The CRTC has asked Rogers and Bell to share more information about network sharing agreements as it explores whether or not it is giving some companies preferential treatment in the telco market.

In January, independent ISP TekSavvy asked the CRTC to investigate the Rogers-Shaw deal, specifically citing an agreement between Rogers and Videotron to lease the former’s broadband infrastructure, should the Freedom Mobile brand be sold.

During hearings late last year, the Competition Bureau said one of the reasons it was opposed to the merger was because Videotron could not be competitive outside of Quebec at the minimum rates the CRTC mandates for telcos to lease access to infrastructure. Rogers responded by saying it would give Videotron a preferential rate that is below the CRTC minimum. Shaw plans to sell its Freedom Mobile brand to Videotron as a way to address anti-competitive concerns about its merger with Rogers.

TekSavvy, however, argues the agreement between Rogers and Videotron amounts to preferential treatment and anti-competitive behaviour in violation of Telecommunications Act.

The CRTC has now formally ordered Rogers to share details of wholesale services and agreements it will provide to Videotron, should the Rogers-Shaw merger go through. Details of the agreement have yet to be shared, and did not come up during the public portions of the Competition Tribunal’s hearings related to the Rogers-Shaw merger.

The current deadline for the deal’s closing is currently March 31 as the companies await approval from Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry François-Philippe Champagne. The CRTC has given Rogers until April 11 to respond to its request.

TekSavvy’s application to the CRTC also cited Bell’s acquisition of independent ISP EBOX as an example of how larger telcos had been able in recent years to force smaller companies out of the market. The CRTC has also asked Bell to share details of any agreements between it and EBOX.

Both Rogers and Bell stated in their response’s to TekSavvy’s initial application that their respective deals are not preferential.