BCE Inc.

For the year ended December 31, 2004
March 2, 2005

2004
Annual
Information
Form

This Annual Information Form (AIF) contains important information that will help you make informed decisions about investing in BCE Inc. It describes the company and its operations, its prospects, risks and other factors that affect its business.

Documents incorporated by reference

The document in the table below contains information that is incorporated by reference into this AIF.

)

)

     The Consumer segment provides local telephone, long distance, wireless, Internet access, video and other services to Bell Canada’s residential customers, mainly in Ontario and Québec. Wireless services are also offered in Western Canada and video services are provided nationwide.
     Local telephone and long distance services are sold under the Bell brand, wireless services through Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell Mobility), Internet access under the Sympatico brand and video services through Bell  ExpressVu Limited Partnership (Bell ExpressVu).
     The Business segment provides local telephone, long distance, wireless, data (including Internet access), and other services to Bell Canada’s small and medium-sized businesses (SMB) and large enterprise (Enterprise) customers in Ontario and Québec, as well as business customers in Western Canada.
     In 2004, Bell Canada acquired several small specialized service companies, allowing us to quickly enhance our value-added services (VAS) product suite for both SMB and Enterprise customers. See Business Highlights for information about these business acquisitions.
     In the third quarter of 2004, we enhanced our competitive position in Western Canada by acquiring 100% ownership of Bell West Inc. (Bell West), our competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Alberta and British Columbia, by completing the purchase of Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.’s (MTS) interest in Bell West. 
     In the fourth quarter of 2004, we further enhanced our competitive position in Western Canada by completing the acquisition of the Canadian operations of 360networks Corporation (360networks) as well as certain U.S. network assets. This acquisition increases our customer base and gives us an extensive fibre network across major cities in Western Canada. See Business Highlights for information about this acquisition.
     The Aliant segment provides local telephone, long distance, wireless, data (including Internet access), and other services to residential and business customers in Atlantic Canada, and represents the operations of Aliant.
     At December 31, 2004, Bell Canada owned 53% of Aliant. The remaining 47% was publicly held.
     The Other Bell Canada segment includes Bell Canada’s Wholesale business, and the financial results of Télébec Limited Partnership (Télébec), NorthernTel Limited Partnership (NorthernTel) and Northwestel Inc.

At December 31, 2004, BCE Inc.’s directors and officers as a group beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, or exercised control or direction over:

• approximately 1,549,314 or 0.1673% of the common shares of BCE Inc.
• approximately 3,000 or 0.0023% of the common shares of Aliant
• approximately 460 or 0.0012% of the common shares of Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI)
• approximately 6,000 or 0.0067% of the units of the Bell Nordiq Income Fund.

Directors

The table on the next page lists BCE Inc.’s directors, where they lived and their principal occupation on March 2, 2005.

Past occupation

Under BCE Inc.’s by-laws, each director holds office until the next annual shareholder meeting or until his or her successor is elected. All of BCE Inc.’s directors have held the positions listed in the table on the previous page or other executive positions with the same or associated firms or organizations during the past five years or more, except for the people listed in the table below.

The table below lists the committees of our board of directors and their members. As a public company, we are required by law to have an audit committee.

Past occupation

All of our officers have held their present positions or other executive positions with BCE Inc. or one or more of our subsidiaries or affiliated companies during the past five years or more, except for:

• Mr. Bilodeau who was Senior Vice-President, Compensation Practice of AON Consulting (consulting company) before April 2002

• Ms. Brooks who was Vice-President and Controller of Enbridge Inc. (pipeline company) before July 2003

• Mr. Bruneau who was Founder and Chairman Emeritus of Adventis (a strategy and management consultancy to the global telecommunications industry) before December 2004

• Mr. Daniel who was Senior Vice-President of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) (industrial co-operation program that provides financial support to Canadian firms) before October 2003

• Ms. Gibson who was Vice-President, Marketing of WorldLinx Telecommunications Inc. (telecommunications company) before February 2001

• Mr. Houle who was Senior Vice-President, Corporate Human Resources of Alcan Inc. (packaging and aluminum company) before June 2001

• Mr. Hunter who was a partner with Stikeman Elliott LLP (law firm) before March 2003

• Mr. Wickramasing he who was Senior Vice-President of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) (chartered bank) and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of Amicus Financial (CIBC’s e-commerce division) before August 2003. He was also Senior Vice-President and Chief Administrative Officer of CIBC Retail and Small Business Banking from June 2001 to February 2002 and Vice-President Audit & Chief Security Officer of CIBC before June 2001.

Officers

The table below lists BCE Inc.’s officers, where they lived and the office that they held at BCE Inc. on March 2, 2005.

     The R-1 (low) rating for short-term debt ranks third among the 10 credit ratings given by DBRS, and, according to DBRS, indicates:

• satisfactory credit quality

• respectable overall strength and outlook for key liquidity, debt and profitability ratios, but not as favourable as higher rating categories 

• any qualifying negative factors that exist are considered manageable, and the company is normally of sufficient size to have some influence in its industry.

     The A-1 (mid) rating ranks second among the eight short-term credit ratings given by S&P and, according to S&P, indicates a strong capacity to meet its financial commitment on the short-term obligations. Obligations rated A-1(mid) on the commercial paper rating scale would qualify for a rating of A-1 on S&P’s global short-term rating scale. 
     The P-2 rating provided for BCE Inc. commercial paper ranks second among the three short-term credit ratings given by Moody’s and according to Moody’s, indicates a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations.

video services terrestrially to SFUs. We plan to conduct trials of our IPTV service in 2005.
     Signal piracy continues to be a major issue facing all segments of the Canadian broadcasting industry. During the year, we intensified our ongoing efforts against television signal theft with several new initiatives. These included:

• initiating a smart card swap on a phased-in basis for its authorized digital receivers which is expected to be completed by late 2005

• an electronic countermeasure program that transmits electronic signals to disable set top boxes with illegal cards

• the use of new sophisticated set top box tracking systems and implementation of specific point-of-sale practices, such as obtaining customer photo identification and credit card information, and requiring customers to pre-register online, to ensure that set top boxes are being used by legitimate subscribers

• aggressive measures to investigate and initiate legal action against persons engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of signal theft technology

• implementation of policies with authorized retailers to combat piracy including a zero tolerance policy for activities related to signal theft.

Terminal Sales and Other

This category includes revenues from a number of other sources, including:

• renting, selling and maintaining business terminal equipment

• wireless handset and video set top box sales

• network installation for third parties

• IT services provided by Aliant.

Terminal sales and other revenues are derived by the segments that form Bell Canada.

Wholesale business

The Wholesale business that forms part of our Other Bell Canada segment provides local telephone, long distance, wireless, data and other services to customers who in many cases are also Bell Canada’s competitors. These wholesale customers, who are located principally in Ontario and Québec and may also be in Western Canada and the United States, resell these services or use them in combination with their own network capabilities.

Marketing and distribution channels

The Consumer segment delivers its products and services through:

• over 9,000 call centre service representatives

• 380 Bell World/Espace Bell and Bell Mobility retail locations, of which 140 are corporately owned stores with dealers owning the rest

• over 2,400 retail points of presence through both national retailers such as Future Shop, Best Buy, Radio Shack, Wireless Wave (wireless only) and regional retailers in both the West such as London Drugs and Visions and in Québec such as Audiotronics/Dumoulin

• the bell.ca website.

     Customers can buy our full range of products through the call centres, retail stores, sales representatives and our web portals.
     The Consumer segment’s large wireline customer base and its ability to cross-sell through a variety of distribution channels are key competitive advantages. Cross-selling provides value for our customers, which increases the amount they spend with us. It also allows us to simplify our product offering and to compete aggressively. Our ability to cross-sell enhances revenue per customer, reduces churn and improves productivity.
     We will continue to focus on cross-selling and bundling our products and services, including Internet access, wireless and DTH satellite television, to residential customers. See Our Objectives and Strategy for more information on bundling of our products and services.
     Bundles provide customers with value for consolidating all their services with Bell Canada. Currently the value is provided through discounts. However, this is evolving to include product cross functionality that will only be available with a bundle and which enhances the customer’s experience. Customers also get the convenience of One Bill for their Bell ExpressVu and Sympatico Internet access services as well as a single point of contact for service. We expect to include wireless services in our single bill during 2005.
     Communications products and services for Bell Canada’s SMB customers are delivered by Bell Canada’s SMB group. They are sold through web portals, call centres and dedicated sales representatives. We will continue to focus on increasing the number of products per customer in this market by cross-selling Internet access, wireless, gateways, conferencing, and network architecture and consulting services. We will also continue to simplify our processes and the overall experience for our customers.
     Communications products and services for Bell Canada’s large Enterprise customers are delivered by Bell Canada’s Enterprise group. They are sold through our web portals, call centres, dedicated sales representatives, as well as through competitive bids that we win. In addition to basic communications services, the Enterprise group bundles products, services and professional services into fully managed, end-to-end, network-based business solutions for its customers. It also partners with third parties to bid on and sell complex business solutions. We are focusing on increasing the number of customers that buy business solutions. These offer more value, strengthen relationships with customers and help reduce churn.
     Aliant sells its telecommunications products and services through approximately 1,500 call centre representatives, approximately 250 independent dealer stores, 51 stores through its acquisition of DownEast Ltd. and the aliant.net website. Aliant facilitates customer payments through over 250 payment agencies. During 2004, Aliant made process improvements to simplify and speed-up various types of customer interactions and introduced online ordering on its website.
     Communications products and services for Bell Canada’s Wholesale business are delivered by Bell Canada’s Carrier Services Group. They are sold through our dedicated sales representatives, web portals and call centres.

Networks

The telecommunications industry continues to evolve rapidly as the industry moves from multiple service-specific networks to IP-based integrated communications networks where text, video, sound and voice all travel on a single network. Bell Canada and Aliant are working with Nortel Networks Corporation (Nortel Networks), to establish a national multi-service IP-enabled network. See Our objectives and strategy for more information related to our IP strategy. See Business Highlights – 2003 

Highlights for more information related to agreements with Nortel Networks and Cisco Systems Canada in relation with our IP networks.
     Bell Canada’s communications networks provide voice, data, wire-line and wireless services to customers across Canada and in limited areas of the United States.
     Bell Canada’s infrastructure includes:

• national transport for voice and data, including Internet traffic

• urban and rural infrastructures for delivering services to customers

• national wireless networks that provide voice and data services

• satellite and VDSL delivery of video services to customers.

     The national voice and data network consists of more than 11,500 route miles of optical fibre, which is configured as multiple rings for redundancy and fault protection. It reaches all major metropolitan centres and many smaller ones in Canada, as well as New York, Chicago, Washington, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle in the United States, at a speed of 10 gigabits per second.
     Bell Canada’s networks in major Canadian cities provide state-of-the-art high-speed access at gigabit speeds based on IP technology, while continuing to be a key provider of traditional voice and data services. The national data network has more than 750 gigabits per second of capacity and transports more than 150 gigabits per second of Internet traffic to Canadian customers every day.
     In total, Bell Canada’s wireless infrastructure covered 95% of Ontario’s and Québec’s population at December 31, 2004. Bell Canada’s wireless network also covers major cities in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. In 2002, Bell Canada launched state-of-the-art 1xRTT technology that allows customers to send data at speeds of up to 163.2 kilobits per second.
     To reach high value business customers, Bell Canada has installed more than 520,000 strand miles of optical fibre in most cities in Ontario, Québec and the Atlantic provinces, and in Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton and Calgary, as well as virtually every municipality in Alberta on the Government of Alberta Super Net project. This optical fibre also carries Internet traffic to and from high speed customers.
     Bell Canada has extensive copper and voice-switching networks that provide local and interexchange voice services to all of its business and residential customers in Ontario, Québec and the Atlantic provinces.
     Aliant’s network provides voice, data, wireline and wireless services to customers throughout Atlantic Canada.
     Aliant is collaborating with customers through the launch of VoIP demonstration centres in 2004, the launch of an Atlantic Canadian based SMB Innovation Centre in collaboration with Bell Canada in the first quarter of 2005 and a fibre-to-the-home trial project launched in January 2005.
     In 2004, Aliant doubled the speed of its 1xRTT network and expanded its coverage to mirror its digital wireless network. As at December 31, 2004, approximately 88% of Atlantic Canada’s population had access to Aliant’s digital wireless voice and data network.
     Aliant also expanded its high-speed Internet service to pass 72% of homes and 79% of businesses in Atlantic Canada as at December 31, 2004.

Competition

Since the local services market was opened to competition in 1998, almost all of the markets that Bell Canada operates in are competitive. We face intense competition from traditional competitors, as well as from new entrants to the markets in which we operate. We compete not only with other telecommunications and television service providers, but also with other businesses and industries. These include cable, software and Internet companies, a variety of companies that offer network services, such as providers of business information systems, system integrators, and other companies that deal with, or have access to, customers through various communications networks.
     Competition in Atlantic Canada is intense. Virtually every aspect of Aliant’s business is subject to competition. Competitive factors are similar to those identified in our Consumer and Business segments. Competition includes not only Bell Canada’s major national competitors but also competitive activity and competitors unique to Atlantic Canada, such as Eastlink Communications (Eastlink), especially for local service.
     Atlantic Canada is the only market in Canada where residential local service is more competitive than business. The CRTC recognizes that the two most competitive local residential markets in Canada are in Atlantic Canada. Competition continues to increase as the largest competitive local exchange carrier in Atlantic Canada continues to expand into new areas in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick and partners with a wireless provider to add cellular service as an option in its bundled offerings which already consist of local, long distance, Internet and cable television. In addition, a long distance competitor has begun offering local service, using both traditional wireline and VoIP in Aliant’s largest urban market, Halifax. As technology advances, competition for local service is expected to continue to grow as VoIP becomes more widely accepted in the market.
     The CRTC regulates the prices we can charge for basic access services. See The regulatory environment we operate in for more information.
     Technology substitution, and VoIP in particular, has reduced barriers to entry in the industry. This has allowed competitors with far lower investments in financial, marketing, personnel and technological resources to rapidly launch new products and services and gain market share. Certain VoIP technology implementations do not require service providers to own or rent physical networks, which gives other competitors increased access to this market.
     Contracts for long distance services to large business customers are very competitive. Customers may choose to switch to competitors that offer lower prices to gain market share and that are less concerned about the quality of service or impact on their earnings.

Wireline

Our main competitors in local and access services are:

• Allstream (a division of MTS Allstream Inc.)

• Call-Net

• Telus Corporation (Telus)

• Eastlink, in the Maritime Provinces

• Futureway Communications Inc. (Futureway), in the greater Toronto area.

     Competition in the long distance services market has been based primarily on price, which has led to flat-rate pricing in the residential market. We experience significant competition in the provision of long distance service from dial-around providers, prepaid card providers, VoIP service providers and others, and from traditional competitors such as inter-exchange carriers and resellers. We also face increasing cross-platform competition as customers replace traditional services with new technologies. For example, our wireline business competes with VoIP, wireless and Internet services, including chat services, instant messaging and e-mail. We also expect to face competitive pressure from cable companies as they implement voice services over their networks and from other emerging competitors such as electrical utilities.
     These alternative technologies, products and services are now making significant inroads in our legacy services, which typically represent our higher margin business.
     Our major competitors in long distance are:

• Telus

• Allstream

• Call-Net

• prepaid long distance providers, such as Group of Goldline

• Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus)

• dial-around providers, such as Yak and Looney Call, which are divisions of YAK Communications (Canada) Inc.

• Eastlink, in the Maritime provinces.

Wireless

The Canadian wireless telecommunications industry is highly competitive. We compete directly with other wireless service providers that aggressively introduce, price and market their products and services, and with wireline service providers. We expect competition to intensify as new technologies, products and services are developed.
     Bell Mobility competes for cellular and PCS customers, dealers and retail distribution outlets directly with:

• Rogers Wireless Inc. (including the recently acquired Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Fido))

• Telus Mobility (a business unit of Telus)

     Competition for subscribers to wireless services is based on price, services and enhancements, technical quality of the cellular and PCS system, customer service, distribution, coverage and capacity.

Data

Bell Canada faces intense competitive pressure in the data services market. Cable companies and independent Internet service providers (ISPs) have increased competition in the broadband and Internet access services business. In particular, competition from cable companies has focused on increased bandwidth and discounted pricing on bundles. Competition has led to pricing for Internet access in Canada that is among the lowest in the world.
     In addition, service providers that are funded by regional electrical utilities may continue to develop and market services that compete directly with Bell Canada’s Internet access and broadband services. Developments in wireless broadband services may also result in increased competition in certain geographic areas.
     In the high-speed Internet access services market, the Consumer segment competes with large cable companies, such as:

• Rogers Cable Inc. (Rogers)

• Le Groupe Vidéotron Ltée (Vidéotron)

• Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco)

• Eastlink, in the Maritime provinces.

     In the dial-up market, the Consumer segment competes with America Online, Inc., Primus and more than 900 ISPs.

Video

Competition for subscribers is based on the number and kinds of channels offered, quality of the signal, set top box features, availability of service in the region, price and customer service. Bell ExpressVu competes directly with Star Choice Television Network Inc., another DTH satellite television provider, and with cable companies across Canada. These cable companies have upgraded their networks, operational systems and services, which could improve their competitiveness.
     Bell Canada offers video services through DTH satellite and VDSL. It has also received a licence to offer video on a wireline basis. See The regulatory environment we operate in for more information on Bell Canada’s licence.
     Bell ExpressVu continues to face competition from unregulated U.S. DTH satellite television services that are illegally sold in Canada. Bell ExpressVu’s competitors also include Canadian cable television providers, such as:

• Rogers

• Shaw Communications Inc.

• Vidéotron

• Cogeco

• Eastlink, in the Maritime provinces.

Wholesale

Our Wholesale business’ main competitors include traditional carriers and emerging carriers. Traditional, facilities-based competitors include Allstream, Telus and Call-Net who may wholesale some or all of the same products and services as Bell Canada. Emerging competitors include utility-based telecommunications providers, cable operators and US-based carriers for certain services.
     Competitive activity for tariffed services (e.g. Centrex and digital private line services) is moderate, with facilities-based carriers providing the primary threat in regulated voice and data access products. Competition is greatest in the unregulated areas, especially for toll minutes and forborne data services. For example, in the data market for private line, frame and ATM products, we face continued price pressure as well as the ongoing threat of customers evolving to IP-based services. Our resale DSL market, however, continues to grow. The recent growth of end-user technologies such as VoIP is also expected to increase pressure on some legacy product lines.

Other BCE Segment

The Other BCE segment includes our other media, satellite and IT activities. This segment includes Bell Globemedia, Telesat and CGI.

     Revenues for the Other BCE segment tend to be highest in the fourth quarter and lowest in the third quarter because of seasonal patterns in advertising spending in the fall and summer respectively.

Bell Globemedia

Bell Globemedia provides information and entertainment services to Canadian customers and access to distinctive Canadian content. It includes CTV, Canada’s leading private broadcaster, and The Globe and Mail, Canada’s leading national newspaper.
     Bell Globemedia’s revenues mainly come from selling advertising through its TV and print businesses. Revenues also come from subscriptions to The Globe and Mail’s newspaper and online businesses, and subscription fees that cable and DTH satellite television companies pay for carrying Bell Globemedia’s specialty TV channels, such as TSN, RDS and Discovery Channel.
     See The regulatory environment we operate in – Broadcasting Act for information about regulations that affect Bell Globemedia.

CTV

CTV is Canada’s leader in conventional and specialty television. It operates the CTV Television Network, a private English-language national television network that reaches almost all English-speaking Canadians.
     CTV has ownership interests in and/or manages several analogue and digital specialty television channels in Canada. These include CTV News-net, The Comedy Network, Outdoor Life Network, Talk TV, ROB TV and CTV Travel. Through its approximate 70.1% economic interest in CTV Specialty Television Inc., CTV has ownership interests in and/or manages the specialty television channels, TSN, RDS and Discovery Channel, and a number of digital specialty television channels, which include ESPN Classic Canada, Animal Planet, Discovery Civilization Channel and the NHL Network, as well as RIS Info Sports which was launched in October 2004. CTV also produces and distributes television programs.

The Globe and Mail

Founded in 1844, The Globe and Mail is Canada’s National Newspaper. It circulates an English-language edition six days a week in every province and territory. Globeandmail.com provides around the clock news coverage. For the 12 months ended September 30, 2004, total circulation was 316,438 copies a day, Monday to Friday, and 394,260 copies on Saturday. This was 27% higher on weekdays and 46% higher on Saturdays than its main competitor, the National Post. Total readership can exceed one million people a day.

Competition

While CTV’s broadcast operations have a significant market share in their broadcast areas, they face substantial competition for viewers and advertising revenues from CanWest Global Communications Corp. (CanWest), CHUM Limited, Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other companies, including owners of specialty channels.
     The Globe and Mail competes with a broad range of print media for circulation and advertising revenues. Competition has intensified since the National Post was launched in 1998 and several commuter papers were launched in the past few years in the key Toronto market. The Globe and Mail also competes for readers and advertisers with The Toronto Star, which is owned by Torstar Inc., Québecor Inc.’s Sun Media newspaper chain and CanWest’s many local daily newspapers across Canada.

Telesat

In 1972, Telesat launched the world’s first commercial domestic geo-stationary satellite system, established to provide satellite-based telecommunications services for Canada. Today, Telesat provides a wide variety of video and two-way data services as well as various consulting services dealing with all aspects of the satellite business.
     It owns and operates five satellites, and leases a sixth satellite. These satellites provide broadcast distribution and telecommunication services to customers in North America and South America. Three of these satellites, Nimiq 1, Nimiq 2 and Nimiq 3, provide capacity and back-up capability for Bell ExpressVu’s DTH satellite television services. Telesat also has two satellites under construction, which are expected to be launched in 2005 and 2006.

CGI

Founded in 1976, CGI now ranks among the largest independent IT and business process services firms in North America. CGI has consistently achieved profitable growth through a balance of organic growth and acquisitions. CGI currently employs approximately 25,000 professionals and has offices in Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia Pacific, as well as centers of excellence in India, the US, Canada and Europe. CGI combines global scale and scope with a strong local presence in all of its geographic markets, enabling it to build strong client partnerships. At December 31, 2004, BCE Inc. owned 28.9% of CGI.
     CGI focuses on five market segments consisting of industries that make strategic use of IT to enhance their competitive position: financial services, manufacturing, retail and distribution, governments and health-care, and utilities and telecommunications.
     CGI is a publicly traded company. Its Class A shares are listed on the TSX and the NYSE.
     In 2004, 62% of CGI’s total revenue was from long-term outsourcing contracts. Approximately 47% of this was from IT services and 15% was from business process services. 38% of its total revenue was from systems integration and consulting projects.
     See Business highlights – 2003 highlights – Agreements with CGI for more information.

Discontinued operations

In the past two years, we have disposed of or approved formal plans for disposing of a number of our businesses. These include:

• Aliant’s emerging business segment. Its assets were sold in 2003

• Aliant’s remote communications segment, which consisted mainly of Aliant’s investment in Stratos Global Corporation (Stratos). Stratos was sold in December 2003.

• Emergis’ US Health operations, which were sold in March 2004

• Emergis, which was sold in May  2004.

     All of these business dispositions were treated as discontinued operations.

     Most broadcasting activities require a broadcasting licence or broadcasting distribution licence from the CRTC. A corporation must meet the following ownership requirements to obtain a broadcasting or a broadcasting distribution licence:

• it must be Canadian owned and controlled. At least 80% of all outstanding and issued voting shares and at least 80% of the votes must be beneficially owned directly by Canadians

• it must not otherwise be controlled by non-Canadians

• at least 80% of the board of directors, as well as the chief executive officer, must be Canadian

• at least 66  ² / ₃ % of all outstanding and issued voting shares, and at least 66  ² / ₃ % of the votes of the parent corporation, must be beneficially owned and controlled, directly or indirectly, by Canadian interests.

     If the parent corporation of a broadcasting licensee has fewer than 80% Canadian directors on its board of directors, a non-Canadian chief executive officer or less than 80% Canadian ownership, the parent corporation must demonstrate to the CRTC that it or its directors does not have control or influence over any of the broadcasting licensee’s programming decisions.
     Corporations must have the CRTC’s approval before they can transfer effective control of a broadcasting licensee. The CRTC may impose certain requirements, including the payment of certain benefits, as a condition of the transfer.
     Four of the Bell Canada companies’ partnerships or subsidiaries — Bell ExpressVu, Aliant Telecom, Northwestel and Télébec — have broadcasting distribution licences that allow them to offer services:

• Bell ExpressVu is permitted to offer services nationally

• Aliant Telecom is permitted to offer services in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick

• Télébec is permitted to offer services in specific areas of Ontario and Québec

• Northwestel is permitted to offer services in specific areas of the Northwest Territories.

     On November 18, 2004, the CRTC issued Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-496, which approved Bell Canada’s applications for licences to operate terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings, using its wireline facilities, to serve large cities in Southern Ontario and Québec. Bell Canada will be licensed under the same terms and conditions that apply to major cable operators without any delays or other conditions that would limit its ability to compete with them. The licences will be issued once Bell Canada informs the CRTC that it is ready to commence operations and will expire on August 31, 2011. Bell Canada is required to have the terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings operational no later than November18, 2006, unless an extension of time is approved by the CRTC.
     Bell ExpressVu’s existing DTH distribution undertaking licence renewal was approved by the CRTC on March 31, 2004 for the period from April 1, 2004 to August 31, 2010.
     Bell Globemedia’s television operations have broadcasting licences issued by the CRTC. None of these has currently expired.

Radiocommunication Act

Industry Canada regulates the use of radio spectrum by Bell Canada, Bell Mobility, Aliant Telecom, MT&T Mobility and other wireless service providers under the Radiocommunication Act. Under the Act, Industry Canada ensures that:

• radio communication in Canada is developed and is operated efficiently

• the set up of, and any changes to, radio stations are orderly.

The Minister of Industry has the discretion to:

• issue radio licences

• set technical standards for radio equipment

• establish licensing conditions

• decide how radio spectrum is allocated and used.

     Under the Radiocommunication Regulations, companies that are eligible for radio licences, such as Bell Canada, Bell  Mobility and Aliant Telecom, must meet the same ownership requirements that apply to corporations under the Telecommunications Act.
     The Radiocommunication Act contains provisions which make it a criminal offence to manufacture, offer for sale or sell any device used to decode an encrypted subscription signal in connection with unauthorized reception of satellite signals. On October 28, 2004, the Court of Québec ruled in R. v. D’Argy and Theriault that those provisions violate the freedom of expression rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Department of Justice has launched an appeal of this decision to the Québec Superior Court. Accordingly, it remains a criminal offence throughout Canada to manufacture, offer for sale or sell any device used to engage in unauthorized reception of satellite signals. Bell ExpressVu, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and cable operators continue to encourage the Government of Canada to strengthen the Radiocommunication Act in order to combat the black market in signal theft.

Key regulatory changes

This section describes key regulatory changes in past years that have influenced our business.

Second Price Cap decision

In May 2002, the CRTC issued decisions relating to new price cap rules that will govern incumbent telephone companies for a four-year period, starting in June 2002. These decisions:

• set a 3.5% productivity factor on many capped services, which may require the Bell Canada companies to reduce prices on these services

• extended price cap regulation to more services

• reduced the prices that incumbent telephone companies can charge competitors for services

• set procedures for enforcing standards of service quality

• effectively froze rates for residential services.

     The CRTC also established a deferral account and, on March 24, 2004, initiated a public proceeding inviting proposals on the disposition of the amounts accumulated in the accounts of the incumbent telephone companies during the first two years of the price cap period.
     The total balance in Bell Canada’s and Aliant’s deferral accounts at December 31, 2004 was estimated to be approximately $202 million.
     On May 19, 2004, Bell Canada filed its proposal, as part of the public proceeding initiated by the CRTC on March 24, 2004, asking for approval 

to use some of the funds in its deferral account to implement the following initiatives:

• expand its broadband services to certain areas that are not economically viable to serve under its commercial broadband program

• reduce rates for some of its optional local services

• implement network upgrades required to support Bell Canada’s High Probability of Call Completion feature. This feature would give designated calls on the Bell Canada network a higher probability of completion under normal network loads, and when the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) is busy and experiencing call blocking conditions.

     On January 28, 2005, Aliant filed its proposal for the disposition of any amounts in its deferral account. Its proposal included:

• funding of rate reductions in response to competitive pressures

• recovery of funds used to deploy telecommunications devices for the deaf for payphones pursuant to a CRTC directive

• funding E9-1-1 enhancements in Atlantic Canada

• recovery of costs and lost revenue resulting from events that were beyond its control.

     It is expected that this proceeding will close in the second half of 2005.

Competitor Digital Network Service

The CRTC released Decision 2005-6 on February 3, 2005, concerning Competitor Digital Network (CDN) services. This decision determined the rates, terms and conditions, for the provision of digital network services by Bell Canada and the other incumbent telephone companies to their competitors.
     This decision includes many changes that will affect both Bell Canada and Aliant as providers of CDN services in their respective operating territories and as a buyer of those services elsewhere in Canada.
     The CRTC has determined that the scope of CDN services should be broadened from access elements only to also include intra-exchange facilities, inter-exchange facilities in certain metropolitan areas, channelization and co-location links (expanded CDN services). However, other than for the access and link components, the CRTC determined that these expanded CDN services should not be priced as essential facilities but will be priced to include “appropriate mark-ups” so as to encourage competitors to construct their own facilities.
     There are two important financial aspects to note in this decision. First, the reduced prices for the expanded CDN services are to be applied on a going-forward basis only and Bell Canada will be compensated for the resulting revenue losses from the deferral account. Secondly, Bell Canada will also be compensated through the deferral account, for both the retroactive and the future application of reduced rates for the CDN services currently tariffed. The incumbent telephone companies are required to file with the CRTC the estimated drawdown from the deferral account within 30 days of this decision.

Decision on incumbent affiliates

On December 12, 2002, the CRTC released its decision on incumbent affiliates, which requires Bell Canada and its carrier affiliates to receive CRTC approval on contracts that bundle tariffed and non-tariffed products and services. This means that:

• all existing contracts that bundle tariffed and non-tariffed products and services must be filed with the CRTC for approval

• all new contracts that bundle tariffed and non-tariffed products and services must receive CRTC approval before they are carried out

• carrier affiliates must meet the same approval requirements as Bell Canada on products and services they offer in Bell Canada’s operating territory.

     On September 23, 2003, the CRTC issued a decision that requires Bell Canada and its carrier affiliates to include a detailed description of the bundled services they provide to customers when they file tariffs with the CRTC. The customer’s name will be kept confidential, but the pricing and service arrangements it has with the Bell Canada companies will be available on the public record.
     This decision increased the regulatory burden for Bell Canada and its carrier affiliates at both the wholesale and retail levels. Bell Canada’s appeal of this decision to the Federal Court of Canada was dismissed on September 14, 2004. As a result, Bell Canada has submitted tariffs for CRTC approval for those contracts with bundles that have not yet expired in order to provide more detailed descriptions of the bundled services.

Allstream and Call Net application concerning customer-specific arrangements

On January 23, 2004, Allstream and Call-Net filed a joint application asking the CRTC to order Bell Canada to stop providing service under any customer-specific arrangements (CSAs) that are currently filed with the CRTC and are not yet approved.
     Allstream and Call-Net have proposed that Bell Canada should only provide services to these customers under its general tariff.
     Bell Canada provided its comments opposing all aspects of this application.

Public notice on changes to minimum prices

On October 23, 2003, the CRTC issued a public notice asking for comments on its preliminary view that revised rules may be needed for:

• setting minimum prices for the regulated services of incumbent telephone companies

• how they price their services, service bundles and customer contracts.

     The CRTC sought comments on proposed pricing restrictions on volume or term contracts for retail tariffed services. It issued an amended public notice on December 8, 2003. The record of this proceeding was completed with the filing of arguments on June 11, 2004 and reply arguments on June 25, 2004.

Application seeking consistent regulation

On November 6, 2003, Bell Canada filed an application requesting that the CRTC start a public hearing to review how similar services offered by cable companies and telephone companies are regulated. This would allow consistent rules to be developed that recognize and support the growing competition between these sectors. Bell Canada also requested 

that this proceeding address any rules that might be needed to govern VoIP services provided by cable companies and others.
     On April 7, 2004, the CRTC invited comments on its preliminary views on the regulation of VoIP services and invited interested parties to participate in a public consultation on the regulatory framework for VoIP. The CRTC’s preliminary view is that VoIP services using telephone numbers that conform to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) and allow subscribers to make or receive calls from any telephone with access to the PSTN are functionally the same as switched telecommunications services. The CRTC’s preliminary conclusion is that when incumbent telephone companies provide VoIP services in their incumbent territories, they should be required to respect their existing tariffs or to file proposed tariffs where required, in order to conform with the regulatory rules that apply. The CRTC also provided preliminary views on 9-1-1 services, message relay service and privacy safeguards provided by local VoIP service providers. Bell Canada provided its comments to the CRTC on June 18, 2004. The CRTC held the public consultation on the regulatory framework for VoIP from September 21 to 23, 2004. Bell Canada filed reply comments on October 13, 2004.
     A decision is expected in the second quarter of 2005.
     The CRTC has included a “Proceeding on Regulatory Symmetry” in its 2005-2006 Work Plan.Licences for Broadcasting

On November 18, 2004, the CRTC issued Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-496, which approved Bell Canada’s applications for licences to operate terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings, using its wireline facilities, to serve large cities in Southern Ontario and Québec. Bell Canada will be licensed under the same terms and conditions that apply to major cable operators, without any delays or other conditions that would negatively affect its ability to compete with them. The licences will be issued once Bell Canada informs the CRTC that it is ready to commence operations and will expire on August 31, 2011. Bell Canada is required to have the terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings operational no later than November 18, 2006, unless an extension of time is approved by the CRTC.

Consultations

From time to time, Industry Canada initiates proceedings that allow members of the telecommunications industry to comment on technical and policy issues. This ensures that Industry Canada takes into consideration the opinions of the industry when it is making decisions that affect the industry.

Foreign ownership review

Industry Canada asked the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to conduct a review to determine whether the current Canadian ownership requirements included in the Telecommunications Act and associated regulations should be changed. The Committee released its report in April 2003.
     On September 25, 2003, the Minister of Industry responded to the report, promising to:

• table an amendment as early as possible to the Act, requiring it to be reviewed every five years because of the rapid, unprecedented technological changes in the industry

• launch an analysis of the conflicting recommendations on foreign investment restrictions made by the committee and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in its June 11, 2003 report, Our cultural sovereignty

• continue working with members of Parliament to review the governance structure for the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors, to ensure that they are effective in meeting the needs of Canadians and industry stakeholders.

Industry Canada licensing and fees consultation

The cellular and PCS licences of Bell Mobility and of Aliant Telecom and MT&T Mobility, which would have expired on March 31, 2006, will now expire in 2011, as a result of a decision by Industry Canada. The PCS licences that were awarded in the 2001 PCS auction will expire on November 29, 2011. As a result, these Bell Canada companies’ cellular and PCS licences are now classified as spectrum licences with a 10-year licence term.
     The main terms of the spectrum licences include:

• divisibility and transferability rights that allow wireless carriers to dispose of or acquire additional auctioned spectrum in the secondary market, subject to certain limits and ownership requirements

• investing an amount equal to 2% of adjusted gross revenues in telecommunications-related research and development

• notifying the Minister of Industry before making any material change in ownership or control

• requirements for reselling PCS and cellular services and facilities to other 1995 PCS licensees.

     In December 2003, Industry Canada issued its decision on changing the terms and the method of calculating the fees of cellular and PCS licences. The new fees are based on the amount of spectrum a carrier holds in a given geographic area. Fees were previously based on the degree of deployment and the number of radio sites in operation. The changes came into effect on April 1, 2004, and will be implemented over seven years.

Industry Canada national towers consultation

In October 2001, the Minister of Industry announced plans for a national review of Industry Canada’s procedures for approving and placing wireless and radio towers in Canada, including a review of the role of municipal authorities in the approval process. If the consultation process results in more municipal involvement in the approval process, it could slow the expansion of wireless networks in Canada. The final report from the National Antenna Tower Policy Review Committee was filed with Industry Canada in September 2004. Industry Canada is now reviewing the report and considering what next steps, if any, it will take, after which it may invite comments from interested parties, including the wireless carriers, on the report and its recommendations. It is not possible to predict at this time if or when any action might be taken on the findings of the report.

Lawful access consultation

In August 2002, the federal government started a consultation to consider the access that law enforcement agencies have to information and communications, including wireless communications. The Government’s proposals, which were not precisely defined in the consultation, could require telecommunications service providers, including wireline and wireless carriers and ISPs, to invest significant capital and incur significant ongoing expenses to comply with the proposed requirements.
     In the fall of 2003, the Government provided more detail about its proposals. This included proposing exemptions for small ISPs and clarifying that service providers would not have to pay to upgrade the equipment that they have in service.
     The Government also held meetings with law enforcement agencies and service providers to discuss recovering the costs of intercepting telecommunications, and providing transmission logs and related data to law enforcement and national security agencies. These agencies are proposing that service providers absorb all of these costs.
     Legislation, which could include capability requirements and rules for recovering costs, is expected sometime in 2005. It is not yet clear what priorities these items will have with the Government.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WE ARE INVOLVED IN

We become involved in various claims and litigation as part of our business. This section describes important legal proceedings that you should be aware of. While we cannot predict the final outcome of the claims and litigation described below or of any other pending claims and litigation at March 2, 2005, based on information currently available, management believes that the resolution of these claims and litigation will not have a material and negative effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operation. Based on information currently available, we believe that we have strong defences and we intend to vigorously defend our position.

Lawsuits related to Bell Canada

Purported Class Action Concerning Wireless Access Charges

On August 9, 2004, a statement of claim was filed under the Class Actions Act (Saskatchewan) in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, Saskatchewan against wireless communications service providers, including Bell Mobility and Aliant Telecom, by certain alleged customers or former customers of such wireless communications service providers. The lawsuit has not been certified as a class action and it is too early to determine whether it will qualify for certification.
     The statement of claim alleges breach of contract and duty to inform, breach of warranties and covenants, deceit, misrepresentation, negligence, wrongful acts and omissions, collusion, and breach of statutory duty or obligation under the Competition Act (Canada), in connection with certain “system access fees” and “system licensing charges” invoiced by wireless communications service providers to their customers. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Saskatchewan action seeks certification of a national class encompassing all customers of wireless communications service providers wherever resident in Canada.
     Plaintiffs’ counsel has commenced similar actions in all of the other provinces (except Prince Edward Island). These actions are not being pursued by the plaintiffs, at this time, pending a decision on certification in Saskatchewan.

Purported Class Action Concerning Bell Mobility Billing System

On October 28, 2004, a motion seeking certification to proceed as a class action against Bell Mobility was filed with the Québec Superior Court. The lawsuit has not been certified to proceed as a class action and it is too early to determine whether it will qualify for certification.
     The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all physical persons residing in the Province of Québec, who entered into a contract with Bell Mobility for the provision of wireless telephone services, and alleges that such persons have unjustly incurred expenses as a result of billing errors made by Bell Mobility or as a result of Bell Mobility wrongfully disconnecting service to such customers. In addition to the reimbursement of such expenses, the class action would, if certified, also seek payment of damages by Bell Mobility in the amount of $100 per class member for inconvenience as well as punitive damages in the amount of $200 per class member.

Wage Practices investigation

Complaints filed in1994 with the Canadian Human Rights Commission by the CTEA and CEP on behalf of unionized employees of Bell Canada alleging wage discrimination in negotiated wages were referred in1996 to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for inquiry. Bell Canada challenged the institutional independence of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada.
     On November 2, 2000, the Federal Court of Canada allowed Bell Canada’s application for judicial review. The court found that the tribunal lacked institutional independence and prohibited further proceedings in the matter. Hearings before the tribunal into the merits of the case were suspended.
     The Canadian Human Rights Commission appealed this decision, which was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal. On May 24, 2001, Bell Canada filed for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Hearings before the tribunal resumed in September 2001.
     In September 2002, Bell Canada announced a settlement with the CTEA, the union representing the majority of employees involved in the dispute. The proceedings relating to employees represented by the CEP are continuing.
     The Supreme Court of Canada heard Bell Canada’s appeal of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in January 2003 and dismissed it in June 2003. The decision did not address the merits of the case.

Lawsuits related to Teleglobe

Teleglobe lending syndicate lawsuit

On July 12, 2002, a statement of claim was issued against BCE Inc. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by ABN AMRO Bank N.V., Bank of Montréal, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (Canada), Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale, BNP Paribas (Canada), La Caisse Centrale Desjardins du Québec, CIBC, CIBC, N.Y. Agency, Citibank, N.A., Credit Suisse First Boston Canada, Credit Suisse First Boston, Export Development Canada, 

HSBC Bank Canada, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Laurentian Bank of Canada, Merrill Lynch Capital (Canada) Inc., Merrill Lynch Capital Corporation, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, Société Générale, The Bank of Nova Scotia, and The Toronto-Dominion Bank (plaintiffs).
     The plaintiffs sought damages of US$1.19 billion, plus interest and costs, from BCE Inc. They alleged that these damages were equal to the amount they advanced as members of the Teleglobe and Teleglobe Holdings (U.S.) Corporation (together referred to in this section as Teleglobe) lending syndicate. The plaintiffs represented approximately 95.2% of the US$1.25 billion that the members of that lending syndicate advanced.
     The plaintiffs’ claim is based on several allegations, including that:

• the actions and representations of BCE Inc. and its management, in effect, amounted to a legal commitment that BCE Inc. would repay the advances

• the court should disregard Teleglobe as a corporate entity and hold BCE Inc. responsible to repay the advances as Teleglobe’s alter ego.

     On November 28 and 29, 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard the following motions that BCE Inc. had previously filed:

• to stay or dismiss the action because Ontario does not have jurisdiction and that Québec does have jurisdiction

• for a declaration that in acting as counsel to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ legal counsel was in a position of conflict of interest.

• for an order removing the plaintiffs’ legal counsel as the solicitors of record for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

     On March 21, 2003, the court granted BCE Inc.’s motion to remove the plaintiffs’ legal counsel as the solicitors of record for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have appointed new solicitors of record.
     On April 30, 2003, the court dismissed BCE Inc.’s motion to stay or dismiss the action because Ontario does not have jurisdiction and that Québec does have jurisdiction. The action will proceed in Ontario.
     On September 15, 2003, BCE Inc. filed its statement of defence relating to this action.
     On November 2, 2004, two of the plaintiffs, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, N.Y. Agency, which had advanced approximately U.S.$104 million to Teleglobe and Teleglobe Holdings (U.S.) Corporation, filed a notice of discontinuance with the Court and are therefore no longer plaintiffs in this action.

BNP Paribas (Canada) lawsuit

On December 23, 2004, BNP Paribas (Canada), one of the plaintiffs in the Teleglobe lending syndicate lawsuit action against BCE Inc., filed a statement of claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. As of March 2, 2005, this statement of claim has not yet been served on any of the defendants. The action is against BCE Inc. and five former directors of Teleglobe Inc. The statement of claim alleges oppression against the former directors and breach of contract against BCE Inc. BNP Paribas (Canada) seeks US$50 million in damages. Teleglobe Inc. was at the relevant time a subsidiary of BCE Inc.
     Pursuant to standard policies and subject to applicable law, the five former directors of Teleglobe Inc. are entitled to seek indemnification from BCE Inc. in connection with this lawsuit.

Teleglobe unsecured creditors lawsuit

A lawsuit was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against BCE Inc. and the former directors and officers of Teleglobe and certain of its subsidiaries on May 26, 2004. The plaintiffs are comprised of Teleglobe Communications Corporation, certain of its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of these debtors. The lawsuit alleges breach of an alleged funding commitment of BCE  Inc. towards the debtors, promissory estoppel, misrepresentation by BCE Inc., and breach and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by the defendants.
     By order dated September 8, 2004, the automatic reference of this action to the Bankruptcy Court was withdrawn and the action is now pending in the District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 15, 2004, BCE Inc. and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. BCE Inc. and the other defendants also contend that plaintiffs should not be allowed to transform a contract claim into tort claims. The motion to dismiss was heard on February 16, 2005 and the decision is pending. 

VarTec lawsuit

On December 2, 2002, VarTec Telecom, Inc. and VarTec Holding Company (together referred to in this section as VarTec) filed a lawsuit against BCE Inc., BCE Ventures Inc. and the President of BCE Ventures Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas division).
     The claim alleges fraud and violation of the anti-fraud provisions of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to VarTec’s purchase of Excelcom, Inc., Excel Telecommunications (Canada) Inc. and Telco Communications Group, Inc. from Teleglobe and its subsidiaries (together referred to in this section as Teleglobe).
     The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented Teleglobe’s financial status and its ability to assume certain liabilities related to the transaction, among other things. The complaint claims that Teleglobe’s liabilities to VarTec from the transaction could be more than US$250 million. It also seeks punitive damages, but does not state an amount.
     In February 2003, VarTec amended its December 2, 2002 complaint by removing a series of causes of action previously included in the complaint, including breach of contract, and that the court should disregard Teleglobe as a corporate entity and hold BCE Inc. responsible for its liabilities as Teleglobe’s alter ego.
     On March 2, 2003, BCE Inc., BCE Ventures Inc. and the President of BCE Ventures Inc. filed a motion:

• to dismiss the action because of improper venue and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted and/or failure to plead fraud claims with sufficient particularity

• to strike VarTec’s jury demand.

     In the hearing held on September 26, 2003, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas indicated that if VarTec did not ask to transfer the action to the District of Columbia, it would enter an order dismissing the action for improper venue. On September 29, 2003, VarTec filed a motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This motion was granted on October 9, 2003. As a result, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia will decide the motion to dismiss the action and to strike Vartec’s jury demand.

Kroll Restructuring lawsuit

On February 26, 2003, BCE Inc. was informed that Kroll Restructuring Ltd., in its capacity as interim receiver of Teleglobe, had filed a notice of action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against five former directors of Teleglobe. This lawsuit relates to Teleglobe’s redemption of its third series preferred shares in April 2001 and the retraction of its fifth series preferred shares in March 2001.
     The statement of claim was filed on March 26, 2003 and was served to each of the directors in August and September 2003. On April 16, 2004, the defendants filed their statement of defense.
     The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the redemption and retraction were prohibited under the Canada Business Corporations Act and that the five former directors should be held jointly and severally liable to restore to Teleglobe all amounts paid or distributed on these transactions. These amounts total approximately $661 million, plus interest.
     While BCE Inc. is not a defendant in this lawsuit, Teleglobe was a subsidiary of BCE Inc. when the redemption and retraction took place. Under standard policies and subject to applicable law, the five former Teleglobe directors are entitled to seek indemnification from BCE Inc. in connection with this lawsuit.

Lawsuits related to BCI

BCI common shareholders lawsuits

On September 27, 2002, BCE Inc. announced that a common shareholder of BCI had filed a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiff sought the court’s approval to proceed by way of class action on behalf of all holders of BCI common shares on December 3, 2001.
     The lawsuit sought $1 billion in damages from BCI and BCE Inc. relating to:

• the issue of BCI common shares on February 15, 2002 under BCI’s recapitalization plan, which was announced on December 3, 2001

• the implementation of BCI’s plan of arrangement, which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved on July 17, 2002.

     On May 9, 2003, the court dismissed the action and the motion for certification as a class action. On June 27, 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, again intending to seek to have the action certified as a class action.
     On August 31, 2003, another BCI common shareholder filed a lawsuit asserting substantially the same allegations as those in the first shareholder’s lawsuit. This second plaintiff also intended to seek the court’s approval to proceed as a class action on behalf of the same proposed class as that in the first shareholder’s lawsuit and sought damages in the same amount as the first shareholder’s lawsuit.
     Following the hearing of motions to dismiss both of these actions, on January 5, 2004, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed each of these lawsuits because they disclosed no reasonable cause of action against BCE Inc. or BCI and they abused the process of the court. The court also ordered that neither of these two plaintiffs may amend his statement of claim to bring these lawsuits before the court again.
     In March 2004, both of the plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard in July 2004 and on July 23, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the lawsuits. On September 29, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an application with the Supreme Court of Canada seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and indicated, in their application, that if the appeal court decision is reversed, they intend to proceed with only one of the actions. The defendants have filed joint responding materials. On March 3, 2005, the plaintiffs have been refused leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada. No further appeal of these actions is available to the plaintiffs and the actions are effectively dismissed.

6.75% debentureholders lawsuit

On April 29, 2002, BCI announced that certain former holders of its $250 million 6.75% convertible unsecured subordinated debentures had filed a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiffs were seeking the court’s approval to proceed by way of class action on behalf of all holders of these debentures on December 3, 2001.
     The lawsuit relates to the settlement of the debentures through the issue of BCI common shares on February 15, 2002 under BCI’s recapitalization plan. The plaintiffs are seeking damages from BCI, its directors and BCE Inc. of up to $250 million plus other amounts totalling $5 million.
     On December 2, 2002, under an agreement reached among the parties to this lawsuit, the plaintiffs agreed to abandon their previous $30 million claim for punitive damages. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the lawsuit to be certified as a class action, but without prejudice to the rights of the defendants to assert any defences that they may have relating to the merits of the class action.
     In August 2003, BCE Inc. and the other defendants in this action filed their statements of defence relating to this action.

6.50% debentureholders lawsuit

On August 31, 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by a former holder of $110 million of BCI’s 6.50% convertible unsecured subordinated debentures. The plaintiff seeks damages from BCI and its directors and BCE Inc. of up to $110 million, plus interest and costs. The notice of action contains allegations substantially similar to those in the 6.75% debentureholders lawsuit.
     On September 9, 2003, the parties to this action entered into an agreement (modified on November 28, 2003) relating to the procedure to be followed for this action. The defendants were allowed limited examinations of the plaintiff to determine whether this action raised factual or legal issues or defences different from those in the 6.75% debentureholders lawsuit.
     In October 2003, the defendants and plaintiff agreed that this action should be stayed until the 6.75% debentureholders lawsuit is resolved, and that the resolution of the 6.75% debentureholders lawsuit would form the basis for resolving this action. On December 19, 2003, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved this agreement and stayed the action until the 6.75% debentureholders lawsuit is resolved.

Bell Globemedia lawsuit

On February 5, 2001, Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., a subsidiary of Bell Globemedia, was added as a defendant to a class action lawsuit relating to copyright infringement. The claim is that The Globe and Mail newspaper and magazines do not have the right to archive and publish 

certain freelanced and employee material from the newspaper or magazines in any format other than print.
     The claim includes damages of $100 million and injunctive relief. In 2001, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (including the rejection of a requested injunction at this stage) on certain proposed common issues. The court declared that The Globe and Mail was legally entitled to publish the newspaper on microfilm, microfiche and in the Internet edition. It reserved for trial the question of whether The Globe and Mail had, over the years, acquired implied rights from freelancers to archive and make available their written contents of the newspaper on electronic databases and CD-ROMs.
     The plaintiff appealed this decision, and the defendants cross-appealed on some issues. The Ontario Court of Appeal provided its majority decision on October 6, 2004, and affirmed the initial refusal of summary judgement by the original motions judge. The dissent was not on the issue of whether summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff should be refused (all 3 judges were in agreement on that), but rather the dissenting judge felt that the action by the plaintiff should be dismissed at this point. Each of the plaintiff and the defendants have filed an application with the Supreme Court of Canada, seeking leave to appeal to that court from the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal. A decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the leave application has not yet been rendered. In addition, the plaintiff has commenced a subsequent class action that includes a claim for $750 million in damages plus costs and interest. Although neither Bell Globemedia nor Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. have been named as defendants in the second action, the plaintiff has indicated an intention to attempt to certify both a plaintiff class and a defendant class, which defendant class, if ultimately certified, may include certain divisions of Bell Globemedia or Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. However, no classes have yet been certified in this second action.

RISKS THAT COULD AFFECT OUR BUSINESS

This section describes general risks that could affect all BCE group companies and specific risks that could affect BCE Inc. and certain other BCE group companies.
     A risk is the possibility that an event might happen in the future that could have a negative effect on the financial condition, results of operations or business of one or more BCE group companies. Part of managing our business is to understand what these potential risks could be and to minimize them where we can.
     Because no one can predict whether an event will happen or what its consequences may be, the actual effect of any event on our business could be materially different from what we currently anticipate. In addition, this description of risks does not include all possible risks, and there may be other risks of which we are currently not aware.
     Bell Canada is our most important subsidiary, which means our financial performance depends in large part on how well Bell Canada performs financially. The risks that could affect Bell Canada and its subsidiaries are more likely to have a significant impact on our financial condition, results of operations and business than the risks that could affect other BCE group companies.

Risks that could affect all BCE Group companies

Strategies and plans

We plan to achieve our business objectives through various strategies and plans.
     In 2004, we embarked on our strategy to deliver unrivalled integrated communications to customers across Canada, with an overall objective to take a leadership position in setting the standard in IP for the industry and for our customers. Leveraging the opportunities created by IP-based communications should allow us to deliver on the guiding principles of our strategy of customer simplification, innovation and efficiency. This strategy is founded on three priorities:

• deliver an enhanced customer experience with the objective of enabling a significantly lower cost structure at Bell Canada

• deliver abundant bandwidth to enable all the services of the future with the reliability and security that customers require

• create the next-generation services to drive future growth.

     Our strategic direction involves significant changes in our processes, in how we approach our markets, and in how we develop and deliver products and services. This means we will need to be responsive in adapting to these changes. It also means that a shift in employee skills will be necessary.
     We will need to spend capital to implement our strategies and to carry out our plans. However, the actual amounts of capital required and the returns from these investments could differ materially from our current expectations.
     If we are unable to achieve our business objectives, our financial performance, including our growth prospects, could be hurt. This could have a material and negative effect on our results of operations.

Economic and market conditions

Our business is affected by general economic conditions, consumer confidence and spending, and the demand for, and prices of, our products and services. When there is a decline in economic growth and in retail and commercial activity, there tends to be a lower demand for our products and services. During these periods, customers may delay buying our products and services, or reduce or discontinue using them.
     Weak economic conditions may negatively affect our profitability and cash flows from operations. They could also negatively affect the financial condition and credit risk of our customers, which could increase uncertainty about our ability to collect receivables and potentially increase our bad debt expenses.

Increasing competition

We face intense competition from traditional competitors, as well as from new entrants to the markets in which we operate. We compete not only with other telecommunications, media, television, satellite and information technology service providers, but also with other businesses and industries. These include cable, software and Internet companies, a variety of companies that offer network services, such as providers of business information systems, systems integrators and other companies that deal with, or have access to, customers through various communications networks.

     Many of our competitors have substantial financial, marketing, personnel and technological resources. Other competitors may emerge from restructurings in the future with reduced debt and a stronger financial position. This means that they could have more financial flexibility to price their products and services at competitive rates.
     Competition affects our pricing strategies and reduces our revenues and profitability. It could also affect our ability to retain existing customers and attract new ones. Competition puts us under constant pressure to keep our prices competitive. It forces us to continue to reduce costs, manage expenses and increase productivity. This means that we need to be able to anticipate and respond quickly to the constant changes in our businesses and markets.
     We already have several domestic and foreign competitors, but the number of well resourced foreign competitors with a presence in Canada could increase in the future. Over the past two years, the Government of Canada has reviewed the foreign ownership restrictions that apply to telecommunications carriers and to broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs). Removing or easing the limits on foreign ownership could result in foreign companies entering the Canadian market by making acquisitions or investments. This could result in greater access to capital for our competitors or the arrival of new competitors with global scale, which would increase competitive pressure. It is impossible to predict the outcome of the Government’s review or to assess how any change in foreign ownership restrictions may affect us because the Government has not completed its review of these matters.

Wireline and long distance

We experience significant competition in the provision of long distance service from dial-around providers, prepaid card providers, VoIP service providers and others, and from traditional competitors such as inter-exchange carriers and resellers. We also face increasing cross-platform competition as customers replace traditional services with new technologies. For example, our wireline business competes with VoIP, wireless and Internet services, including chat services, instant messaging and e-mail. We also expect to face competitive pressure from cable companies as they implement voice services over their networks and from other emerging competitors such as electrical utilities. These alternative technologies, products and services are now making significant inroads in our legacy services, which typically represent our higher margin business.
     Technology substitution, and VoIP in particular, has reduced barriers to entry in the industry. This has allowed competitors with far lower investments in financial, marketing, personnel and technological resources to rapidly launch new products and services and gain market share. This trend is expected to accelerate in the future, which could materially and negatively affect our financial performance.
     Contracts for long distance services to large business customers are very competitive. Customers may choose to switch to competitors that offer lower prices to gain market share and that are less concerned about the quality of service or impact on their earnings.
     These competitive factors suggest that our wireline accesses and long distance volumes will continue to decline in the future. Continued decline will lead to reduced economies of scale in those businesses and, in turn, lower margins. Our strategy is to mitigate these declines by building the business for newer growth services, but the margins on newer services will likely be less than the margins on legacy services. If the legacy services decline faster than the rate of growth of our newer services, our financial performance will be negatively and materially affected.

Internet access

Cable companies and ISPs have increased competition in the broadband and Internet access services business. In particular, competition from cable companies has focused on increased bandwidth and discounted pricing on bundles. Competition has led to pricing for Internet access in Canada that is among the lowest in the world.
     In addition, service providers that are funded by regional electrical utilities may continue to develop and market services that compete directly with Bell Canada’s Internet access and broadband services. Developments in wireless broadband services may also result in increased competition in certain geographic areas. This could materially and negatively affect the financial performance of our Internet access services business.

Wireless

The Canadian wireless telecommunications industry is also highly competitive. We compete directly with other wireless service providers that aggressively introduce, price and market their products and services and with wireline service providers. We expect competition to intensify as new technologies, products and services are developed.

Video

Bell ExpressVu competes directly with another DTH satellite television provider and with cable companies across Canada. These cable companies have upgraded their networks, operational systems and services, which could improve their competitiveness. This could materially and negatively affect the financial performance of Bell ExpressVu.

Improving productivity and containing capital intensity

We continue to implement several productivity improvements while containing our capital intensity. There will be a material and negative effect on our profitability if we do not continue to successfully implement these productivity improvements, reduce costs and manage capital intensity while maintaining the quality of our service. For example, each year between 2002 and 2004, we were required to reduce the price of certain services offered by the Bell Canada companies that are subject to regulatory price caps and may be required to do so again in 2005. In addition, we have reduced our prices in some business data services that are not regulated in order to remain competitive, and we may have to continue doing so in the future. The profits of the Bell Canada companies will decline if they cannot reduce their expenses at the same rate. There would also be a material and negative effect on our profitability if market factors or other regulatory actions result in lower revenues and we cannot reduce our expenses at the same rate.
     Many productivity improvements require capital expenditures to implement systems that automate or assist in our operations. There is no assurance that these investments will be effective in delivering the planned productivity improvements.

Anticipating technological change

We operate in markets that are experiencing constant technological change, evolving industry standards, changing client needs, frequent introductions of new products and services, and short product life cycles.
     Our success will depend in large part on how well we can anticipate and respond to changes in industry standards and client needs, and how quickly and efficiently we can introduce new products, services and technologies, and upgrade existing ones.
     We may face additional financial risks as we develop new products, services and technologies, and update our networks to stay competitive. Newer technologies, for example, may quickly become obsolete or may need more capital than expected. Development could be delayed for reasons beyond our control. Substantial investments usually need to be made before new technologies prove to be commercially viable. There is also a significant risk that current regulation could be expanded to apply to newer technologies. A regulatory change could delay our launch of new services and restrict our ability to market these services if, for example, new pricing rules or marketing or bundling restrictions were introduced or existing ones extended.
     The Bell Canada companies are in the process of moving their core circuit-based infrastructure to IP technology. This should allow them to:

• offer integrated voice, data and video services

• offer a range of valuable network enabled business solutions to large business customers

• improve capital efficiency

• improve operating efficiency, including our efficiency in introducing and supporting services.

     As part of this move, the Bell Canada companies also plan to discontinue certain services that are based on circuit-based infrastructure. This is a necessary component of improving capital and operating efficiencies. In some cases, this could be delayed or prevented by customers or regulatory actions. If the Bell Canada companies cannot discontinue these services as planned, they will not be able to achieve improvements as expected.
     There is no assurance that we will be successful in developing, implementing and marketing new technologies, products, services or enhancements in a reasonable time, or that they will have a market. There is also no assurance that efficiencies will increase as expected. New products or services that use new or evolving technologies could make our existing ones unmarketable or cause their prices to fall.

Liquidity

Our ability to generate cash and to maintain capacity to meet our financial obligations and provide for planned growth depends on our sources of liquidity.
     Our cash requirements may be affected by the risks associated with our contingencies, off-balance sheet arrangements, derivative instruments and assumptions built in our business plan.
     In general, we finance our capital needs in four ways:

• from cash generated by our operations or investments

• by borrowing from commercial banks

• through debt and equity offerings in the capital markets

• by selling or otherwise disposing of assets.

     Financing through equity offerings would dilute the holdings of existing equity investors. An increased level of debt financing could lower our credit ratings, increase our borrowing costs and give us less flexibility to take advantage of business opportunities.
     Our ability to raise financing depends on our ability to access the capital markets and the syndicated commercial loan market. The cost of funding depends largely on market conditions, and the outlook for our business and credit ratings at the time capital is raised. If our credit ratings are downgraded, our cost of funding could significantly increase. In addition, participants in the capital and syndicated commercial loan markets have internal policies limiting their ability to invest in, or extend credit to, any single borrower or group of borrowers or to a particular industry.
     BCE Inc. and some of its subsidiaries have entered into renewable credit facilities with various financial institutions. They include facilities serving as back-up facilities for issuing commercial paper. There is no assurance that these facilities will be renewed on favourable terms.
     We need significant amounts of cash to implement our business plan. This includes cash for capital expenditures to provide our services, dividend payments and payment of our contractual obligations, including repayment of our outstanding debt.
     Our plan in 2005 is to generate enough cash from our operating activities to pay for capital expenditures and dividends. We expect to pay contractual obligations maturing in 2005 from cash on hand, from cash generated from our operations or by issuing debt. If actual results are different from our business plan or if the assumptions in our business plan change, we may have to raise more funds than expected by issuing debt or equity, borrowing from banks or selling or otherwise disposing of assets.
     If we cannot raise the capital we need upon acceptable terms, we may have to:

• limit our ongoing capital expenditures

• limit our investment in new businesses

• try to raise additional capital by selling or otherwise disposing of assets.

     Any of these possibilities could have a material and negative effect on our cash flow from operations and growth prospects.

Making acquisitions

Our growth strategy includes making strategic acquisitions and entering into joint ventures. There is no assurance that we will find suitable companies to acquire or to partner with, or that we will have the financial resources needed to complete any acquisition or to enter into any joint venture. There could also be difficulties in integrating the operations of acquired companies with our existing operations or in operating joint ventures.

Litigation, regulatory matters and changes in laws

Pending or future litigation, regulatory initiatives or regulatory proceedings could have a material and negative effect on our businesses, operating results and financial condition. Changes in laws or regulations or in how they are interpreted, and the adoption of new laws or regulations (including changes in, or the adoption of, new tax laws that result in higher tax rates or new taxes) could also materially and negatively affect us.
     Please see Legal proceedings we are involved in, The regulatory environment we operate in and Risks that could affect certain BCE Group companies – 

     It is expected that this proceeding will close in the second half of 2005.
     If the CRTC does not approve these proposals, there is a risk that the funds in Bell Canada’s and Aliant’s deferral accounts could be used in a way that could have a negative financial effect on them.

Competitor Digital Network Service

The CRTC released Decision 2005-6 on February 3, 2005, concerning CDN services. This decision determined the rates, terms and conditions for the provision of digital network services by Bell Canada and the other incumbent telephone companies to their competitors.
     This decision includes many changes that will affect both Bell Canada and Aliant as providers of CDN services in their respective operating territories and as buyers of those services elsewhere in Canada. The CRTC has determined that the scope of CDN services should be broadened from access elements only to also include intra-exchange facilities, inter-exchange facilities in certain metropolitan areas, channelization and co-location links (expanded CDN services). However, other than for the access and link components, the CRTC determined that these expanded CDN services should not be priced as essential facilities but will be priced to include “appropriate mark-ups” so as to encourage competitors to construct their own facilities.
     There are two important financial aspects to note in this decision. First, the reduced prices for the expanded CDN services are to be applied on a going-forward basis only and Bell Canada will be compensated for the resulting revenue losses from the deferral account. Secondly, Bell Canada will also be compensated through the deferral account, for both the retroactive and the future application of reduced rates for the CDN services currently tariffed. The incumbent telephone companies are required to file the estimated drawdown from the deferral account with the CRTC within 30 days of this decision.

Retail quality of service indicators

As part of the second price cap decision, incumbent telephone companies are also subject to an interim penalty mechanism for retail quality of service. Under this mechanism, these companies could pay a penalty of up to 5% of their annual revenues from total local retail, business and residential services that are regulated. For Bell Canada, the potential penalty amount could be as much as approximately $262 million annually.
     The interim penalty mechanism covers 13 retail quality-of-service indicators. If a company does not meet the CRTC’s average annual standard for any of these indicators, the penalty could range from $5 million to $20 million for each indicator that is not met on an annual average basis. The amount of penalty payable would be based on how much the actual results for each indicator deviated from the CRTC standard.
     This mechanism is currently under review in the proceeding initiated by Public Notice 2003-3, Retail quality of service rate adjustment plan and related issues, and a decision has not yet been made. Based on actual results year-to-date, we do not expect Bell Canada to face any penalties for the penalty period of July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.

Decision on incumbent affiliates

On December 12, 2002, the CRTC released its decision on incumbent affiliates, which requires Bell Canada and its carrier affiliates to receive CRTC approval on contracts that bundle tariffed and non-tariffed products and services. This means that:

• all existing contracts that bundle tariffed and non-tariffed products and services must be filed with the CRTC for approval

• all new contracts that bundle tariffed and non-tariffed products and services must receive CRTC approval before they are carried out

• carrier affiliates must meet the same approval requirements as Bell Canada on products and services they offer in Bell Canada’s operating territory.

     On September 23, 2003, the CRTC issued a decision that requires Bell Canada and its carrier affiliates to include a detailed description of the bundled services they provide to customers when they file tariffs with the CRTC. The customer’s name will be kept confidential, but the pricing and service arrangements it has with the Bell Canada companies will be available on the public record.
     This decision increased the regulatory burden for Bell Canada and its carrier affiliates at both the wholesale and retail levels. It could also cause some of their large customers to choose another preferred supplier, which could have a material and negative effect on their results of operations. Bell Canada’s appeal of this decision to the Federal Court of Canada was dismissed on September 14, 2004. As a result, Bell Canada has submitted tariffs for CRTC approval for those contracts with bundles that have not yet expired in order to provide more detailed descriptions of the bundled services.

Allstream and Call-Net application concerning customer-specific arrangements

On January 23, 2004, Allstream and Call-Net filed a joint application asking the CRTC to order Bell Canada to stop providing service under any customer-specific arrangements that are currently filed with the CRTC and are not yet approved.
     Allstream and Call-Net have proposed that Bell Canada should only provide services to these customers under its general tariff.
     Bell Canada provided its comments opposing all aspects of this application. If the CRTC grants it, Bell Canada will be required to cancel contracts with many of its enterprise customers and, in some cases, to reprice services. This could have a material and negative effect on Bell Canada’s ability to offer new services to the large business customer market on competitive terms and conditions.

Public notice on changes to minimum prices

On October 23, 2003, the CRTC issued a public notice asking for comments on its preliminary view that revised rules may be needed for setting minimum prices for the regulated services of incumbent telephone companies and for how they price their services, service bundles and customer contracts. The CRTC sought comments on proposed pricing restrictions on volume or term contracts for retail tariffed services. It issued an amended public notice on December 8, 2003. The record of this proceeding was completed with the filing of arguments on June 11, 2004 and reply arguments on June 25, 2004.
     If the CRTC determines the proposals are to be implemented as proposed, the Bell Canada companies will be required to increase the minimum prices they charge for regulated services. This would negatively limit their ability to compete.

Application seeking consistent regulation

On November 6, 2003, Bell Canada filed an application requesting that the CRTC start a public hearing to review how similar services offered by cable companies and telephone companies are regulated. This would allow consistent rules to be developed that recognize and support the growing competition between these sectors. Bell Canada also requested that this proceeding address any rules that might be needed to govern VoIP services provided by cable companies and others.
     On April 7, 2004, the CRTC invited comments on its preliminary views on the regulation of VoIP services and invited interested parties to participate in a public consultation on the regulatory framework for VoIP. The CRTC’s preliminary view is that VoIP services using telephone numbers that conform to the NANP and allow subscribers to make or receive calls from any telephone with access to the PSTN are functionally the same as switched telecommunications services. The CRTC’s preliminary conclusion is that when incumbent telephone companies provide VoIP services in their incumbent territories, they should be required to respect their existing tariffs or to file proposed tariffs where required, in order to conform with the regulatory rules that apply. The CRTC also provided preliminary views on 9-1-1 services, message relay service and privacy safeguards provided by local VoIP service providers. Bell Canada provided its comments to the CRTC on June 18, 2004. The CRTC held the public consultation on the regulatory framework for VoIP from September 21 to 23, 2004. Bell Canada filed reply comments on October 13, 2004.
     A decision is expected in the second quarter of 2005. There is a risk that the CRTC might decide to regulate VoIP services provided by the Bell Canada companies and other incumbent telephone companies but not the VoIP services provided by certain other competitors, cable companies in particular. These proceedings could determine the rules for competition with other service providers and limit the ability of Bell Canada companies to compete in the future.
     The CRTC has included a “Proceeding on Regulatory Symmetry” in its 2005-2006 Work Plan. If cable companies and the incumbent telephone companies are subject to different regulations for similar services, and specifically for similar bundles of services, the incumbent telephone companies would be at a competitive disadvantage which could have a material and negative effect on their revenues and profitability.

Licences for broadcasting

On November 18, 2004, the CRTC issued Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-496, which approved Bell Canada’s applications for licences to operate terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings, using its wireline facilities, to serve large cities in Southern Ontario and Québec. Bell Canada will be licensed under the same terms and conditions that apply to major cable operators, without any delays or other conditions that would negatively affect its ability to compete with them. The licences will be issued once Bell Canada informs the CRTC that it is ready to commence operations and will expire on August 31, 2011. Bell Canada is required to have the terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings operational no later than November 18, 2006, unless an extension of time is approved by the CRTC.

Licences and changes to wireless regulation

Companies must have a spectrum licence to operate cellular, PCS and other radio-telecommunications systems in Canada. The Minister of Industry awards spectrum licences, through a variety of methods, at his or her discretion under the Radiocommunication Act.
     As a result of an Industry Canada decision, the cellular and PCS licences of Bell Mobility and of Aliant Telecom and MT&T Mobility, which would have expired on March 31, 2006, will now expire in 2011. The PCS licences that were awarded in the 2001 PCS auction will expire on November 29, 2011. As a result, these Bell Canada companies’ cellular and PCS licences are now classified as spectrum licences with a 10-year licence term. While we expect that they will be renewed at term, there is no assurance that this will happen. Industry Canada can revoke a company’s licence at any time if the company does not comply with the licence’s conditions. While we believe that we comply with the conditions of our licences, there is no assurance that Industry Canada will agree. Should there be a disagreement, this could have a material and negative effect on the Bell Canada companies.
     In October 2001, the Minister of Industry announced plans for a national review of Industry Canada’s procedures for approving and placing wireless and radio towers in Canada, including a review of the role of municipal authorities in the approval process. If the consultation process results in more municipal involvement in the approval process, there is a risk that it could significantly slow the expansion of wireless networks in Canada. This could have a material and negative effect on the operations of the Bell Canada companies. The final report from the National Antenna Tower Policy Review Committee was filed with Industry Canada in September 2004. Industry Canada is now reviewing the report and considering what next steps, if any, it will take, after which it may invite comments from interested parties, including the wireless carriers, on the report and its recommendations. It is not possible to predict at this time if or when any action might be taken on the findings of the report.

Revenue from major customers

A significant amount of revenue earned by Bell Canada’s Enterprise unit comes from a small number of major customers. If we lose contracts with these major customers and cannot replace them, it could have a material and negative effect on our financial results.

Voluntary departure programs

In 2004, we announced an early retirement program and early departure program for Bell Canada employees. We estimate annual savings of approximately $390 million relating to these programs because of lower salaries, bonuses and non-pension benefits. There is a risk that the amount we expect to save each year from these programs will be lower than expected if, for example, we incur outsourcing, replacement and other costs.

Competition Bureau’s investigation concerning system access fees

On December 9, 2004, Bell Canada was notified by the Competition Bureau that the Commissioner of Competition had initiated an inquiry under the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act concerning Bell Mobility’s description or representation of system access fees (SAFs) and was served with a court order, under section 11 of the Competition Act, compelling Bell Mobility to produce certain records 

and other information that would be relevant to the Competition Bureau’s investigation.
     SAFs are charged on a monthly basis to Bell Mobility cellular subscribers to assist Bell Mobility to recover certain costs associated with its mobile communications network. These costs include maintenance costs, the installation of new equipment, retrofitting of new technologies and fees for spectrum licences. These costs also include the recovery of the contribution tax charged by the CRTC to support telephone services in rural and remote areas of Canada.
     Bell Mobility may be subject to financial penalties by way of fines, administrative monetary penalties and /or demands for restitution of a portion of the SAFs charged to cellular subscribers if it is found to have contravened the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act.

Increased accidents from using cellphones

Some studies suggest that using handheld cellphones while driving may result in more accidents. It is possible that this could lead to new regulations or legislation banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving, as it has in Newfoundland and Labrador and in several U.S. states. If this happens, cellphone use in vehicles could decline, which would negatively affect the business of the Bell Canada companies.

Health concerns about radio frequency emissions

It has been suggested that some radio frequency emissions from cellphones may be linked to certain medical conditions. In addition, some interest groups have requested investigations into claims that digital transmissions from handsets used with digital wireless technologies pose health concerns and cause interference with hearing aids and other medical devices. This could lead to additional government regulation, which could have a material and negative effect on the business of the Bell Canada companies. In addition, actual or perceived health risks of wireless communications devices could result in fewer new network subscribers, lower network usage per subscriber, higher churn rates, product liability lawsuits or less outside financing being available to the wireless communications industry. Any of these would have a negative effect on the business of the Bell Canada companies.

Bell ExpressVu

Bell ExpressVu currently uses three satellites, Nimiq 1, Nimiq 2 and Nimiq 3, for its video services. Telesat operates or directs the operation of these satellites.
     In order to restore the backup capacity for Bell ExpressVu, which was diminished by the partial failure of Nimiq 2, Telesat reached an agreement with DirecTV for an existing spare in-orbit satellite (Nimiq 3). Telesat received approval from Industry Canada to relocate this satellite to the orbital slots currently occupied by Nimiq 1 or Nimiq 2. In July 2004, the CRTC granted final approval to the agreement between Bell ExpressVu and Telesat to lease the full capacity of Nimiq 3.
     Satellites are subject to significant risks. Any loss, failure, manufacturing defects, damage or destruction of these satellites, of Bell ExpressVu’s terrestrial broadcasting infrastructure, or of Telesat’s tracking, telemetry and control facilities that operate the satellites, could have a material and negative effect on Bell ExpressVu’s results of operations and financial condition. Please see Risks that could affect certain BCE group companies – Telesat for more information on the risks relating to Telesat’s satellites.
     Bell ExpressVu is subject to programming and carriage requirements under CRTC regulations. Changes to the regulations that govern broadcasting could negatively affect Bell ExpressVu’s competitive position or the cost of providing its services. Bell ExpressVu’s DTH satellite television distribution undertaking licence was renewed in March 2004 and expires on August 31, 2010.
     Bell ExpressVu continues to face competition from unregulated U.S. DTH satellite television services that are illegally sold in Canada. In response, it is participating in legal actions that are challenging the sale of U.S. DTH satellite television equipment in Canada. While Bell ExpressVu has been successful in increasing its share of the satellite television market despite this competition, there is no assurance that it will continue to do so.
     Bell ExpressVu faces a loss of revenue resulting from the theft of its services. It is taking numerous actions to reduce these losses, including legal action, investigations, implementing electronic countermeasures targeted at illegal devices, leading information campaigns and developing new technology. Bell ExpressVu introduced a smart card swap for its authorized digital receivers beginning in 2004, that is designed to block unauthorized reception of Bell ExpressVu signals. The smart card swap is being introduced in phases and is expected to be completed in the second half of 2005. As with any technology-based security system, it is not possible to eliminate with absolute certainty the possibility that security may be compromised at some point in the future.
     On October 28, 2004, the Court of Québec ruled in R. v. D’Argy and Theriault that the provisions in the Radiocommunication Act (Canada) making it a criminal offence to manufacture, offer for sale or sell any device used to decode an encrypted subscription signal relating to the unauthorized reception of satellite signals violate the freedom of expression rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Department of Justice has launched an appeal of this decision to the Superior Court of Québec. It remains a criminal offence throughout Canada to manufacture, offer for sale or sell any device used to engage in the unauthorized reception of satellite signals. If this decision is ultimately upheld by the courts and Parliament does not enact new provisions criminalizing the unauthorized reception of satellite signals, Bell ExpressVu may face increasing loss of revenue from the unauthorized reception of satellite signals.

Bell Globemedia

Dependence on advertising

A large part of Bell Globemedia’s revenue from its television and print businesses comes from advertising revenues. Bell Globemedia’s advertising revenues are affected by competitive pressures, including its ability to attract and retain viewers and readers. In addition, the amount advertisers spend is directly related to economic growth. An economic downturn tends to make it more difficult for Bell Globemedia to maintain or increase revenues. Advertisers have historically been sensitive to general economic cycles and, as a result, Bell Globemedia’s business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and negatively affected by a downturn in the economy. In addition, most of Bell Globemedia’s 

advertising contracts are short-term contracts that the advertiser can cancel on short notice.

Increasing fragmentation in television markets

Television advertising revenue largely depends on the number of viewers and the attractiveness of programming in a given market. The viewing market has become increasingly fragmented over the past decade and this trend is expected to continue as new services and technologies increase the choices available to consumers. As a result, there is no assurance that Bell Globemedia will be able to maintain or increase its advertising revenues or its ability to reach or retain viewers with attractive programming.

Revenues from distributing television services

A significant portion of revenues from CTV’s specialty television operations comes from contractual arrangements with distributors who are mainly cable and DTH operators. Competition has increased in the specialty television market. As a result, there is no assurance that contracts with distributors will be renewed on equally favourable terms.

Increased competition for fewer print customers

Print advertising revenue largely depends on circulation and readership. The existence of a competing national newspaper and commuter papers in Toronto has increased competition, while the total circulation and readership of Canadian newspapers have continued to decline. This has resulted in higher costs, more competition in advertising rates and lower profit margins at The Globe and Mail.

Broadcast licences and CRTC decisions

Each of CTV’s conventional and specialty services operates under licences issued by the CRTC for a fixed term of up to seven years. These licences are subject to the requirements of the Broadcasting Act, the policies and decisions of the CRTC, and the conditions of each licensing or renewal decision, all of which may change. While these are expected to be renewed at the appropriate times, there can be no assurance that any or all of CTV’s licences will be renewed. Any renewals, changes or amendments to licences and any decisions by the CRTC from time to time that affect the industry as a whole or CTV in particular may have a material and negative effect on Bell Globemedia.

Telesat

Satellite risks

There is a risk that the delivery of Telesat’s satellites under construction could be delayed as a result of delays in the construction of the satellites, delays in the construction of the launch vehicle, the failure of a launch vehicle that is similar to the model which Telesat intends to use to launch a satellite, or the unavailability of a reliable launch opportunity. A delay in delivery could have an adverse effect on Telesat’s ability to provide service and could result in additional costs. Telesat seeks to mitigate the impact of such a delay through various contractual measures including late delivery charges and by planning for contingency measures as required.
     There is a risk that Telesat’s satellites currently under construction, or satellites built in the future, may not be successfully launched and deployed. Once Telesat’s satellites are in orbit, there is a risk that a failure could prevent them from completing their commercial mission of providing uninterrupted service to customers. Telesat has a number of measures in place that seek to protect itself against continuity of service risk. These measures include engineering satellites with onboard redundancies, including spare equipment on the satellite, standard testing programs that provide high confidence in performance levels, or retaining and obtaining redundant capacity on either the same or another in-orbit satellite, and the purchase of insurance.
     Where insurance coverage is available on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, Telesat seeks to protect itself against some of the consequences of launch and in-orbit failures by purchasing satellite insurance. However, there is no assurance that Telesat will be able to obtain or renew launch and in-orbit insurance coverage for its satellites for the full satellite value, nor is there any assurance that coverage will be obtained at a favourable premium rate.
     Telesat currently maintains insurance on in-orbit satellites as follows:

• Nimiq 1 – insured until the second quarter of 2005 for approximately its book value;

• Anik F2 – insured until the third quarter of 2007 for approximately two thirds of its book value. In the event of a total failure of the Anik F2 satellite, the after-tax accounting loss is estimated at $110 million to $115 million.

     In December 2004, Telesat ceased to insure its interest in the residual value of Nimiq 2 following the arrival in orbit of the leased satellite Nimiq 3 (formerly DirecTV3) a satellite that complements the capacity of Nimiq 1 and 2 and which, following operational changes, could be used to provide capacity and continuity of service in the event of a failure of either Nimiq 1 or Nimiq 2.
     In August 2001, the manufacturer of the Anik F1 satellite advised Telesat of a gradual decline in power on the satellite. Telesat believes some of the satellite’s core services will be affected by mid-to-late 2005. Anik F1R is expected to replace Anik F1 in time to ensure that service to Anik F1’s customers will not be interrupted. Telesat had insurance in place to cover the power loss on Anik F1 and filed a claim with its insurers in December 2002. In March 2004, Telesat and its insurers reached a final settlement agreement. The settlement calls for an initial payment to Telesat in 2004 of US$136.2 million, which has already been received, and an additional payment of US$49.1 million in 2007 if the power level on Anik F1 degrades as predicted by the manufacturer. In the event that the power level on Anik F1 is better than predicted, the amount of the payment(s) will be adjusted by applying a formula which is included in the settlement documentation and could result in either a pro-rated payment to Telesat of the additional US$49.1 million or a pro-rated repayment of up to a maximum of US$36.1 million to be made by Telesat to the insurers. Currently, power levels are continuing to degrade as predicted.
     In December 2004, Telesat received commitments for launch and in-orbit insurance coverage, covering the launch and first year of in-orbit life, for the approximate book value of Anik F1R, subject to the completion of documentation.
     Telesat has signed a contract with EADS Astrium, SAS, a European satellite manufacturer, for construction of the Anik F3 satellite. Anik F3 is expected to be available for service in the second half of 2006. During 2005, subject to insurance availability and market conditions, Telesat 

will review, and if appropriate, commence the placement of launch and in-orbit insurance coverage for Anik F3. However, there is no assurance that Telesat will be able to obtain launch and in-orbit insurance coverage for the full value of Anik F3, nor is there any assurance that coverage will be obtained at a favourable premium rate.

CGI

Long sales cycle for major outsourcing contracts

The average sales cycle for large outsourcing contracts typically ranges from six to 18 months, with some extending over 24 months. If current market conditions prevail or worsen, the average sales cycle could become even longer and affect CGI’s ability to meet its growth targets.

Foreign currency risks

CGI’s increased international business volume could expose CGI to greater foreign currency exchange risks, which could adversely impact its operating results. CGI has a hedging strategy in place to protect itself, to the extent possible, against foreign currency exposure.

Early termination risk

If CGI fails to deliver its services according to contractual agreements, some of its clients could elect to terminate their contracts before the agreed expiry date. This could have a material and negative effect on CGI’s results of operations and business.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The information that appears on pages 32 to 80 of the BCE 2004 Annual report under Management’s discussion and analysis is incorporated herein by reference. Our annual report is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Documents you can request

You can ask us for a copy of any of the following documents:

• this AIF, together with any document, or the relevant pages of any document, incorporated by reference into it

• the comparative financial statements of BCE for its most recently completed financial year together with the accompanying auditors’ report You will find more financial information in BCE’s comparative financial statements for its most recently completed financial year

• any interim financial statements of BCE that were filed after the financial statements for its most recently completed financial year

• the most recent BCE notice of annual meeting and management proxy circular, which contains more information about directors’ and officers’ remuneration and indebtedness, principal holders of BCE’s securities, options to purchase securities and interests of insiders in material transactions, where applicable

• any other documents that are incorporated by reference into a preliminary short form prospectus or a short form prospectus and are not listed above.

     Please send your request to the Corporate Secretary of BCE, at 1000, rue de La Gauchetière Ouest, Suite 3700, Montréal, Québec H3B 4Y7.
     We will send you the documents at no charge when our securities are being distributed under a preliminary short form prospectus or short form prospectus.
     At any other time, we may charge you a reasonable fee if you or the company you work for is not a security holder of BCE.
     You can also ask us for a copy of the annual and quarterly management’s discussion and analysis of BCE by contacting the Vice-President, Investor Relations of BCE, at 1000, rue de La Gauchetière Ouest, Suite 3700, Montréal, Québec H3B 4Y7 or by sending an e-mail to investor.relations@bce.ca.

Other information about BCE

The transfer agent and registrar for the common shares and preferred shares of BCE Inc. in Canada is Computershare Trust Company of Canada (Computershare) at its principal offices in Montréal and Toronto and in the United States is Computershare Trust Company, Inc. at its principal offices in Denver and New York.
     The registrar for BCE Inc.’s debt securities is Computershare, in Montréal, and debt securities may be presented for registration of transfer, at the principal office of Computershare in the cities of Halifax, Montréal, Toronto or Vancouver.
     Additional information, including directors’ and officers’ compensation, personal loans to directors and officers, principal holders of BCE’s securities and securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans, if applicable, is contained in our management proxy circular for our most recent annual meeting of shareholders that involved the election of directors.
     These documents, as well as BCE’s annual and quarterly reports and news releases, are also available on BCE’s website at www.bce.ca.
     Additional information relating to BCE is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov. Additional financial information is provided in our financial statements and management’s discussion and analysis for 2004.

9. External Auditor Service Fees (By Category)

The table below shows the fees that Deloitte & Touche LLP, BCE’s external auditor, billed to BCE and its subsidiaries for various services for each year in the past two fiscal years.