Follow-up to Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-1, Use of deferral accounts to improve access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities and to expand broadband services to rural and remote communities
File Nos. 8638-C12-200817505, 8638-C12-200817512, 8638-C12-200817520, 8740-M59-201000348
Comments of Videotron Ltd. and Quebecor Media Inc. 21 May 2010
I.
Introduction
1.
Videotron Ltd. (Videotron) and Quebecor Media Inc. (Quebecor Media) are filing these comments in accordance with the procedures established by Commission staff's letter of 30 April 2010 regarding proposals submitted by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) and Bell Canada (collectively, Bell) to use deferral account funds for broadband expansion and subscriber rebates.
2.
We have serious concerns with Bell's broadband expansion proposal which would use deferral account monies to subsidize and expand Bell Mobility's wireless HSPA+ network.
3.
As discussed in Section II below, Bell's broadband expansion proposal is inappropriate from a jurisdictional perspective, totally unreliable from a costing perspective, anti-competitive and does not comply with the requirements of Use of deferral accounts to improve access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities and to expand broadband services to rural and remote communities, Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-1, 17 January 2008 (Decision 2008-1) or the earlier, related decision Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-15 - Use of deferral account funds to expand broadband services to certain rural and remote communities, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-50, 6 July 2007 (Decision 2007-50).
4.
Bell's broadband expansion proposal should be rejected by the Commission and Bell should be directed to proceed with its original DSL-based proposal, with costs duly scrutinized, in the subset of relevant communities approved by the Commission in Decisions 200750 and 2008-1. Residual deferral account funds should be rebated to subscribers. If Bell does not wish to proceed with the DSL proposal then the totality of the outstanding deferral account funds should be rebated to subscribers.
5.
Regarding the form of rebates, total or partial, to be provided to subscribers, we also have serious concerns. These concerns were first set out in Quebecor Media’s letter of 15 February 2010 regarding Bell’s 29 January 2010 rebate proposal, and are reiterated in Section III below.
6.
Bell’s rebate proposal attempts to use deferral accounts monies to tie subscribers to Bell and, as such, is contrary to the requirements of Decision 2008-1 and the earlier, related decision Disposition of funds in the deferral accounts , Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9, 16 February 2006 (Decision 2006-9). We believe that whatever deferral account funds are to be returned to subscribers must be done so by way of a one-time rebate in the form of a cheque.
II.
Bell's Broadband Expansion Proposal
7.
On 15 January 2010, Bell filed a letter with the Commission which purported to give notice to the Commission of changes to Bell's broadband expansion plans approved in Decisions 2007-50 and 2008-1. What Bell was actually doing was attempting a “bait and switch” whereby Bell obtained approval of an acceptable plan based on the use of DSL and fixed wireless services and then tried to switch to a radically different plan which had never been the subject of public comment, had never been approved by the Commission, used a totally different network owned and operated by a different carrier, and failed to comply with the Commission’s criteria for deferral account funding of broadband expansion.
8.
Bell's revised broadband expansion proposal is totally unacceptable. In our submission, there are two fundamental problems with the proposal: i)
Bell’s revised proposal is an abuse of process; and
ii)
Bell's revised proposal does not comply with the Commission’s criteria for deferral account funding of ILEC broadband expansion in remote and rural communities in several ways: a) The Bell Aliant portion of the plan would not involve expansion of Bell Aliant’s network. Instead, funds generated by rates charged to Bell Aliant subscribers would be used to subsidize Bell Mobility's network. Nothing in the Commission’s decisions or the Telecommunications Act (the Act) permits an ILEC to use deferral account funds to subsidize another Canadian carrier’s network or services; b) The Bell Canada portion of the plan does not involve expansion of Bell Canada’s network. Instead, funds generated by rates charged to Bell Canada subscribers would be used to subsidize Bell Mobility's network. Nothing in the Commission’s decisions or the Act permits an ILEC to use deferral account funds to subsidize another Canadian carrier’s network or services; c) Bell's alleged costs lack all credibility and consequently eliminate the possibility of accepting any part of Bell's HSPA+ proposal; d) Bell’s proposal is not competitively neutral as it would involve the direct subsidization of Bell Mobility’s mobile wireless network and mobile wireless services. As such, the proposal is contrary to the principles applied by the Commission when making its determinations in Decisions 2007-50 and 2008-1, and would undermine market forces in a manner directly counter to the Policy Direction;
e) Bell's proposal is not based on the least-cost technology as required by Decisions 2006-9 and 2008-1; and f)
Bell's proposal does not provide a range of speeds and usage limits that are comparable to the services available to users in urban areas, as required by Decision 2008-1.
9.
In our submission the Commission should reject Bell's revised broadband expansion proposal using HSPA+ technology and direct Bell Aliant and Bell Canada to implement their original DSL-based proposal, with costs duly scrutinized, restricted to the subset of relevant communities approved by the Commission in Decisions 2007-50 and 2008-1.
i)
Bait and Switch - An Abuse of Process
10.
Bell Canada first filed a broadband expansion proposal on 2 December 2003 pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure . In its application, Bell Canada requested approval to use funds in its deferral account to expand its DSL footprint over a threeyear period into communities which had no high-speed broadband Internet connectivity from any provider. Consideration of Bell Canada's application was suspended pending the release of Review and disposition of deferral accounts for the second price cap period, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-1, 24 March 2004 (PN 2004-1) and then made part of the record of the PN 2004-1 proceeding.
11.
The PN 2004-1 proceeding resulted in Decision 2006-9 where the Commission concluded that the ILECs should use funds in their deferral accounts to expand broadband services to rural and remote communities, among other things. Bell Canada’s 2 December 2003 proposal was superseded by Bell Canada’s submission in the PN 20041 process and rendered moot by the Commission’s conclusions in Decision 2006-9.
12.
Pursuant to Decision 2006-9, on 1 September 2006, Bell submitted a broadband expansion proposal which relied on a combination of DSL and fixed wireless technology.
13.
In Review of proposals to dispose of the funds accumulated in the deferral accounts , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-15, 30 November 2006 (Public Notice 2006-15), the Commission initiated a proceeding to consider the broadband expansion proposal of Bell, as well as the proposals of the other ILECs.
14.
Quebecor Media and numerous other parties provided the Commission with comments on Bell’s proposal. Those comments were necessarily restricted to the DSL and fixed wireless approach described in Bell’s proposal. Nothing else was on the table. The record of that proceeding closed on 14 August 2007.
