ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Our Reference: 8622-B2-201312917
Ottawa, 26 March 2014
BY EMAIL
Barry Chapman
Vice President Regulatory Affairs
Bell Canada
Floor 19, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Pamela Dinsmore
Vice President Regulatory
Rogers Communications
333 Bloor Street East
Toronto, Ontario M4W 1G9
rci.regulatory@rci.rogers.com
Howard M. Hacker
Legal Counsel
Plazacorp Investments Limited and
West Harbour City (III) Residences Corp.
10 Wanless Avenue, Suite 201
Toronto, Ontario M4N 1V6
hhacker@plazacorp.com
Re: Bell Canada access to York Harbour Club multi-dwelling unit
Dear Madam, Sirs,
The Commission received an application from Bell Canada, dated 11 March 2014, in which it alleged that the owners of the York Harbour Club multi-dwelling unit (MDU) are denying Bell Canada access to the building for the purposes of provisioning and offering its Fibe TV broadcast distribution service. Bell Canada submitted that this gives rise to an undue preference in favour of Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) and an undue disadvantage to Bell Canada and to the residents of the building, contrary to section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations[1] and section 6.1 of the Pay Television Regulations, 1990.[2]
In Telecom Decision 2014-42[3], the Commission determined that Bell Canada was being denied access to the York Harbour Club MDU in Toronto on reasonable terms and conditions. In that decision, the Commission determined that it would be appropriate to enforce the MDU access condition imposed on all local exchange carriers (LEC) under section 24 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act)[4]. In the circumstances, the Commission determined that, effective 31 March 2014, Rogers, whose communications network is already installed in the York Harbour Club MDU, would be precluded from providing telecommunications services to residents in that building unless Bell Canada had been given access under reasonable terms and conditions by that date.
Commission staff notes that the Commission’s most recent annual monitoring report demonstrates a significant and growing trend in the industry towards the bundling of telephony, Internet and broadcasting services[5]. According to this report, in 2012 there were approximately 10 million residential subscriptions containing bundled communications services, which represents an absolute growth rate of approximately 72.4 percent relative to the total number of subscriptions for bundled services in 2008[6].
In light of this trend, and given that Rogers has facilities in place that will allow it to offer bundles of telephony, Internet as well as broadcasting services to the residents of the York Harbour Club MDU, Commission staff is of the view that precluding the delivery of broadcasting services over Bell Canada’s transmission facilities would place Bell Canada at a significant disadvantage with respect to the provision of telecommunications services. Further, and more importantly, the users of the building would effectively be prevented from exercising the choice that would otherwise be open to them to take their telecommunications services as part of a bundle that could include broadcasting services. Commission staff considers that such a situation would run contrary to the core principles of competition and end-user choice underpinning the MDU access framework set out in Telecom Decision 2003-45[7] and reaffirmed in Telecom Decision 2014-42.
In light of the above and in the specific circumstances of this case, Commission staff consider that terms of access that preclude Bell Canada from offering broadcasting services to the residents of the York Harbour Club residential MDU result in a situation where Bell Canada is unable to provide telecommunication services under reasonable terms and conditions.
Accordingly, Commission staff considers that the continued insistence on such a prohibition by the MDU owner necessarily results in the continued non-satisfaction of the section 24 condition to which Rogers is subject. Moreover, if this condition is not satisfied by 31 March 2014, the Commission’s direction in Telecom Decision 2014-42 would prevent Rogers from providing telecommunications services in the York Harbour Club residential MDU effective that date.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by:
Chris Seidl
Executive Director
Telecommunications
[1]SOR/97-555
[2]SOR/90-105
[3]Bell Canada – Request for access to Plaza Corporation’s York Harbour Club multi-dwelling unit building project, Telecom Decision CRTC 2014-42, 5 February 2014.
[4]The MDU access condition provides that the provision of telecommunications services by a LEC in an MDU is subject to the condition that all LECs wishing to serve end-users in that MDU are able to access end-users in that MDU on a timely basis under reasonable terms and conditions.
[5]CRTC Communications Monitoring Report, 2013
[6]Ibid. at table 2.2.6
[7]Provision of telecommunications services to customers in multi-dwelling units, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-45, 30 June 2003.
- Date modified: