Telecom Order CRTC 2026-56

PDF version

Gatineau, 1 April 2026

Public records: Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership Tariff Notices 591 and 592, Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7724, NorthernTel, Limited Partnership Tariff Notice 429, Northwestel Inc. Tariff Notice 1262, and Télébec, Société en commandite Tariff Notice 560

Various companies – Withdrawal of hotel services

Summary

The Commission received applications from Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership; Bell Canada; NorthernTel, Limited Partnership; Northwestel Inc.; and Télébec, Société en commandite (collectively, the Bell companies) proposing to withdraw their respective hotel services.

The hotel services are provided in the Bell companies’ respective incumbent operating territories and are primarily for use by guests at hotels and/or motels. The Bell companies noted that demand for the hotel services has declined significantly and the Bell companies do not anticipate any future increase in demand. The hotel services are no longer representative of current business needs or technology standards.

Accordingly, the Commission considers that the Bell companies’ applications are reasonable and approves all of the Bell companies’ applications.

Applications

1. The Commission received applications dated 19 August 2025 from Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, a division of Bell Canada (Bell Aliant); Bell Canada; NorthernTel, Limited Partnership (NorthernTel); Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel); and Télébec, Société en commandite (Télébec) [collectively, the Bell companies] proposing to withdraw their respective hotel services in the following tariffs:
   • Bell Aliant General Tariff, Item 825 – Business Communication Service (Hotel and Motel BCS) – New Brunswick Only and Item 205.6 – Hotel Service – NS & PEI Only;
   • Bell Canada General Tariff, Private Branch Exchange Service Item 430 – General;
   • NorthernTel General Tariff, Private Branch Exchange Service Section N190 – Hotel-Motel Service;
   • Northwestel General Tariff, Item 503 – Charge-A-Call Telephone Service; and
   • Télébec General Tariff, Section 5.12 – Long distance telephone line service for hotels, motels, hospitals, and educational institutions.
2. The Bell companies indicated that the hotel services are provided in their respective incumbent operating territories and are primarily for use by guests at hotels and/or motels. However, Bell Aliant’s hotel service in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is a network exchange service that can also be used by hotel and motel operator. The Bell companies noted that the hotel services are mature services for which demand has fallen significantly over several years. In addition, the hotel services are supported by network equipment that is old, which impairs the Bell companies’ ability to repair and restore services in a timely manner in the event of an outage. The Bell companies therefore do not anticipate any future increase in demand.
3. NorthernTel, Northwestel, and Télébec submitted that as an alternative to the hotel services, customers can use their own private branch exchange equipment, a suitable long-distance package, or a combination of those, available from NorthernTel, Northwestel, or Télébec, or from other telecommunications service providers. Bell Aliant and Bell Canada submitted that as an alternative to the hotel services, hotel or motel operators may use local access, such as business individual or multi-line service, a suitable long-distance package, or a combination of those. The Bell companies also included suggested alternatives in their customer notices.
4. Bell Canada also proposed to make a housekeeping change to remove the reference to Message Rate Individual Line service, which was recently withdrawn, Footnote 1 from the same item of its tariff.
5. The Bell companies all requested an effective date of 3 November 2025 for their respective withdrawal applications.
6. The Commission received an intervention from an individual regarding Bell Aliant’s application for the hotel service in New Brunswick. The Bell companies filed a reply to the intervention.

Positions of parties

1. The intervener indicated that terminating Bell Aliant’s hotel service in New Brunswick would put undue expense on business owners, since hotel and motel operators would be required to upgrade their equipment, resulting in higher costs.
2. The intervener submitted that withdrawal of a service is appropriate only in circumstances where it would not result in harm, and that Bell Aliant’s proposal would result in harm in this case.
3. The Bell companies replied that continued operation of a legacy service with very minimal demand is not sustainable. The Bell companies confirmed that demand for the hotel services has declined significantly over time and is currently exceedingly low. As such, the hotel services are no longer representative of current business needs or technology standards. The Bell companies also identified alternative options which consist of standard business services that have been used by numerous businesses without difficulty.
4. The Bell companies submitted that, although the intervener expressed concern that the withdrawal would be harmful to hotel and motel operators, harm may instead be associated with continued reliance on an outdated and potentially unreliable service. The Bell companies confirmed in their reply to the intervention that no other comments were received from hotel or motel operator from the other affected provinces. The Bell companies also affirmed that they received no comments from any hotel or motel operator in New Brunswick.

Commission’s analysis

1. In compliance with the procedure set out in Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-455-1, the Bell companies provided the Commission with (i) a description of the service proposed to be withdrawn, (ii) the proposed withdrawal date, (iii) rationale for the withdrawal, (iv) the number of customers affected, and (v) a copy of the notice to affected customers. Additionally, the Bell companies identified potential alternative services in both their applications and their customer notices.
2. The network equipment supporting the hotel services is old and will no longer be supported, which impairs the Bell companies’ ability to repair and restore services in a timely manner in the event of an outage. Given that the number of affected customers is low and that the customers were notified of the withdrawals in advance, any potential negative impact of the withdrawals on customers is minimized. As well, no customers who are directly affected by the withdrawal of these tariffs intervened or contacted the Bell companies directly.
3. The maintenance of tariffs for legacy services Footnote 2 with a limited customer base creates an unnecessary regulatory burden for both the service providers and the Commission. Approval of the proposed withdrawals would reduce this burden, while accurately reflecting the current market landscape, given that demand and customer base for the hotel services has been declining for several years. The Commission considers that the Bell companies’ proposals are reasonable and comply with the relevant regulatory policies concerning service withdrawal.
4. The Commission considers that the Bell companies were able to address the concerns raised by the intervener.
5. The Commission also considers that Bell Canada’s proposed housekeeping change to remove the reference to the recently withdrawn Message Rate Individual Line service is reasonable.
6. The Commission considers that approval of these applications advances the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(c) and (f) of the Telecommunications Act. Footnote 3

Conclusion

1. In light of the above, the Commission approves all of the Bell companies’ applications.
2. Revised tariff pages are to be issued within 10 calendar days of the date of this order. Revised tariff pages can be submitted to the Commission without a description page or a request for approval; a tariff application is not required. Secretary General

Related documents

• Bell Canada – Approval of a tariff application, Telecom Order CRTC 2025-108, 16 May 2025
• Approval processes for tariff applications and intercarrier agreements, Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-455-1, 19 February 2016
• Aliant Telecom Inc., Telecom Order CRTC 2005-8, 6 January 2005

Footnotes

Footnote 1 See Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7708, which was approved in Telecom Order 2025-108.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2 For example, Bell Aliant’s Hotel and Motel BCS in New Brunswick was migrated from NBTel Inc.’s General Tariff to Aliant Telecom’s General Tariff in 2005. Bell Aliant’s Hotel Service in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island was migrated from Island Telecom Inc.’s and Maritime Tel & Tel Limited’s General Tariffs to Aliant Telecom’s General Tariff in 2005. See Telecom Order 2005-8.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3 The cited policy objectives are: 7(c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications; and (f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Date modified:

2026-04-01