Search

Telecom Decision CRTC 2026-89

PDF version

Reference: Part 1 application posted on 21 May 2025

Gatineau, 14 May 2026

Public record: 8640-B2-202502476

Bell Canada – Application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in nine exchanges in Manitoba

Summary

The Commission is working to promote competition for telecommunications services and streamlining regulations where appropriate while maintaining strong consumer protections for Canadians. To streamline regulations, the Commission approves applications for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services after determining whether there is sufficient competition in the affected exchanges. Residential local exchange services refer to what are more commonly called landline or home phone services.

Bell Canada requested forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in nine exchanges in Manitoba: Altona, Carman, Lockport, Morden, Selkirk, Steinbach, Swan River, Thompson, and Winkler.

The Commission received a range of submissions on Bell Canada’s application. The Commission considers that Bell Canada provided sufficient evidence to support its request for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in five of these exchanges and that Bell Canada’s draft customer communications plan meets the Commission’s expectations. However, the Commission does not consider that the competitor presence test is met in Altona and Carman, or that competitive services are widely or robustly available in Morden and Winkler.

The Commission therefore approves Bell Canada’s application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in Lockport, Selkirk, Steinbach, Swan River, and Thompson, but denies forbearance in the exchanges of Altona, Carman, Morden, and Winkler.

Application

  1. The Commission received an application from Bell Canada, dated 9 April 2025, requesting forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services Footnote 1 in nine exchanges in Manitoba: Altona, Carman, Lockport, Morden, Selkirk, Steinbach, Swan River, Thompson, and Winkler. Bell Canada, through its Bell MTS Inc. (Bell MTS) division, is the incumbent local exchange carrier in these exchanges.
  2. Pursuant to the Commission’s requirements in Telecom Decision 2006-15 and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2020-40, Bell Canada provided documents to support its forbearance request, including competitor presence data and a draft customer communications plan for the Commission’s review. Bell Canada also submitted the following evidence to demonstrate that the nine exchanges meet the competitor presence test:
    • serviceability data for facilities-based wireline competitors at the postal code level;
    • long-term evolution (LTE) wireless coverage maps for facilities-based wireless competitors, namely TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers); and
    • data from July 2024 produced by Mediastats Inc., a third-party telecommunications data aggregator that provides residential serviceability analyses.
  3. Bell Canada filed a draft customer communications plan and indicated in its application that it would begin notifying affected customers on 9 April 2025 and complete notifications by 11 April 2025. These notices were to explain the implications of forbearance, confirm service continuity under Bell Canada’s Unregulated Terms of Service, and provide contact information for the Commission, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc. (CCTS),Footnote 2 the Competition Bureau, the Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA), and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC).
  4. The Commission received a total of eight interventions consisting of six from individual residents, one from a municipal government, and another from TELUS. Bell Canada filed a reply on 30 June 2025.

Positions of parties

  1. Interveners raised several issues regarding Bell Canada’s application. They identified the absence of fibre Internet service and poor wireless signal quality in their areas, the alleged omissions of residential postal codes from Bell Canada’s coverage data, and concerns about the reliability of access to emergency services in the event of deregulation. Most of the interveners’ comments were specific to the Morden and Winkler exchanges and challenged the adequacy and credibility of Bell Canada’s evidence.
  2. Specifically, with respect to Morden and Winkler, four individual residents stated that neither Bell MTS nor Valley Fiber Ltd (Valley Fiber) is able to provide fibre Internet services to their residences and that Bell MTS, TELUS, Rogers, and Freedom Mobile Inc. are not able to provide high-quality cellular voice service in those exchanges. A fifth resident submitted a screenshot of an LTE signal strength reading to further demonstrate the inadequacy of wireless coverage in the area. That same resident and a municipal government submitted address and postal code data that was excluded from Bell Canada’s coverage maps. Interveners therefore requested that the Commission not forbear from regulating Bell Canada’s residential local exchange services in Morden and Winkler.
  3. Bell Canada replied that, regardless of the postal code and address data that was submitted and the issues reported around fibre Internet and cellphone services, the competitor presence test was met. Bell Canada maintained that that test does not require universal service availability and that all affected customers would continue to have access to standalone local exchange services at regulated rates. Bell Canada also asserted that competitor residential local exchange service coverage would continue to meet or exceed 75% in all exchanges, even with the addition of the allegedly omitted postal codes.

Commission’s analysis

  1. The Commission assessed Bell Canada’s application on the basis of the local forbearance test set out in Telecom Decision 2006-15 and modified in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2020-40. This test requires the Commission to consider service definition and product and geographic markets, evidence of a competitive market, the adequacy and transparency of any associated customer communications plan, and the application’s procedural compliance and public record.

Service definition and product and geographic markets

  1. Bell Canada is seeking forbearance from the regulation of tariffed residential local exchange services in nine Manitoba exchanges. A list of these services is set out in the appendix to this decision. In Telecom Decision 2006-15, the Commission found that all of these services are eligible to be considered for forbearance.
  2. Bell Canada defined the product market as residential local exchange services and the geographic market as each individual exchange. The Commission considers that Bell Canada’s product and geographic market definitions are reasonable.

Evidence of a competitive market

  1. Bell Canada submitted that each of the nine exchanges is served by at least one facilities-based wireline competitor and one or more facilities-based wireless competitors, each covering at least 75% of residential households.
  2. In each of the nine exchanges for which Bell Canada is seeking forbearance, the facilities-based competitors are:
    Exchange Wireline competitor Wireless competitor
    Altona Valley Fiber TELUS and Rogers
    Carman Valley Fiber TELUS and Rogers
    Lockport Rogers, including Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Rogers, including Shaw) TELUS and Rogers
    Morden Valley Fiber TELUS and Rogers
    Selkirk Rogers, including Shaw TELUS and Rogers
    Steinbach Rogers, including Shaw TELUS and Rogers
    Swan River Westman Communications Group (Westman Group) TELUS and Rogers
    Thompson Rogers, including Shaw TELUS and Rogers
    Winkler Valley Fiber TELUS and Rogers
  3. The Commission considers that Bell Canada sufficiently demonstrated the presence of at least one facilities-based wireline and at least one facilities-based wireless competitor serving at least 75% of residential households in five exchanges, namely Lockport, Selkirk, Steinbach, Swan River, and Thompson.
  4. In those five exchanges, two of the wireline competitors submitted by Bell Canada are registered competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), namely Rogers, including Shaw, and Westman Group, and their household coverage exceeds the 75% threshold. Bell Canada also demonstrated that wireless service in each of these exchanges covers at least 75% of locations where residential local exchange service lines exist, as confirmed by TELUS’s intervention. The Commission therefore considers that Bell Canada submitted adequate data to demonstrate that the competitor presence test is met in these five exchanges.
  5. In the Altona and Carman exchanges, however, Bell Canada identified Valley Fiber as the principal wireline competitor. Valley Fiber has not received Commission approval to operate as a CLEC and is no longer a proposed CLEC. As a result, Valley Fiber cannot be considered a facilities-based wireline competitor for the purpose of the competitor presence test. In the absence of authorization for Valley Fiber to operate as a CLEC and provide local exchange services in compliance with Commission requirements, including vital services such as 9-1-1 and local number portability, the Commission considers that Bell Canada has not demonstrated that the competitor presence test is met in Altona and Carman.
  6. For the exchanges of Morden and Winkler, an individual resident and a municipal government submitted technical evidence, namely maps and lists of omitted postal codes. That same individual resident also submitted an LTE signal strength readingFootnote 3 for the exchanges, and six other interveners submitted statements regarding their individual experiences with poor wireless coverage. In light of Valley Fiber’s status, the Commission considers that this evidence demonstrates that wireless coverage in several zones within those exchanges, including rural areas such as Glencross, is weak or functionally absent. The evidence raises concerns about sufficient competition and, when compounded with Valley Fiber’s status, raises doubts about whether LTE coverage is widespread and reliable. The Commission considers that the coverage maps submitted by Bell Canada depicting Valley Fiber’s coverage were approximate and subject to change without notice, and that maps with up-to-date and precise data are required.
  7. Consequently, the Commission finds that the competitor presence test is not met in the Morden and Winkler exchanges and that they cannot be forborne from regulation.

Customer communications plan and transparency

  1. The Commission reviewed Bell Canada’s draft customer communications plan for the remaining exchanges of Lockport, Selkirk, Steinbach, Swan River, and Thompson, and found it to be procedurally compliant and substantively sufficient. The Commission is of the view that the draft plan ensures that customers receive timely, clear, and actionable information about the impact of forbearance.
  2. The Commission considers the references to Bell Canada’s Unregulated Terms of Service and the inclusion of complaint and oversight bodies, namely the Commission, the CCTS, the Competition Bureau, the OCA, and the OPC, to be key elements that will help ensure customer protection during the transition. The Commission is of the view that the draft plan also supports service continuity and regulatory transparency.

Procedural compliance and public record

  1. The application was filed, published, and processed in accordance with the Commission’s procedural requirements. Six individual residents, one municipal government, and TELUS submitted interventions.

Conclusion

  1. In light of all of the above, the Commission is satisfied that Bell Canada’s application for forbearance from the regulation of local exchange services in five of the nine exchanges, namely Lockport, Selkirk, Steinbach, Swan River, and Thompson, meets the criteria established in Telecom Decision 2006-15 and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2020-40. The Commission therefore approves Bell Canada’s application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in those five exchanges.
  2. The Commission denies Bell Canada’s application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the Altona, Carman, Morden, and Winkler exchanges, because it is not satisfied that there is sufficient competition in these exchanges, given the concerns regarding the accuracy of the coverage maps, the adequacy of wireless coverage, and Valley Fiber’s lack of CLEC status.
  3. The Commission considers that granting forbearance in these five exchanges supports the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(c) and (f) of the Telecommunications Act.Footnote 4This approval is also consistent with the 2023 Policy Direction,Footnote 5 which instructs the Commission to encourage competition, ensure affordable and high-quality telecommunications services, and reduce regulatory barriers.

Secretary General

Appendix to Telecom Decision CRTC 2026-89

Local exchange services eligible to be considered for forbearance from regulation in this decision (for residential customers only)

Tariff Item List of services

24001 475 Rate Schedule for Primary Exchange Service

24001 480 Community Calling Service

24001 490 Urban Unlimited Service

24001 510 Service Charges

24001 720 Premium Exchange Service (Residential)

24001 800 Suspension of Service

24001 1000 Joint User Service (Residential)

24001 1600 Directory Listings

24001 2126 Label Service

24001 2135 Custom Telephone Number Service

24001 2136 Rotary Service (Residential)

24001 2142 Calling Features

24001 2145 900 Call Denial/Blocking Service

24001 2250 Voice and Feature Bundle (Residential)

24001 2251 Voice and Feature Bundle Lite (Residential)

24001 2260 Messaging Bundle

24001 2261 Mini Calling Features Value Pack

24001 2263 Calling Feature Flex Packs

24001 2265 Fibre to the Home (FTTH) Service

24001 2450 Remote Call Forwarding

Related documents

Date modified: