDING
-8provide the HSPA retail and wholesale wireless services to these areas which were outlined in its Application.
17.
In light of the above, Bell submits that Barrett's, Rogers' and QMI's claims are without
merit and should be dismissed. 3.2
Objections relating to competitive neutrality are similarly out of process
18.
Interveners have also raised a variety of objections that can be generally categorized as
arguments attacking the competitive neutrality of the Commission's rural broadband expansion regulatory framework or Bell's HSPA+ proposal. For example, Barrett has asserted it was unfair that only ILECs were permitted to make proposals to use the deferral account funds,23 and that the approval of HSPA+ should be contingent upon Bell granting wireless carriers with access to Bell Mobility towers.24 EastLink has opposed Bell's Application on the basis that granting Bell authority to build with an HSPA+ platform would harm competitors and thus not appropriately balance the interest of stakeholders.25
19.
These claims have no merit. First and foremost, these are nothing more than backdoor
attempts to re-open other elements of the rural broadband expansion regulatory framework that were decided years ago, affirmed in the face of applications for their review and variance and which also have nothing whatsoever to do with this Application in any event.
20.
In Decision 2006-9 the Commission considered the competitive impact of that decision
on competitors by establishing numerous safeguards to ensure that the disposition of funds from the deferral accounts would be done in a competitively neutral manner.
ILECs were
required to select communities that were unlikely to receive broadband services from any service provider in the near future. ABSPs were given an opportunity to propose the exclusion of proposed communities if they could show they already served or planned to provide broadband service in those communities as of the cut-off date of 19 February 2007. Only the uneconomic portion of the initiative to expand broadband services could be recovered using funds from the deferral accounts.
ABSPs were given rights to use any backbone facilities
constructed with deferral account funds on the same terms as the ILECs. All of these measures
23 24 25
Barrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 11. Barrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 17. EastLink 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 8.
-9were adopted to allow end-customers access to the widest possible choice of service providers and with the expressed intent of respecting principles of competitive neutrality. Moreover, these arguments are simply a rehash of the same tired arguments made by
21.
Barrett and rejected by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-15, Barrett Xplore Inc. - Application to review and vary determinations in disposition of funds in the deferral accounts, Telecom
Decision
CRTC 2006-9,
related
to
the
expansion
of
broadband
services,
(Decision 2007-15) at paragraph 19: The Commission does not agree with the arguments made by BXI, supported by UTC, Shaw, RCI, and Xit telecom, that in Decision 2006-9 the Commission did not apply the principle of competitive neutrality or that it ignored the impact of its determinations on competitors. The simple answer is that the Commission's rural broadband expansion framework has
22.
already built in the measures summarized above to safeguard and respect the principle of competitive neutrality. There is nothing about Bell's Application that changes or jeopardizes in any way the ongoing compliance with this principle. Ultimately, Bell's Application seeks nothing more than the operational flexibility to allow
23.
the Company to decide on what technology to utilize in satisfying the Commission's requirements for expanding broadband into the approved communities using deferral account funds. 3.3
Objections based upon least-cost technology are irrelevant
24.
In its comments, Barrett also questions whether the Commission has properly adhered
to the least-cost technology principle.26
25.
Barrett's concern is irrelevant and should be dismissed. As noted in the Application, Bell
has not taken issue with and is not challenging the Commission's determination to approve the drawdown of $306.3 million from Bell Canada's deferral account for the expansion of broadband services and its direction to use these funds to serve the approved communities. This quantum represents the application of the least-cost technology principle.
26
Barrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraphs 9 and 10.
- 10 -
26.
Bell's revised HSPA+ proposal would continue to respect this principle.
Any
implementation costs above the $306.3 million amount approved by the Commission would be borne by the Company.
27.
Barrett's objection is therefore irrelevant and should be rejected.
3.4
Objections based upon alleged non-compliance with the Policy Direction are incorrect
28.
Rogers' claims that Bell's Application should be rejected because it violates the Policy
Direction requiring that the Commission "use (regulatory) measures that are efficient and proportionate to their purpose and that interfere with the operation of the competitive market forces to the minimum extent necessary to meet the policy objectives".27 Rogers also notes that if the Commission varies Decision 2010-637 and permits Bell to deploy HSPA+ technology to provide the amended retail and wholesale wireless broadband services in the approved communities then Rogers, together with QMI, will file the proposed Part VII application with the Commission, as provided in the Attachment to its comments, seeking to review and vary the determinations in Decision 2006-9 and Decision 2007-15 that rejected a competitive bidding process to access deferral account funds for broadband expansion.
29.
Rogers has misinterpreted the Policy Direction.
The Policy Direction requires the
Commission to choose the least intrusive regulatory measure.
There are only two such
measures at issue here: one is the direction of the Commission majority that determined that the Companies should use legacy DSL to satisfy the Urban Service Comparability Requirement, and the other is Bell's proposal, namely to rescind the DSL Technology Directive and to provide the Companies with the flexibility to choose the technology that meets the Commission's minimum broadband service offering comparability characteristics. Revisiting the areas where ABSPs currently provide broadband services is not one of the regulatory measures at issue. 4.0
THE COMPANIES' BROADBAND EXPANSION SERVICE DOES NOT PREVENT COMPETING WIRELESS CARRIERS FROM ACCESSING BELL'S TRANSMITTER TOWERS
30.
Barrett alleges that the Companies' proposed Broadband Expansion Service (BES) is
essentially useless to competing wireless service providers (WSPs). Barrett's claim is based on
27
Rogers 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 3.
- 11 the assertion that BES does not also include the use of Bell's transmitter towers since it terminates at the towers.
As a result, Barrett insinuates that competing WSPs would be
precluded from using their own access facilities to provide wireless broadband service to end-users in the approved communities and instead would be forced to use Bell's HSPA+ local distribution service.28
Barrett claims further that the remedy to this situation is to permit
competing WSPs to access to Bell's transmitter towers.
31.
Barrett is incorrect in stating that the proposed BES terminates at the transmitter tower.
As a point of clarification, BES provides a combination of a port and a path to connect the approved community's serving Central Office (CO) (as opposed to the transmitter tower) to another CO on the Companies' Optical Ethernet (OE) enabled network. As well, BES permits an ABSP, through the use of BES and additional service components provided by the Companies such as Ethernet Access Service, as specified within the Companies' GT Item 5020, to establish a 10 Mbps burstable Ethernet transport connection to and from an ABSP's serving office in an approved community to that ABSP's serving office anywhere on the Companies' OE-enabled network outside that approved community regardless of whether or not the transport facilities utilized were constructed using deferral account funds. At that point an ABSP could utilize its own facilities, or the facilities of a third party, or additional Bell services to further transport the data received to other locations, subject to the terms and conditions of BES and all applicable services utilized. Hence the Companies' proposed BES not only provides access to the Companies' backbone transport constructed using deferral account funds at a minimal rate, as directed in Decision 2006-9, but also provides access to facilities that were not constructed using deferral account funds at the same minimal rate, even though this was not required by Decision 2006-9.
32.
Barrett's assertion that competing WSPs will be unable to utilize their own access
facilities to provide wireless services to end-users located in the approved communities is also incorrect. This assertion is based on Barrett's mistaken assumption that it will not be able to obtain access to Bell Mobility's transmitter towers. It ignores, or forgets, Industry Canada's clear Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements, issued in November 2008 (CPC-2-0-17) further to Industry Canada's Advanced Wireless Spectrum (AWS) regulatory framework.
As Barrett
should be aware, Condition of Licence 8 requires Cellular, Personal Communication Services
28
Barrett 4 October 2010 comments, paragraph 19.
- 12 (PCS) and AWS licensees to share antenna tower sites with requesting licensed wireless operators, subject to available space on the tower and technical feasibility. This is a mandatory antenna site sharing obligation. In the event parties are unable to agree on commercial market rates for antenna placements at a site, the Conditions of Licence call for binding arbitration before Industry Canada-appointed arbitrators. Based on the foregoing, Barrett's assertion is irrelevant given that any tower, regardless of whether constructed for the Companies' broadband expansion program or otherwise, will be available for sharing pursuant to the AWS site sharing rules established by Industry Canada. Hence Barrett's comments regarding tower access should be disregarded. 5.0
BELL'S USE OF BELL MOBILITY'S NETWORK TO DELIVER BROADBAND SERVICES TO THE APPROVED COMMUNITIES IS APPROPRIATE
33.
QMI objects to the fact that Bell Mobility is a distinct and separate legal entity from Bell
Aliant and Bell, and claims Bell has no authority to transfer Bell Canada deferral account funds to Bell Mobility.
34.
In response, Bell is obligated to dispose of its deferral account funds in the manner
approved by the Commission in Decision 2008-1, namely, to provide broadband services in the 112 approved communities.
Bell will comply with that obligation, using the most effective
measures necessary and where those services are regulated (i.e., wholesale broadband services), Bell will file the necessary tariffs. Whether Bell leases facilities or builds its facilities (or uses facilities owned by Bell Mobility, a Bell affiliate) is irrelevant as long as retail customers (and wholesale competitors) get access to the broadband service offerings as proposed in Bell's Application. In short, QMI is simply raising a complete red herring. 6.0
BELL'S AMENDED HSPA+ PROPOSAL IS SUFFICIENTLY DETAILED AND ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS
35.
MTS Allstream and PIAC have both asked the Commission to scrutinize Bell's amended
HSPA+ proposal to ensure it meets the relevant technical requirements.
Bell's Application
addresses and satisfies each of the three concerns the Commission identified in the context of the proposed service offerings. Specifically, in Decision 2010-637, the Commission noted that the Companies' original proposal failed to comply with the Urban Service Comparability Requirement.
- 13 -
36.
Bell has provided a detailed description of its amended retail and wholesale wireless
broadband service proposals, respectively, in section 4.1.1 of the Application, and Table 1 of Attachment 1, and in section 4.1.1.2 of the Application, and Table 1 of Attachment 2. These detailed service descriptions and the additional information provided in section 4.1 of the Application fully demonstrate not only that the amended HSPA+ proposal adequately addresses each of the concerns raised by the Commission,29 and meets (and in several instances, exceeds) the comparable service levels available through the Companies' urban retail and wholesale legacy DSL service offerings in Ontario and Québec.
They confirm that as the
Companies' retail and wholesale legacy DSL product line and service offerings change, the proposed retail and wholesale wireless broadband services will also change in lockstep in the approved areas. As a result, the proposed wireless broadband service offerings will continue to meet the comparable service levels that will be made available with the Companies' legacy DSL services.
Finally, in Attachment 3 of its Application, Bell provided additional supporting
information, in confidence to the Commission, related to the expected take rates and average usage assumptions associated with the amended HSPA+ service offerings, noting that with this proposal, the Companies will deliver coverage consistent with the customer experience for legacy DSL in urban areas.
37.
Given the above, concerns about the adequacy of the proposed HSPA+ service
offerings are unfounded and should be rejected. 7.0
CONCLUSION
38.
Based on the above, Bell urges the Commission to expeditiously approve the specific
relief requested by the Company in its DSL Application, namely to provide: -
A declaration rescinding the directive at paragraph 35 of Decision 2010-637 that the Companies must provide broadband services to the 112 communities approved for inclusion in their deferral account-funded broadband expansion program in various prior Commission decisions using legacy DSL technology rather than the HSPA+ wireless broadband technology proposed by the Company (the DSL Technology Directive); and
29
In particular, the proposed retail wireless HSPA+ services will be made available by Bell Mobility in the approved communities. The proposed wholesale WWBS will be made available by Bell Canada in the approved communities.
- 14 -
Declarations that (a) the wireless retail and wholesale broadband proposals provided in the Application comply with the Commission's determinations in Decisions 2006-9, 2007-50 and 2008-1, and (b) approve the amended wireless broadband proposal. *** End of Document ***
