Thread by @Mark_Goldberg

There's been lots of chatter about the negotiated "off-tariff" wholesale services agreement between @Rogers & @Videotron

@TeksavvyBuzz filed a #CRTC Part 1 complaint that includes a section on these rates, as well as rates being charged by @Bell to @EBOX_CA

Some thoughts

1/6

The Teksavvy complaint can be found here: teksavvy.com/wp-content/upl…

As Teksavvy acknowledges, negotiated agreements have been permitted since 2008. In 2012, #CRTC updated filing requirements to simply a summary of general details for review

crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/20…
2/6

The #CRTC rulings on Negotiated Agreements call for filing them on the public record. I wonder if the complaint about the Rogers - Videotron agreement is premature, given that until the deal closes, just as a matter of law, does an agreement even exist to be filed?

Lawyers?
3/6

At ¶61, cites #CRTC 2020-268, Teksavvy says "a party alleging an undue preference carries only the burden of establishing that there is a preference"

Note use of present tense.

And §27(3) of Telecom Act says CRTC may determine if a carrier "has complied" (past tense)

4/6

At ¶62, Teksavvy says "Videotron is receiving preferred wholesale access rates and preferred fibre backhaul rates" and "it is irrefutable that such a preference exists", each time using the present tense ("is receiving", "exists").

That doesn't seem accurate

5/6

Teksavvy seems to be asking #CRTC to rule on hypotheticals, like Precogs from Minority Report.

A valid complaint might seek to ensure agreements are indeed filed in conformance with #CRTC policies, but it seems premature to claim a preference exists, until it actually does

6/6