ARCHIVED - Transcript, Hearing April 28, 2016

Volume: 14
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Date: April 28, 2016
© Copyright Reserved

Attendees and Location

Held at:

Outaouais Room
Conference Centre
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Québec

Attendees:

• Chairman: Jean-Pierre Blais
  
• Members: Candice Molnar, Peter Menzies, Linda Vennard, Christopher MacDonald
  
• Legal Counsel: Emilia de Somma, Amy Hanley
  
• Secretary: Jade Roy
  
• Hearing Managers: John Macri, Christine Bailey, Sarah O’Brien
  

Transcript

Gatineau, Québec

--- Upon resuming on Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 8:32 a.m.

18629 LE PRÉSIDENT: À l’ordre, s’il vous plait.

18630 Madame la Secrétaire.

18631 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de Québecor Média Inc., s’il vous plaît vous présenter et présentez vos collègues, vous avez 15 minutes pour votre présentation.

PRESENTATION

18632 M. BÉLAND: Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-président, Mesdames les Conseillères, Monsieur le Conseiller, bonjour. Je m’appelle Dennis Béland et je suis vice-président, Affaires réglementaires, Télécommunications de Québecor Média. Permettez-moi de vous présenter les collègues qui m’accompagnent aujourd’hui.

18633 À ma gauche, il s’agit de Manon Brouillette, présidente et chef de la direction de Vidéotron, et à sa gauche, Bertrand Hébert, vice-président, Marketing, Télécommunications de Vidéotron. À ma droite il s’agit de Pierre Roy Porretta, vice-président, Ingénierie, Recherche et Développement de Vidéotron.

18634 Je passe à présent la parole à Manon afin qu’elle nous expose les principales positions que Vidéotron et Québecor Média ont adoptées dans le cadre de la présente instance.

18635 Manon.

18636 Mme BROUILLETTE: Merci, Dennis, et merci au Conseil de nous accorder l’opportunité ce matin de vous expliquer comment, à notre avis, nous pouvons travailler tous ensemble de façon à ce que les besoins de base des Canadiens en matière de services de télécommunications soient comblés dans la plus large mesure possible.

18637 Monsieur le Président, ce n’est pas la première fois que je me -- que je comparais devant vous. Vous ne serez donc pas étonné de m’entendre affirmer à nouveau que je suis convaincue que les exploitants de réseaux de secteur privé sont parfaitement capables de satisfaire les besoins en télécommunications des Canadiens, bien sûr si les conditions et les mesures incitatives requises pour ce faire sont réunies.

18638 À cet égard, la performance de Vidéotron au cours des 11 dernières années est exemplaire. À preuve, malgré le fait que nous soyons partis de zéro en 2005, nous sommes maintenant le plus important fournisseur de services de voix filaires dans plusieurs des circonscriptions du Québec.

18639 De façon similaire, partis de la case départ en 2008, nous avons su construire non pas un, mais bien deux réseaux sans fil, HSPA et maintenant LTE, d’envergure mondiale. À l’heure actuelle, ces deux réseaux couvrent plus de 8 millions d’individus à travers le Québec et l’Est de l’Ontario. Et 99,8 pour cent des foyers desservis par notre réseau hybride de fibre optique et de câble coaxial ont maintenant accès à des services à large bande de la norme DOCSIS 3.0.

18640 Je vous soumets également que la performance de l’ensemble des opérateurs canadiens de réseaux a été tout aussi impressionnante. Grâce à l’action des forces concurrentielles du marché, et avec l’aide bien sûr des subventions ciblées des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux pour les régions éloignées, 94 pour cent des Canadiens avaient accès à des services à large bande à la fin de 2014. Et nous sommes en voie d’atteindre le seuil des 97 pour cent d’ici le milieu de l’année 2017. On ne le dira jamais assez, l’atteinte de tels pourcentages constitue un accomplissement remarquable pour un pays comme le Canada, qui possède l’étendue géographique que l’on sait.

18641 Bien sûr, 97 pour cent n’est pas suffisant. Nous croyons que chaque Canadien devrait avoir accès à un service à large bande de base ayant une vitesse minimale de 5 mégabits/seconde en aval et 1 mégabit en amont. De cette façon -- à leur permettre de se joindre à un monde désormais interconnecté. Et nous croyons que cet objectif peut être rapidement atteint grâce à l’action des forces concurrentielles du marché, et au maintien des programmes de subventions ciblées déjà en place.

18642 Monsieur le Président, vous avez exprimé à plusieurs reprises au cours de la présente instance un sentiment d’urgence quant à la nécessité d’agir afin de combler les écarts qui subsistent en matière de déploiement de la large bande. Vous nous avez également fait part de votre inquiétude devant les inévitables délais engendrés par un nouveau processus de consultation sur comment combler ces écarts.

18643 Sur ce point, notre recommandation au Conseil sera toute simple, ne cherchez pas à réinventer la roue.

18644 Selon nous, le programme « Un Canada branché », dont la plus récente liste des récipiendaires a été publiée au début avril, constitue une pratique exemplaire, un modèle éprouvé en matière d’octroi rapide de subventions ciblées pour le déploiement de la large bande. Ce modèle est fondé sur la neutralité technologique et concurrentielle, axé sur la performance et conçu de manière à éviter des subventions récurrentes.

18645 Il est également de nature flexible, en plus d’être capable de s’adapter aux potentielles contributions provenant d’autres paliers gouvernementaux, ainsi qu’aux requis spécifiques des communautés les plus éloignées qui sont dépendantes des liens satellitaires.

18646 Plus important encore, un programme -- le programme « Un Canada branché » a livré la marchandise de façon concrète, en présentant des résultats plus que tangibles. Selon des informations fournies par l’ancien Industrie Canada, le programme, en juillet 2015, était en voie de brancher 75 000 foyers additionnels en supplément aux 280 000 initialement prévus. Et ce, à un coût inférieur équivalant à 60 pour cent des 305 millions $ prévus au budget initial du programme.

18647 Il serait bien entendu possible d’apporter quelques ajustements au programme Un Canada branché. Par exemple, au moins un des intervenants a affirmé que le programme, dans sa forme actuelle, ne tenait pas suffisamment compte de l’expérience réelle des soumissionnaires en déploiement de réseaux à large bande, ou de la proximité des réseaux de ces derniers. Pour corriger cette lacune, il suffirait d’accorder une plus grande importance à ce facteur dans la grille d’évaluation du processus de demande de propositions.

18648 D’autres intervenants ont également affirmé que les technologies sélectionnées devraient présenter un potentiel évolutif. Pour ce faire, il suffirait à nouveau de modifier la grille d’évaluation en conséquence.

18649 Le gouvernement Trudeau a annoncé que des fonds supplémentaires de 500 millions $ seront consacrés à l’expansion de la large bande au cours des cinq prochaines années. À notre humble avis, rien ne serait plus efficace pour combler les écarts en déploiement de la large bande qu’une recommandation de votre part au Gouvernement fédéral de consacrer sans délai les fonds supplémentaires à une reprise immédiate du programme « Un Canada branché ».

18650 Passons maintenant aux importantes questions que sont l’abordabilité et l’adoption. Nous partageons la position adoptée par les autres fournisseurs de services qui ont comparu devant vous, selon laquelle ce sont les organes gouvernementaux directement responsables de l’aide sociale et de l’éducation qui sont les mieux placés pour agir efficacement dans ces domaines.

18651 Ces organes sont à même d’évaluer avec justesse l’ampleur des problématiques, d’identifier les mesures palliatives les plus efficaces, de concevoir les programmes d’aide adéquats, et de bien comprendre les effets croisés entre ces programmes et les autres.

18652 En d’autres termes, Monsieur le Président, notre expertise collective, la vôtre, la nôtre, porte sur la conception, le déploiement, l’évaluation et l’analyse des coûts, ainsi que la réglementation des réseaux. La conception de programmes d’aide sociale ne fait pas partie de nos compétences.

18653 Cela ne signifie pas que les exploitants de réseaux ne peuvent pas assumer une part de responsabilité sociale accrue. Et cela ne signifie pas non plus que le Conseil et les exploitants de réseaux n’ont pas un rôle important à jouer auprès des organismes gouvernementaux responsables, afin d’aider ces derniers à mieux comprendre et relever plus efficacement les défis que sont l’abordabilité et l’adoption.

18654 Les fournisseurs canadiens de services de télécommunications participent activement à diverses initiatives dans le domaine de la responsabilité sociale. À titre d’exemple, nos collègues chez Bell ont consacré d’importantes ressources au cours des dernières années à la sensibilisation aux questions de la santé mentale. Bravo.

18655 En ce qui concerne le groupe Québecor, nous avons été extrêmement actifs dans le secteur de la culture, par le biais d’initiatives allant de la numérisation du patrimoine cinématographique québécois dans le cadre entre autre du programme Éléphant jusqu’au soutien d’une vaste gamme d’institutions et d’activités théâtrales, musicales, littéraires.

18656 En ce qui a trait à la connectivité et aux besoins numériques -- Vidéotron, pardon, a été une partie prenante à de nombreuses initiatives, comme par exemple le déploiement en partenariat d’un réseau -- d’un service Wi-Fi dans des centres hospitaliers, au bénéfice du personnel, des patients bien sûr et des visiteurs, ainsi que la fourniture gratuite de services de télécom à des organismes communautaires.

18657 Nous avons également été activement impliqués dans la conception et la promotion d’activités de sensibilisation à la cybersécurité.

18658 De plus, nous avons encouragé et nous encourageons toujours le cyberentrepreneuriat par le biais de notre participation à des initiatives telles que le Quartier de l’innovation à Montréal et Startup Montréal, ainsi qu’à des organismes tels que la Maison Notman, qui supportent les jeunes entrepreneurs technos.

18659 Pouvons-nous faire plus? Peut-être. Au cours de la présente audience, vous avez démontré une grande sensibilité envers les enjeux d’abordabilité et d’adoption, tout en soulignant les initiatives que certains intervenants, tels que Rogers, ont lancées afin de voir ce qui pouvait être accompli quant à ces deux enjeux.

18660 Nous étudierons avec soin ce que Rogers et les autres ont fait et nous explorerons les moyens sur lesquels nous pourrons nous aussi faire une contribution.

18661 Cela dit, d’un point de vue plus général, il importe de reconnaître qu’il existe une différence entre, d’une part, les écarts en matière de déploiement et d’autre part, les écarts en matière d’abordabilité et d’adoption.

18662 Comme je l’ai mentionné au début la présente allocution, je suis convaincue que la solution requise pour combler les écarts en déploiement est à portée de main.

18663 La combinaison des nouvelles avancées technologiques, incluant le satellitaire, avec l’opportunité bien présente de poursuivre le programme Un Canada branché en y injectant des fonds supplémentaires de 500$ million devrait nous permettre de combler les écarts en matière de déploiement.

18664 Les écarts en matière d’abordabilité et d’adoption représentent toutefois des enjeux plus complexes, dont la résolution nécessitera vraisemblablement plus de temps, ainsi que l’élaboration de solutions multidisciplinaires, incluant une meilleure compréhension du comportement humain et des choix individuels dans un monde numérique.

18665 Pour tout dire, nous n’avons nul besoin d’autres analyses sur la question du déploiement. Il en va cependant tout autrement pour ce qui est des questions d’abordabilité et d’adoption.

18666 Fort de ce constat, et dans la mesure où le Conseil choisit de recommander la création d’une table de travail multilatérale dont la mission serait de continuer la tâche qui a été amorcée au cours des trois dernières semaines, ma recommandation, Monsieur le Président, serait de concentrer le mandat de cette table de travail à l’abordabilité et de l’adoption.

18667 Je vous suggèrerais également d’inviter à cette table les ministères responsables des finances, de l’éducation et de l’aide sociale, aussi bien au niveau provincial qu’au niveau fédéral, les représentants des peuples Autochtones, des Canadiens démunis et des Canadiens souffrants d’un handicap, ainsi que les fournisseurs, bien sûr, de services internet.

18668 Les réseaux à large bande fixes et mobiles seront très bientôt omniprésents au pays. Le véritable défi auquel il faut maintenant s’attaquer est de faire en sorte que tous les Canadiens les utilisent.

18669 Nous vous remercions de votre attention et bien sûr nous sommes prêts pour répondre à vos questions. Merci.

18670 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci beaucoup pour la présentation, votre présence à vous et à votre équipe.

18671 Mais je tiens à souligner particulièrement heureux -- nous sommes particulièrement heureux ici, les membres du Panel, de voir votre présence à l’audience.

18672 C’est important pour nous d’entendre le point de vue des chefs d’entreprises et donc on apprécie grandement.

18673 Mme BROUILLETTE: C’est un plaisir.

18674 LE PRÉSIDENT: De toute évidence vous avez été à l’écoute aussi par rapport aux discussions depuis trois semaines.

18675 J’ai un des (inaudible) à Shaw pour faire la même chose, donc c’est -- évidemment en fin d’audience vous avez l’avantage d’avoir entendu les questions, puis les préoccupations, donc vous pouvez mieux cibler votre préparation, donc ça été très bien fait sur ce plan.

18676 Et vous faites bien de rappeler les succès qu’on a atteint et puis je -- notre but n’est pas -- nullement notre but est de mettre en doute les succès atteints jusqu’à maintenant. On doit les célébrer.

18677 Cela dit, on a quand même la tâche d’évaluer et de se concentrer sur les écarts. D’ailleurs plusieurs citoyens, plusieurs élus, nos –- même nos sondages ont démontrés qu’il y a à certains niveaux un taux de dissatisfaction.

18678 Et donc notre tâche aujourd’hui, dans les semaines qui suivent, avec votre aide, c’est évidemment de palier et de traiter de ces écarts.

18679 Si je vous comprends bien, contrairement à d’autres, vous croyez que il est tout à fait approprié de viser l’universalité de la connectivité?

18680 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui, je pense que -- je pense que dans un monde idéal oui. C’est certain que il y a certains défis pour rencontrer ça, puis surtout je pense qu’il y a trois défis principaux.

18681 On parle du déploiement bien sûr, mais je pense que l’abordabilité est tout aussi importante et l’adoption est toute aussi importante.

18682 Ce n’est pas seulement déployant les réseaux qu’on va atteindre l’objectif visé.

18683 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et donc on va revenir sur l’adoption mais, contrairement à d’autres, vous ne croyez pas qu’on devrait commencer en admettant qu’il y aura toujours des trous noirs?

18684 Mme BROUILLETTE: Bien en fait on pense qu’avec les avancées technologiques, les fameux trous noirs peuvent être comblés. Principalement avec le satellite.

18685 LE PRÉSIDENT: M’hm.

18686 Mme BROUILLETTE: D’ailleurs mon collègue Pierre pourra peut-être élaborer dans quelques instants. Donc on est d’avis que c’est possible dans le -- dans un monde idéal.

18687 Ceci étant dit, il y a des cas de figures où ça sera très difficile. Et il y a des exceptions, qu’on peut appeler, et je pense qu’il serait dangereux de dire on va faire une réglementation pour adresser les cas d’exceptions; comme on dit l’exception ne fait pas la règle.

18688 Donc il faut y aller avec un certain doigté, mais je pense qu’on est rendu à 97 pourcent. Il y a un 500$ million qui est à notre portée.

18689 Je pense que si on déployait rapidement une autre vague de Canada Branché avec bien sûr les normes de base à 5/1, on serait en mesure d’expandre d’avantage et avec la combinaison satellitaire on pourrait pratiquement rejoindre là beaucoup de gens.

18690 Je ne sais pas si quelqu’un veut ajouter quelque chose?

18691 M. ROY PORRETTA: Bien en termes de capacité satellite, le fait d’avoir une vague supplémentaire de 500$ million qui va étendre la couverture que je peux appeler terrestre, donc de -- on parle de neutralité technologique, va permettre de dégager de la capacité satellitaire disponible; ça c’est un.

18692 Deux, on voyait aujourd’hui il y avait une annonce qui passait et TéléSAT est en train de travailler sur le lancement de deux satellites.

18693 OneWeb est venue ici à la table pour parler de leur satellite à orbite géostationnaire plus basse, qui va augmenter la performance des utilisateurs.

18694 Nous croyons que les trous noirs vont être comblés. On peut être à 100 pourcent si un client décide de s’abonner aujourd’hui à un satellite.

18695 Et le déploiement du 500$ million supplémentaire va venir combler des lacunes qui sont aujourd’hui peut-être plus facilement accessible par des communications terrestrielles qui peuvent être du filaire ou du sans-fil.

18696 Alors on voit vraiment une couverture complète du Canada, qui peut être disponible aujourd’hui, mais avec la performance de base disponible d’ici quelques années.

18697 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous avez mentionné que on a eu beaucoup de succès en raison des forces du marché en présence, mais on a entendu aussi des gens qui sont sur la périphérie de vos zones de desserte, vous et les autres fournisseurs.

18698 Parfois ils sont frustrés, parce qu’ils ne comprennent pas tout à fait pourquoi eux ils ne sont pas desservis.

18699 Et j’aimerais mieux connaitre votre approche pour prendre des décisions d’investissement ou de non-investissement justement pour étendre la desserte.

18700 À quel point et selon quel analyse arrivez-vous à la conclusion que sur le plan des affaires, les forces du marché purs, que ce n’est pas possible? Est-ce que vous avez un modèle? Est-ce que il y a des considérations que vous tenez compte?

18701 Mme BROUILLETTE: Mais bien sûr on a -- on considère plusieurs éléments, mais il y a une réalité financière aussi à chaque année, en fonction de notre réalité économique.

18702 Donc il va arriver dans des cas, effectivement, qu’on va tracer la ligne parce que par exemple rejoindre un domicile en particulier va nécessiter d’expandre notre backbone, comme on dit, notre réseau de fibre et le coût pour brancher le domicile devient hors -- hors norme. Et on ne peut pas penser que ce client-là va assumer le coût d’interconnexion.

18703 Ça va arriver dans certains cas de figure où on va faire des ententes avec certaines entreprises, certains résidents qui vont assumer le coût de départ, qu’on appelle, pour s’interconnecter au réseau. Mais c’est tout simplement aussi simple que ça.

18704 On regarde le taux de retour et puis, à chaque fois, on regarde le budget annuel. Et on s’assure d’allouer bien sûr l’optimisation du réseau actuel. Les clients que nous desservons, on a des contrats avec ces clients-là, on doit s’assurer de leur livrer la qualité du service.

18705 Alors les dollars à chaque année vont être répartis entre une expansion et les clients actuels que nous desservons.

18706 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce que vous tenez en compte les demandes ou les besoins des municipalités?

18707 On a entendu, par exemple, la communauté de -- la municipalité de Prévost venir nous dire -- ils sont à quelques kilomètres de Montréal. Certains diront c’est presque rendu la banlieue de Montréal parce qu’il y a des gens qui décident de s’y installer pour toutes sortes de raisons. Mais il y a des grandes parties de ce territoire, qui est pourtant en expansion ---

18708 Mme BROUILLETTE: M’hm.

18709 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- avec plus grande densité et ils sont frustrés que les opérateurs ne déploient pas des réseaux dans leur zone.

18710 Oui, il y en a au centre des communautés mais à l’extérieur, et -- il n’y a pas de déploiement.

18711 Mme BROUILLETTE: Bien, il faut faire attention de dire « il n’y a pas de déploiement. »

18712 À chaque année, on expand notre réseau d’autour de -- entre 35 000 et 50 000 portes. Donc, on expand constamment notre réseau. Encore là, ça va sur cette mécanique. On va regarder quel marché.

18713 Il y a aussi la réalité que même près des centres urbains, il y a des expansions de complexes immobiliers. Il faut couvrir. Alors, on essaie de faire le meilleur de tout ça, d’équilibrer ces investissements-là mais il n’y a pas de recette magique. C’est vraiment -- et on prend la liste et on en a à chaque année.

18714 Malheureusement qu’on doit dire on arrive au bout et on ne peut pas les exécuter. Ça va aller à l’année prochaine.

18715 Donc je dirais possiblement qu’on va éventuellement rejoindre le territoire. Entre autre, je pense que Dennis veut ajouter quelque chose ici.

18716 M. BÉLAND: Oui, j’ajouterais que quand on dit qu’on a confiance dans le libre jeu du marché, des forces du marché à combler les besoins, on ne dit pas nécessairement que chaque technologie va trouver une façon de desservir chaque client. Il y a aussi la notion d’un rôle joué par la diversité technologique.

18717 Donc pour vous donner un exemple, Vidéotron est très présent comme cablodistributeur en Estrie. Mais si vous vous promenez en auto dans cette région du Québec, vous allez voir beaucoup de panneaux de Xplornet, parce que justement au limitrophe des réseaux câblés de Vidéotron, il y a des personnes, des foyers, qu’on n’a pas pu rejoindre à date, qui ne sont peut-être pas économiquement -- économiques actuellement pour le réseau de Vidéotron mais c’est un marché très intéressant pour les réseaux terrestres Xplornet.

18718 LE PRÉSIDENT: M’hm.

18719 M. BÉLAND: Aller plus loin, peut-être que les réseaux satellitaires entre en jeu.

18720 Donc c’est le libre jeu du marché. C’est aussi la notion que les différentes technologies avec leurs différences économiques et technologiques se complètent pour faire la job pour l’entièreté de la population.

18721 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais vous savez qu’il y a une certaine frustration par rapport aux normes de service, à la qualité, vitesse et autres indicateurs de performance par rapport aux technologies non-filaires.

18722 Et l’ironie ultime c’est que dans vos campagnes de publicité qui sont vues partout au Québec, par exemple dans votre cas, sur vos plateformes même de Québecor, où vous ventez l’avantage de la plus grande vitesse, la meilleure performance et puis que l’avenir c’est d’être branché à très grande vitesse. Et en même temps, ici, vous me dites, « bien, ces gens-là doivent être satisfaits d’un service qui, selon certains commentaires au dossier public jusqu’à maintenant, ne satisfait pas l’attente que vous avez créée dans la tête des Québécois.

18723 Mme BROUILLETTE: Bien en fait, il faut être prudent. Il ne faut pas confondre non plus le marketing, les positionnements marketing, dans le fond, d’une marque.

18724 Et je pense que l’autre chose c’est que la technologie évolue très rapidement. C’est pas dit même dans le futur que Vidéotron -- parce qu’on arrive là, quelques semaines, de Barcelone au Mobile World Congress et on voit la tendance qu’on appelle le « invisible fibre. »

18725 Et ça, ce que c’est, c’est qu’avec l’avènement du five G, qui arrive -- du cinq G (5G), qui arrive et qui est à notre porte, il y a certains joueurs en Asie, en Europe, qui commencent à faire des architectures réseau où ils vont amener la fibre au voisinage. Et par la suite, le dernier mille ou la dernière distance va être parcourue via le réseau 5G qui va livrer des vitesses aussi performantes.

18726 Donc je pense qu’il ne faut pas avoir une vue très court terme et surtout une vue moyen terme mais le moyen terme est demain. Donc je pense que c’est super important de s’assurer qu’il y a une neutralité technologique puis qu’on va maximiser l’ensemble des types de technologie pour avoir, bien sûr, un écosystème qui fait du sens économiquement et qui va permettre de livrer la performance.

18727 Notre objectif c’est de livrer le meilleur accès, la meilleure vitesse, la fiabilité à l’ensemble des clients qu’on dessert.

18728 Ceci étant dit, je reviens au même principe; il y a des réalités -- et des fois c’est pas seulement économique, c’est des réalités d’exécution de projet où les gens résident dans des géographies extrêmement arides, complexes à rejoindre.

18729 Donc je pense qu’il faut être ouvert d’esprit et accepter qu’il y a des technologies qui ne seront peut-être pas filaires et qui vont être performantes, qui vont pouvoir répondre aux besoins des Canadiens.

18730 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous avez mentionné dans vos soumissions écrites qu’à un moment donné, évidemment, l’extension est impossible sans l’aide de subventions et que -- vous parlez à un moment donné d’adéquatement compenser. Et puis aujourd’hui, vous avez parlé de « mesures incitatives » pour aider l’entreprise privée à prendre des risques d’affaires.

18731 Est-ce que c’est une solution à long terme ou seulement pour assurer le déploiement à plus ou moins court terme?

18732 Mme BROUILLETTE: En fait, je pense qu’il faut garder le programme « Un Canada branché » en ce qui a trait à la notion de déploiement, donc de marché non couvert sur la norme 5 en aval, 1 en amont.

18733 En ce qui a trait à l’adoptabilité et l’abordabilité, c’est une autre chose. Alors, je ne confondrai pas les genres comme on dit.

18734 LE PRÉSIDENT: Je suis entièrement sur la connectivité pour le moment.

18735 Mme BROUILLETTE: Voilà.

18736 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc parlons de ça.

18737 Mme BROUILLETTE: Donc je pense que ce programme-là fait le bon travail et je pense qu’effectivement c’est le petit coup de pouce que ça prend.

18738 Et je vais prendre notre exemple personnel à Vidéotron. On a eu recours aux subventions en 2009. Et à l’époque, la norme de base était de 1.5 mégabits. Alors, nous avons déployé une technologie et on était apte, avec la technologie déployée, de livrer des vitesses plus rapides. Alors on a rapidement monté à 3 mégabits même si la norme exigée était moindre.

18739 Et il est arrivé des concurrents justement avec Xplornet ou d’autres joueurs, qui sont arrivés dans l’arène et qui nous ont chauffé comme on dit le derrière. Alors ce libre marché a pris place encore plus. Et aujourd’hui, on livre des vitesses encore plus rapides et on investit pour préserver notre territoire.

18740 Donc je pense que la mécanique fonctionne très bien. Alors je ne vois pas pourquoi on arriverait avec un nouveau programme.

18741 Ceci étant dit, on a bien identifié dans l’allocution certains éléments d’ajustement qu’on trouve très légitimes. Donc voilà.

18742 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et votre 5/1, à votre avis, ça devrait être la norme pour tout programme de subvention, qu’il soit financé par le gouvernement ou peut-être envisagé même par le Conseil dans un régime de subvention plus réglementaire. C’est pour assurer la construction vers 5 et 1 seulement?

18743 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui. Oui, c’est exactement ça. On a eu la discussion ---

18744 LE PRÉSIDENT: Certains de vos collègues ont dit, bien, tant qu’à construire, le coût de différence, il faut planifier pour un avenir plus loin et puis qu’on devrait envisager du 10 ou du 20.

18745 Mme BROUILLETTE: Bien en fait, oui. Il y a deux affaires.

18746 Au niveau de la définition, je pense qu’il faut s’entendre pour quel territoire pourrait accéder 5/1, ceux qui sont en-dessous de ça; ceux qui sont au-dessus, non.

18747 Ceci étant dit et je pense qu’il faut avoir une ambition. Et là, la question c’est quelle est cette vitesse d’ambition? Certains ont parlé de 10/1; d’autres, de 15/3. Aux États-Unis, on parle de 25/3. On est d’avis qu’il faut être ambitieux.

18748 Ceci étant dit, je vais apporter une nuance ici. Advenant le cas qu’on s’entend sur 25/3, à mon avis, il ne faut pas imposer un 25 mégabits. Et la raison est très simple.

18749 Aujourd’hui, sur tout le territoire que nous couvrons, nos accès vont jusqu’à du 200 mégabits et vous avez vu, on vous a déposé des informations en confidentialité, donc qui démontrent un pourcentage certain de clientèle qui décide encore aujourd’hui de souscrire à un accès à 5 mégabits.

18750 Donc je pense que c'est d'être ambitieux pour avoir une gamme de services et probablement que la grille d'évaluation, de sélection et d’octroi pourrait favoriser les joueurs qui vont être ambitieux en ce qui a trait à la vitesse qu’ils livreront en déployant des gammes de services dans les territoires qui ne sont pas couverts actuellement par la large bande.

18751 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais à votre avis, 5 et 1 pourrait être une norme obligatoire par rapport au service de base?

18752 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui.

18753 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui?

18754 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui.

18755 M. BÉLAND: Je préciserais une norme obligatoire dans le cadre de programmes de subvention. Si vous voulez avoir une subvention pour remplir un des trous noirs, votre obligation est de livrer un service 5/1.

18756 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais si je comprends bien donc, non pas une norme obligatoire pour les fins du Conseil lorsqu’on pourrait définir ce qui est un service de base de large bande.

18757 M. BÉLAND: Sur l’échelle pancanadienne, notre position est qu’une telle norme n’est pas nécessaire. Les forces du marché sont capables de répondre au besoin des Canadiens en termes de vitesse.

18758 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et à votre avis, ça prendrait combien de temps sans l’intervention d’atteindre 5 et 1 à 100 pour cent du territoire?

18759 M. BÉLAND: À notre avis, la meilleure analyse en ce qui concerne le lapse de temps nécessaire et le coût c'est l’analyse déposée par Bell en pièce jointe à son allocution à l’audience il y a deux semaines, une semaine et demie.

18760 Si on regarde le 6 pour cent des foyers canadiens qui n’avait pas accès à la large bande à la fin de 2014, cela représente à peu près 800,000 foyers. Les projets qui ont été approuvés dans le dernier volet du programme « Un Canada branché », cela représente une couverture d’à peu près un peu moins de 400,000 foyers. Donc là, la moitié de l’écart va être comblée dans le cadre d’Un Canada branché.

18761 Si le gouvernement Trudeau, si vous recommandez au gouvernement de consacrer le 500 millions additionnel à un nouveau volet d’Un Canada branché rapidement, comme nous avons suggéré, cela laisse croire que -- et puis selon les calculs de Bell, le 500 millions plus un « matching » de 500 millions du secteur privé qui fait partie du programme, ce milliard de dollars on peut imaginer -- si le programme est lancé rapidement, on peut imaginer que d’ici cinq ans à peu près, on arrive très près du chiffre de 100 pour cent.

18762 Entretemps, les évolutions satellitaires vont probablement combler les derniers besoins. Donc on peut imaginer qu’avec les 500$ millions du fédéral dépensés, tel que recommandé, on peut imaginer d’ici cinq ans que l’écart est comblé.

18763 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc vous acceptez dans son ensemble l’analyse de Bell?

18764 M. BÉLAND: Y a des marges d’incertitude identifiées par Bell surtout pour les communautés très éloignées. Surtout pour les questions de capacité satellitaire, le chiffre global risque de dépasser le milliard avec une certaine marge d'erreur, mais en général, oui, on trouve que l’analyse de Bell est bien faite.

18765 LE PRÉSIDENT: Journée rare devant le Conseil où on voit Québecor et Bell Canada être d’accords sur un enjeu, mais passons.

18766 Je comprends bien que vous ne voulez pas avoir de norme obligatoire par rapport au cadre réglementaire par rapport à la vitesse. Donc non plus j’imagine par rapport à la latence, les taux de gigs, les normes de réparations, ou rien de ce genre; est-ce correct?

18767 Mme BROUILLETTE: C'est effectivement ça, oui. Je pense que si on regarde juste la capacité, les mécanismes qu’on a déployés permettent énormément de flexibilité. Si on veut élaborer, Bertrand peut donner quelques exemples.

18768 Donc je pense qu’on a la compétence et l’écoute de la clientèle pour s’assurer qu’on va ajuster nos accès en conséquence à rendre nos clients heureux.

18769 LE PRÉSIDENT: Y avait une invitation de compléter. Je sais pas si vous voulez ---

18770 Mme BROUILLETTE: En fait, si ça vous intéresse tout simplement là.

18771 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, oui, absolument. C'est votre opportunité. Y aura pas d'autres chances.

18772 M. HÉBERT: Okay. En fait, je pense que Vidéotron a démontré clairement dans le passé leur volonté de venir satisfaire l’ensemble de leurs clients. D'ailleurs, on a les meilleurs -- taux de satisfaction les plus élevés dans le marché.

18773 Nos accès ont toujours évolué, ont toujours suivi les demandes des consommateurs. On offre énormément de flexibilité en termes de modulation des forfaits, tant en vitesse qu’en capacité.

18774 Si on revient entre autres l’accès de base 5/1, je pense qu’on est les seuls qui permettent à l’ensemble des consommateurs de pouvoir prendre un accès de base et le moduler à des capacités pouvant aller jusqu’à 300 mégabits par seconde. Je pense qu’on est ---

18775 M. BÉLAND: Trois cents (300) gigs tu veux dire.

18776 M. HÉBERT: Trois cents (300) gigaoctets, excusez-moi. Donc je pense que, à cet égard, Vidéotron a été un pionnier puis accompagne adéquatement l’ensemble de leurs clients.

18777 LE PRÉSIDENT: Basé sur vos connaissances, pouvez-vous nous aider à mieux saisir l’importance des vitesses de téléversement? Soit pour le secteur des affaires ou vous êtes très actifs aussi dans le secteur culturel, vous imaginez que dès qu’on sort des grands centres, on a des créateurs, mettons, dans le domaine de la vidéo qui veulent œuvrer en région et évidemment les vitesses de téléversement deviennent peut-être plus importantes.

18778 M. ROY PORRETTA: Oui, certainement. Alors, en termes de téléversement, le 5/1 pour nous, on parle de service de base. On pourra parler d’autres exemples mais un moment donné, il faut se donner une base qui nous permet à travers -- on parlait de 400,000 portes -- de réussir à prendre des décisions. Nous croyons vraiment que le téléversement, par exemple une des choses qui a été discutée c'est tout le service de relai vidéo, on parle de 750 -- 737 kilobits par seconde en amont pour permettre d’avoir une interaction fonctionnelle.

18779 Dans le cas de l'exemple que vous nous amenez, ce qu’on veut pas non plus c'est que l’exception définit la règle. Alors, le 5/1 nous croyons est la bonne solution.

18780 Ce qu’on a dit aussi suite à vos questions et notre réflexion c'est que nous voulons avoir des vitesses aspirationnelles pour que lorsque les réseaux sont construits, c'est une capacité. Alors, cette capacité-là peut devenir disponible à un client, deux clients, ou certains clients dans une région à de plus grands débits. Et cette personne-là, si elle a besoin de faire un service, disons, où y a des revenus qui viennent avec, qui est pas d’un service de base mais qui sont un -- comme vous dites, un artiste mais qui se fait des revenus à part peut-être la personne qui le fait de façon personnelle pour envoyer des informations sur YouTube, mais si y a un revenu qui vient avec, je crois que les réseaux vont pouvoir répondre à ces besoins-là spécifiques qui vont arriver.

18781 Alors, vraiment là pour nous, c'est vraiment on veut pas que l’exception devienne la règle et c'est pour ça que le 5/1 de base répond à notre besoin. Mais les vitesses aspirationnelles et lorsqu’on regarde justement les critères de « Un Canada branché », y a un critère qui parle d’extensibilité. Ce critère-là va permettre de sélectionner un fournisseur par rapport à un autre dans une même région lorsque la compétition est possible entre divers soumissionnaires à un programme et on va choisir -- et le gouvernement devrait choisir un réseau qui permet d’avoir cette extensibilité-là pour répondre à ces besoins précis dont vous nous parlez qui sont vraiment plus des exceptions que le service de base.

18782 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et en termes non pas d’une obligation ou quelque chose de normatif mais en termes d’objectif pour les taux de téléversement, vous envisagez quoi?

18783 Mme BROUILLETTE: Ben je pense qu’on est très confortable avec, en terme aspirationnel, un 25/3. Je pense que 15/3 peut très bien faire le travail mais 25/3, tant qu’à se positionner vers le futur, tout à fait.

18784 LE PRÉSIDENT: Puis sur quel horizon?

18785 Mme BROUILLETTE: Sur quel horizon? C'est une bonne question. Oui.

18786 M. ROY PORRETTA: Notre horizon parle de 2020.

18787 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vingt (20) -- 2020?

18788 M. ROY PORRETTA: Vingt vingt (2020).

18789 LE PRÉSIDENT: Okay, 2020. J’avais mal compris.

18790 M. ROY PORRETTA: Non, non.

18791 LE PRÉSIDENT: J'avais compris dans 20 ans.

18792 M. ROY PORRETTA: Non.

18793 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ça me -- okay, bon.

18794 M. ROY PORRETTA: Deux mille vingt (2020).

18795 LE PRÉSIDENT: Deux mille vingt (2020). Okay. Merci.

18796 J'ai vu des commentaires de -- particulièrement dans votre soumission du 14 juillet 2015 où vous faites référence à l’utilisation de la connectivité pour des services de divertissements quand vient le temps de définir la norme. Certains pourraient croire que votre définition de service de base pourrait être formulée afin de tenter d’exclure des services de divertissements. Et certains, c'est pas moi là, mais certains pourraient dire que c'est une tentative peut-être voilée de protéger votre présence considérable dans le secteur culturel du divertissement et de la radiodiffusion au Québec.

18797 M. HÉBERT: En fait, j’aimerais ça revenir sur ce que je mentionnais tantôt par rapport à notre service de base chez Vidéotron. Actuellement si on prend un service 5 mégabits -- à 5 mégabits, c'est possible pour le consommateur d’ajouter suffisamment de capacité pour se divertir amplement. Donc, le consommateur n’est pas restreint à prendre un accès supérieur, ou même à s’abonner à d’autres services pour pouvoir accéder à cette flexibilité-là au niveau des accès internet.

18798 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais vous êtes d’accord qu’à 5/1 on peut peut-être accès à illico ou two.TV ou les autres services vidéo, mais peut-être pas à plus haute résolution?

18799 Mme BROUILLETTE: Regarde, en fait on peut passer ---

18800 M. HÉBERT: Oui, ben ---

18801 Mme BROUILLETTE: --- la parole à Pierre ---

18802 M. HÉBERT: Okay.

18803 Mme BROUILLETTE: --- y va ---

18804 M. ROY PORRETTA: Oui, j’ai -- en terme de résolution, pouvez-vous un peu clarifier ce que vous voulez dire?

18805 LE PRÉSIDENT: Bien du 5k ou plus.

18806 Mme BROUILLETTE: Du HD sur un grand écran.

18807 M. ROY PORRETTA: Oui, bon, lorsqu’on parle de formation à distance, d'éducation à distance -- pis je veux juste faire un parallèle. Aujourd'hui quand vous me parlez d’un 5k, d’un 8k qui s’en vient, le 4k qui existe, on parle d’une grande télévision de 85 pouces, et dans le cas de 4k ce qu’on dit c'est qu’on amène l’écran de cinéma à la maison.

18808 Je crois que dans de l’éducation dans des services qui sont des services de transmission vidéo pour répondre au service de base, ça répond aux besoins amplement. Y a la tablette aussi qui est très populaire, qui permet d’envoyer. Alors quand je me réfère à votre tableau que le CRTC a produit ---

18809 LE PRÉSIDENT: La pièce numéro 1, je crois.

18810 M. ROY PORRETTA: La pièce numéro 1, oui. La pièce numéro 1, effectivement, on voit que les vitesses permettent même à plusieurs utilisateurs dans une maison de recevoir des transmissions de qualité vidéo. Je pourrais vous dire sur votre tablette que je vais envoyer 20 000k. Votre tablette elle est grosse comme ça. C'est sûr que la bande passante va s’adapter à la taille de l’écran pour économiser les réseaux, pour économiser l’utilisation du client, parce que si on lui envoie une très grande qualité dans une tablette et que la personne est à l’utilisation, on va la facturer plus.

18811 Fait que je voudrais que quand vous voyez l'utilisation des services et le type d'écran et le rapport de la pièce 1, le 5/1 répond amplement aux besoins des citoyens.

18812 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et donc vous ---

18813 Mme BROUILLETTE: Et je tiens ---

18814 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

18815 Mme BROUILLETTE: --- à préciser que je pense c'est important de revenir sur le fait que nous avons aujourd'hui des clients qui ont des accès 5/1 et qui consomment nos produits illico sur tablettes et tout ça, qui sont quand même -- de la vidéo au même titre qu’un Netflix de ce monde et compagnie, et qui sont très satisfaits de la qualité. Donc je pense que la preuve est sur le marché actuellement.

18816 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc vous êtes d’accord avec l’analyse de la pièce numéro 1?

18817 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui.

18818 M. ROY PORRETTA: Oui, nous sommes d’accord avec cette analyse-là.

18819 LE PRÉSIDENT: Plusieurs élus, particulièrement des élus québécois, sont venus nous dire -- des élus de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue, du Bas-Saint-Laurent, ils sont venus nous parler de -- notamment des services sans fil mobiles, qu’à leur avis c'est absolument essentiel pour la sécurité, pour le développement économique, et même dans une certaine mesure pour la connectivité à large bande, tout en acceptant là qui a peut-être des contraintes techniques et économiques.

18820 Est-ce que vous croyez que le service sans fil mobile est maintenant rendu un service de base?

18821 Mme BROUILLETTE: En fait, je pense que les technologies qu’on voit poindre à l’horizon vont favoriser le déploiement pour répondre dans le fond à une connectivité branchée, vont pouvoir répondre à ce double objectif éventuellement parce que il va devenir plus abordable je dirais de livrer de la bande passante via un réseau mobile, conséquemment, la voix pourrait suivre du même coup. Ceci étant dit, je pense que c'est deux questions distinctes. Et aujourd'hui ce qui nous préoccupe, c'est bien sûr la connectivité internet, donc c'est plus là-dessus qu’on s’est penché.

18822 Par contre, je pense que Dennis voudrait peut-être ajouter une clarification à cet égard-là, mais je pense pas qu’aujourd'hui le service voix mobile peut être reconnu comme un service essentiel.

18823 M. BÉLAND: J’ajouterais seulement que chaque fois qu’on entend parler de la notion est-ce que ça fait partie d’une définition de service de base d’une perspective réglementaire, on pose toujours la question, à quelle fin?

18824 C'est évident que les services mobiles sont très importants pour les Canadiens. Est-ce qu’il s’agit en même temps d’un service de base qu’on devrait potentiellement subventionner le déploiement? Ça c'est une autre question. Et dans ce cas-là, nous sommes d’avis que la couverture -- mais les faits démontrent que la couverture au Canada des services mobiles est déjà rendue à 99 pour cent, si je me trompe pas, de la population.

18825 Dans la majorité des régions y a quatre joueurs. Au Québec en particulier, y a quatre joueurs avec des réseaux très vastes qui grandissent constamment. Donc oui, c'est un service très important pour les Canadiens. Est-ce que c'est un service de base pour lequel on devrait considérer ou penser à un régime de subventions? À notre avis ça serait très prématuré là. Encore une fois, les forces du marché démontrent que les fournisseurs canadiens mobiles font de grands pas dans l’expansion de la couverture géographique.

18826 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais par la même occasion, on a des témoignages assez frappants des élus, des maires de certaines régions, qui disent que y a des trous importants le long des corridors routiers, que certains chantiers sont mal couverts, que ça crée une embûche à l’investissement de nouveaux investisseurs pour développer des présences en région, que les gens se trouvent à avoir à payer contrairement aux citadins. Y peuvent -- y sont quand même obligés d’avoir un téléphone filaire à la maison, parce que la couverture du téléphone sans fil ne couvre pas leurs besoins.

18827 Mme BROUILLETTE: Mais je pense que ça va super vite, à chaque année -- encore cette année c'est des centaines de tours, de sites, qu’on va ajouter pour expandre (sic)le réseau, et tous les joueurs canadiens travaillent de la même façon.

18828 Je pense également avec l’octroi des nouveaux specs -- parce qui faut pas mélanger des fois les couvertures fractales. On a certains problèmes même dans des -- dans des régions où on a déjà du réseau au niveau de la pénétration dans les buildings et tout ça. Donc y a -- y a -- c'est très complexe, mais je suis d’avis, comme Dennis, que l’expansion se fait rapidement.

18829 Et l’autre chose que je trouve qui serait dangereux, c'est de se dire, est-ce que des réseaux mobiles tels qu’on les connait, vont être en mesure de répondre à des figures de cas où un téléphone satellite qui existe déjà peut faire le travail dans des cas bien précis d’exceptions là.

18830 LE PRÉSIDENT: Sauf que j'ai -- c'est vrai là qui a des compagnies qui veulent déployer des développements miniers qui pourraient peut-être s’équiper, pis évidemment ça va dans leur plan d’affaire à savoir si ils veulent développer là. Mais on entendait aussi de la part de simples citoyens qui se disent, ben, juste parce que y habitent en région, y devraient pas être moins citoyens par rapport à leurs besoins de connectivité.

18831 Mme BROUILLETTE: Mais encore là c'est un peu le même principe que l’expansion de nos réseaux filaires, c'est une question de temps. Et l’autre élément je pense qui faut garder en tête, c'est que malgré qu’on a une couverture de 99 pour cent de la population quand on regarde le taux de pénétration du sans-fil sur ces territoires là, on parle au Québec on est à -- au maximum à 74 pour cent. Donc c'est pas tous les Canadiens qui veulent avoir un mobile. Je pense que de se dire il faut réglementer à cet effet-là, il faut attribuer des subventions, c’est peut-être prématuré parce qu’on est en déploiement massif.

18832 Et lorsqu’on va arriver à une certaine, je dirais, maturité que là, on voit que les expansions ne continuent pas, peut-être que sera venu le moment de se dire, okay, on doit trouver des stimuli pour s’assurer que tout le monde a accès à la connectivité mobile.

18833 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc à votre avis, nonobstant le sentiment de frustration et l’appel à de l’action sur une base urgente de la part de ces élus, il n’y a pas lieu de faire aucune modification au cadre réglementaire -- qui n’est pas le-nôtre, c’est celui de Innovation Canada -- mais par rapport au déploiement plus rapide des réseaux.

18834 Est-ce qu’il n’y a pas des embuches ou des choses qui nous empêchent de déployer ces réseaux-là plus facilement et plus rapidement?

18835 M. BÉLAND: L’action probablement la plus importante, qui peut être faite par Industrie Canada ou Innovation Canada aujourd’hui, c’est l’octroi de plus de fréquences et notamment de plus de basses fréquences; et notamment de s’assurer que l’ensemble des fournisseurs sans fil mobile aient accès à ces basses fréquences qui propagent plus loin sur le territoire.

18836 Si vous cherchez une recommandation à faire à Innovation Canada à cet égard-là, ce serait ça; d’accélérer l’octroi de ces fréquences sur une base équitable.

18837 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui. Puis je dois dire qu’on sait là que prochainement il y aura le 600 mais je pense que ça va prendre plus de fréquences dans le futur aussi. Ça fait que ça, je pense que c’est un élément important dans la recommandation.

18838 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous avez mentionné, Madame Brouillette, dans vos mots d’ouverture que « nous pouvons travailler tous ensemble ». Donc implicitement il y a un appel à une plus grande coordination.

18839 Pour d’autres personnes, bien j’ai souvent parlé qu’il y avait plusieurs joueurs sur la patinoire. J’imagine qu’il ne faut pas être propriétaire d’une équipe de hockey pour réaliser l’analogie que le risque d’avoir une équipe de hockey avec bien des vedettes et bien des moyens, qui n’ont pas un plan de match commun, même s’il y a des arbitres sur la glace, il faut quand même travailler d’une façon coordonnée.

18840 Et je me demandais, pour le déploiement de la connectivité, est-ce que vous voyez un certain rôle pour « travailler » -- utilisant vos mots -- « tous ensemble » pour s’assurer qu’on met les moyens aux bons endroits d’une façon coordonnées?

18841 Mme BROUILLETTE: En fait, votre rôle premier, je pense, serait de recommander fortement à Innovation -- au gouvernement d’octroyer les 500 millions rapidement pour repartir « Un Canada branché ».

18842 Une fois ceci dit, je pense que de la manière -- et on a, on a œuvré là-dedans, on a reçu des subventions, comme je le précisais tout à l’heure, et ça va relativement bien. Et je pense que, effectivement, qu’il y ait un programme fédéral que, à certains égards, il y a des programmes provinciaux, il peut même y avoir des programmes privés. On parlait tout à l’heure de certaines communautés. Ça nous arrive de négocier directement avec des communautés et de s’entendre sur un plan d’affaires commun qui va faire du sens. Et à date, ça va très bien.

18843 Là où vous pouvez par contre jouer un rôle de leadership important, côte à côte avec Innovation Canada, c’est tout ce qui a trait à -- pardon, à l’abordabilité puis l’adoption. Je pense que là, on a du travail de coordination à faire. Comme je le précisais, c’est pas seulement une affaire d’industrie télécom. Il y a beaucoup de compétence et d’expertise que nous n’avons pas.

18844 Et je pense que vous pourriez jouer un rôle important au niveau de cette table de concertation pour assurer que tous -- tous les joueurs concernés viennent à la table et discutent de manière à trouver des solutions concrètes.

18845 LE PRÉSIDENT: Cela dit, on a entendu de la part de d’autres personnes qu’il y a quand même une incertitude ou un désaccord sur où se trouvent les endroits mal desservis ou peu desservis.

18846 Mme BROUILLETTE: Bien je pense qu’à partir du moment où on met la norme 5/1, c’est assez simple. On ratisse le Canada puis on identifie les municipalités.

18847 Je pense qu’il y a moyen aussi ---

18848 LE PRÉSIDENT: Bien justement, c’est le problème parce que des fois dans les municipalités ils nous disent, « oui, on est dans l’hexagone qui dit qu’on est desservi mais en fait le rang untel ne l’est pas. »

18849 Mme BROUILLETTE: Okay.

18850 Je ne sais pas. T’as-tu une précision à cet égard-là à ajouter?

18851 M. BÉLAND: Ces commentaires m’étonnent parce que l’exercice de cartographie d’Innovation Canada et même du Conseil permet à l’envoi de commentaires de ce genre. « On a regardé votre carte. On a noté que notre communauté est indiquée comme étant desservie puis ce n’est pas le cas. »

18852 Donc l’exercice de cartographie n’est pas facile mais nous sommes d’avis qu’après plusieurs générations, plusieurs volets de « Un Canada branché », nous sommes d’avis que l’exercice est quand même assez raffiné aujourd’hui. Peut-être qu’il faut regarder spécifiquement le mécanisme pour permettre à ces communautés-là de contester leur statut dans le cadre de cet exercice de cartographie.

18853 Mais le modèle -- encore une fois, on revient au fait que le modèle « Un Canada branché », à notre avis, est extrêmement performant. Il est là à utiliser. Peut-être du tweaking à faire, des ajustements à faire mais le modèle est là.

18854 LE PRÉSIDENT: Sur le plan opérationnel plutôt que sur le plan stratégique? C’était le but de ma question. Il y a peut-être du travail à faire de coordination même au niveau opérationnel pour s’assurer qu’on a un bon, une bonne carte notamment.

18855 M. BÉLAND: Mais ce qu’on cherche à éviter de façon générale c’est une -- c’est la création d’une nouvelle table pour réétudier la question du design de ce programme-là.

18856 Et vous avez souligné tantôt, Monsieur le Président, mon grand accord avec une des positions de Bell; donc pour défendre mon honneur, je vais vous indiquer -- en présence de ma présidente, je vais vous indiquer une divergence entre nous et Bell.

18857 Ils ont proposé un shift vers un modèle qu’ils appellent « reverse auction », enchère inversée. Et la vision de Bell c’est effectivement de refaire le modèle « Un Canada branché » pour faire en sorte que dans un territoire donné on définit d’avance toutes les caractéristiques nécessaires de la solution. Quels foyers seront couverts, quelle vitesse, quel plafond de consommation, d’autres facteurs. Tout est défini d’avance à part l’aspect argent. Et donc, c’est une enchère. Celui qui bid le moins pour avoir une subvention va gagner le contrat.

18858 Nous, notre vision c’est plus en ligne avec le design actuel du programme « Un Canada branché ». C’est que le programme doit nécessairement avoir une grille d’analyse. Une grille d’analyse qui est flexible -- c’est le cas actuellement -- qui va tenir compte de facteurs, comme peut-être une technologie peut couvrir 1 200 foyers mais une autre peut couvrir 1 300. Peut-être une technologie a une trajectoire technologique évolutive qui est meilleure que l’autre. Peut-être qu’il y en a une qui a une latence puis l’autre n’a pas de -- ou a moins de latence.

18859 Tous ces facteurs-là peuvent être intégrés dans une grille d’analyse flexible, performante. Et c’est le cas actuellement avec le programme « Un Canada branché ».

18860 Ce que vous avez peut-être besoin d’étudier c’est le nombre d’ajustements qui seraient nécessaires suite à ce que vous avez entendu depuis trois semaines.

18861 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais le risque de ce genre de programme, puis il y a différents modèles pour créer des programmes gouvernementaux, c’est que dès qu’on met plus de variables qui nécessitent une évaluation subjective, il y a moins de prévisibilité, il y a plus de risque de mauvais jugement basé sur des critères non-pertinents.

18862 M. BÉLAND: Mais à notre avis, c’est inévitable. C’est un domaine complexe. C’est de multiples technologies avec de multiples caractéristiques. C’est inévitable qu’il y a un élément de -- d’évaluation.

18863 Mais si on considère, par exemple, le lapse de temps nécessaire pour prendre les décisions, l’équipe chez Innovation Canada, encore une fois, est assez performante. Le dernier volet a été annoncé et livré, si je ne me trompe pas, en moins d’un an.

18864 LE PRÉSIDENT: M’hm.

18865 M. BÉLAND: Donc nous recommandons encore une fois fortement de miser sur ce modèle.

18866 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc vous prenez une position pragmatique; oui, on pourrait réinventer la roue. Elle serait peut-être plus ronde, plus parfaite, mais que -- on n’a pas besoin de faire ça pour atteindre nos objectifs. On devrait plutôt travailler avec ce qu’on a déjà.

18867 M. BÉLAND: Oui. En déploiement.

18868 LE PRÉSIDENT: Encore sur la question d’un besoin de coordination que vous avez évoqué dans vos commentaires, peut-être une coordination encore plus importante dans le domaine, par exemple, de l’abordabilité ou de l’adoption, donc vous voyez un rôle, si je comprends bien, pour le gouvernement fédéral. Évidemment, le gouvernement provincial, les municipalités, les régions, les conseils de bande -- y a peut-être même des coopératives citoyennes qui auraient un rôle à jouer. Et à la page 7, vous mentionnez en plus les ministères responsables des finances, de l’éducation et de l’aide sociale.

18869 Pensez-vous vraiment qu’ils vont venir à la table?

18870 Mme BROUILLETTE: Écoutez, j'ai pas la compétence pour répondre à cette question. Ceci étant dit, d’instinct je vous dirais quand on veut le bien commun et c'est une bonne cause quand on parle d’abordabilité, d’adoption, je vois pas pourquoi ils diraient non.

18871 Je veux dire on travaille collectivement et je pense que ce qu'on est en train d’admettre aujourd’hui tous ensemble c'est que la connectivité du Canada ne repose pas seulement sur un déploiement technologique. Y a des comportements, y a des gens qui ont besoin d’aide à cet égard-là et je pense que chacun doit être mobilisé dans cette démarche-là. C'est une priorité gouvernementale, un monde numérique, et c'est l’affaire de tous.

18872 LE PRÉSIDENT: Basé sur vos connaissances de ce qui se passe au Gouvernement du Québec, ils viennent pas souvent à nos audiences le Gouvernement du Québec. Donc je dois poser la question indirectement.

18873 Est-ce qu’ils ont des actions par rapport à des subventions et des programmes? Ils en ont eu par le passé, ou par rapport aussi à des politiques numériques.

18874 M. BÉLAND: Le gouvernement, au fil des ans, a eu plusieurs -- le Gouvernement du Québec, au fil des ans, a eu plusieurs interventions dans le domaine du déploiement des réseaux à large bande. Typiquement, ils se sont concentrés sur le transport, le transport entre communautés, les subventions au transport.

18875 Le dernier budget du gouvernement, y a eu une référence à un nouveau programme qui vise la connectivité mais, à date, à notre connaissance, y a pas eu d’annonce quant aux éléments spécifiques de ce programme.

18876 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce qu’on a amorcé des consultations pour mieux définir ce programme, à votre connaissance?

18877 M. BÉLAND: Je ne suis pas sûr à 100 pour cent mais je ne crois pas.

18878 LE PRÉSIDENT: Certains nous ont mentionné que le défi des programmes qui existaient au Québec, qui existent peut-être encore, puis c'est le cas ailleurs, c'est qu’on assurait de la connectivité vers des institutions, des hôpitaux, des écoles, mais qu’on semblait oublier que ce transport-là pourrait, si on avait mieux planifié, être utilisé aussi pour d’autres fins.

18879 Donc je sais que vous avez pris la position que vous aimez bien le programme fédéral mais je voudrais explorer avec vous, basé sur vos connaissances, non seulement ce qu’on doit faire mais ce qu’on ne doit pas faire lorsqu’on développe des programmes de subvention.

18880 Est-ce que vous pensez que d’avoir des systèmes de transport qui amènent le transport à des institutions mais qui semblent oublier qu’il faut avoir de la distribution au-delà des institutions, surtout en soirée, mettons, où les besoins sont moins grands pour les institutions comme un institution d’éducation, qu’on devrait déjà dans la planification puis ça serait plus efficace de planifier d’avance et de prévoir un partage possible?

18881 M. BÉLAND: C’est un exemple où ce serait intéressant d'avoir plus de coordination. Je dirai pas que nous on a des cas spécifiques à vous donner mais ce qu’on a entendu depuis quelques semaines par exemple c'est des exemples de barrières administratives, purement administratives.

18882 Y a une fibre qui a été déployée à une institution dans une petite ville ou village donné, puis d’autres personnes qui veulent utiliser ce même transport réussissent pas. C'est un cas évident qu’on devrait chercher à faciliter une coordination. Mais je répète, on n’a pas d’exemple spécifique nous à vous donner.

18883 Sur la question du transport en particulier, je reviens encore une fois à la flexibilité du programme « Un Canada branché ». Le Canada branché n’est pas contre l’implication d’autres niveaux du gouvernement. Dans les faits, il encourage l’implication d’autres niveaux du gouvernement.

18884 Donc on peut imaginer facilement une situation où un opérateur est prêt à déployer un réseau accès avec une subvention du nouveau programme fédéral et que le provincial est prêt peut-être à subventionner un lien de transport qui complète le programme, que ce soit permis, que ce soit encouragé, c’est une très bonne chose.

18885 LE PRÉSIDENT: On a entendu que certains fournisseurs ont signé des ententes d’exclusivité suite à des partenariats avec des municipalités et que, par la suite, ça empêche l’utilisation des moyens de transport ou même d'accès par d’autres utilisateurs.

18886 Qu’en pensez-vous?

18887 M. BÉLAND: Excusez-moi, vous parlez d’exclusivité en termes de transport?

18888 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ben on va prendre le transport en premier, oui, que y a un manque -- que une fois on a entendu que dans ---

18889 Mme BROUILLETTE: Donc une fois une attente avec une municipalité directement qui bloquerait d’autres joueurs?

18890 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc une entreprise de télécommunications qui est allée en partenariat soit avec le gouvernement ou une municipalité, mais une des condition de l’accord, un genre de PPP, c'est qu’il y a une exclusivité pour cette entreprise de télécommunications à long terme.

18891 Mme BROUILLETTE: En fait là, y a deux distinctions. Exclusivité de l’utilisation de leurs infrastructures, c'est compréhensible, mais bloquer un marché à la concurrence, c'est pas vraiment dans notre philosophie. Donc j’aurais tendance à vous dire que ---

18892 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais vous dites c'est comprenable mais sauf que c'est suite à une subvention, donc y a de l’argent public.

18893 Mme BROUILLETTE: Effectivement. Ben j’aimerais ça comprendre concrètement. On parle de quoi? Ça été quoi -- parce que des fois y a un investissement public mais l’investissement privé est considérable pour être en mesure de rencontrer.

18894 L’autre élément c'est toute la notion de délai de retour mais c'est certain qu’à terme, dans mon livre à moi, on est pro consommateur, on est pro compétition et on voit très bien la dynamique. On l’a vécue nous-même. À peine rentré dans un territoire, on avait eu des subventions, la concurrence est arrivée. Comme j’ai dit tout à l’heure, on s'est retroussé les manches et puis on a fait pour garder notre client.

18895 LE PRÉSIDENT: M’hm.

18896 M. BÉLAND: Je crois encore qu’on peut faire une distinction entre le transport et l’accès. Si la question c’est lorsqu’une entité reçoit une subvention pour déployer un lien de transport, est-ce qu’il devrait y avoir une obligation de partager ce lien de transport avec d’autres, cela nous parait tout à fait raisonnable. Puis dans les faits, quand nous déployons nous-mêmes à nos frais un lien de transport dans des régions éloignées, le plus souvent du temps c'est en partenariat avec le plus d’autres joueurs possibles. C'est pour rentabiliser le lien.

18897 Quand on parle de réseau d’accès, c'est une autre histoire parce que dans le cadre d’un programme de subvention, on imagine une entité qui est prête à déployer un réseau d’accès. Le plan d’affaires est difficile. C'est une recherche de subvention concurrentielle. Donc ce joueur-là veut minimiser la demande de subvention afin de pouvoir gagner la subvention. Donc son plan d’affaires est serré. Il minimise sa demande de subvention.

18898 Si on arrive et on colle une obligation de partage de ce réseau d’accès, ce qui risque d’arriver c’est ce joueur-là va abandonner parce qu’une obligation de revente du réseau d’accès à rabais à des entités qui investissent pas dans leur propre réseau d’accès mais qui vont aller chercher la clientèle, mais ça peut tuer très facilement le plan d’affaires, même dans un contexte de subvention.

18899 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc à votre avis, dans le cas d'une subvention pour l’accès, le quiproquo d’avoir ce partenariat-là c'est qu’il y a une certaine période d’exclusivité pour l’accès dans ces régions pas desservies ou mal desservies.

18900 Mme BROUILLETTE: Je veux juste qu’on s’assure d’une chose. Y a l’exploitation du réseau mais d’accès au marché. Si un autre joueur veut venir et déployer ses infrastructures, oui ---

18901 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, leur propre structure, oui.

18902 Mme BROUILLETTE: Voilà. C'est juste qu’on se comprenne bien là.

18903 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui. Et j’imagine aussi un tarif comparable au détail.

18904 M. BÉLAND: Que le design du programme de subventions exige un tarif comparable aux régions urbaines par exemple, mais ça fait déjà parti du design de Canada Branché.

18905 LE PRÉSIDENT: J’avais d’autres questions, mais vous avez déjà couvert dans votre présentation, donc je n’ai pas besoin d’y revenir, donc ça devient plus efficace dans ce temps-là.

18906 Par rapport à l’abordabilité, si j’ai bien entendu, vous dites qu’on n’est pas tout à fait prêt au niveau de la politique publique, des connaissances des enjeux puis des solutions, donc il faut un petit peu plus d’études, peut-être en coordination avec d’autres.

18907 Donc c’est quand même un enjeu qui fait partie de la juridiction du Conseil de se préoccuper de l’abordabilité, donc quels seraient les mécanismes pour traiter de cet enjeu?

18908 Parce qu’il y a la question d’abordabilité et la question de la pauvreté. Effectivement le mot pauvreté je ne crois pas est dans la loi sur les télécommunications, mais la notion de l’abordabilité est très présente.

18909 Nous avons des sondages de la firme EKOS qui démontrent presqu’à 50 pourcent les gens trouvent que leurs services ne sont pas abordables et évidemment quand que les gens sont à faible revenus la situation devient encore plus pressante.

18910 Mme BROUILLETTE: Je pense qu’il y a deux choses à l’intérieur de ça. Premièrement je vais commencer par la fin de la question.

18911 On a entendu, bien entendu, par exemple, le programme de Rogers, et on a déjà débuté notre travail à cet égard-là pour voir comment nous de notre côté on peut déployer des mécanismes qui va venir répondre à cette préoccupation-là.

18912 À ce qui a trait à, de façon générale, à l’abordabilité, je ferais très attention avec le sondage qui dit effectivement que 48 pourcent des Canadiens disent payer trop cher leur internet.

18913 Je viens du marketing. C’était le -- mes origines à la base et peu importe les sondages qu’on a conduit dans notre carrière, quand on questionne sur le prix c’est sûr que l’humain naturellement va dire qu’il paye trop cher.

18914 Mais si vous me permettez d’aborder quelques minutes ce thème là, je pense qu’il y a différents éléments à prendre en considération avant d’aller sur ce terrain-là.

18915 Premièrement si on regarde les évolutions qu’on a fait au cours des dernières années, prenons juste les 10 dernières années. On est passée -- et parlons seulement de Vidéotron, mais ça peut s’appliquer à n’importe quel autre joueur, je dirais, à travers le pays.

18916 Il y a 10 ans nos accès étaient à 4 mégabits seconde. Aujourd’hui on parle de 200 mégabits et bientôt un gig.

18917 Donc ça ça l’a -- on a du faire des investissements massifs, en centaine de million de dollars au cours des 10 dernières années, pour livrer la vitesse, livrer de la capacité.

18918 On a même des options internet illimitées aujourd’hui disponible. Donc ça c’est un élément de coût important. Le deuxième facteur c’est que chaque usager augmente sa consommation année après année et ce n’est pas des données que vous ne connaissez pas.

18919 On parle de 50 pourcent d’augmentation d’usage par client moyen à chaque année. Et ma question est est-ce qu’on augmente les prix de 50 pourcent? La réponse c’est non.

18920 Donc ça nécessite des investissements pour continuer à livrer cette qualité, cette vitesse, cette fiabilité qu’on promet aux Canadiens.

18921 Puis le troisième facteur, je pense que vous vous l’êtes fait -- les autres en ont parlé. Louis Audet, entre autre, de Cogéco, référait à l’étendue géographique et j’en parlais dans mon exposé.

18922 C’est certain que lorsqu’on va comparer des tarifs avec l’Europe, avec l’Asie ou une densité de population de kilomètres carré, ça rien avoir avec ce qu’on vit ici au Canada. On peut se questionner en comparant.

18923 Ceci étant dit, le coût de livraison par usager moyen est bien plus élevé qu’ailleurs dans le monde. Je pense qu’il faut prendre tout ça en considération.

18924 La game est féroce. Il y a beaucoup de concurrence, donc je pense que la dynamique en place fait en sorte qu’on est très, très alerte sur les tarifs. Donc je ne crois pas qu’il y a lieu d’aller légiférer sur cet élément précis.

18925 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous avez évoqué Monsieur Audet et lorsque je posais des questions il a évoqué la possibilité en admettant que évidemment ça aurait besoin de plus d’étude.

18926 Cette notion de timbres télécoms qu’en pensez-vous?

18927 Mme BROUILLETTE: Je n’ai pas du tout l’expertise pour élaborer d’avantage. Je ne sais pas si Dennis peut vous aider là, mais je ne voudrais pas ---

18928 M. BÉLAND: La notion de timbres télécoms soulevée par Monsieur Audet c’est fondée ou ça fait référence aux food stamps aux États-Unis.

18929 Le seul commentaire qu’on pourrait avoir c’est toute la structure puis l’orientation envers les programmes d’aide social needs based est beaucoup plus présente aux États-Unis qu’au Canada.

18930 Nous c’est sûr qu’on n’a pas d’expertise dans ce domaine-là. Vous non plus, j’imagine. Ce serait le genre de chose justement à discuter à une table de travail qui vise la question de l’abordabilité.

18931 Est-ce que c’est une -- c’est le type de mécanisme qui pourrait être considéré au Canada, oui ou non. On n’a pas de point de vue à exprimer aujourd’hui à ce sujet.

18932 LE PRÉSIDENT: À votre connaissance, est-ce que les programmes d’assistance sociale au Québec tiennent en compte les coûts de connectivité pour calculer les montants des prestations?

18933 M. BÉLAND: Nous ne savons pas.

18934 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et encore une fois le défis auquel on fait face, c’est que nous on a des instances publiques, transparentes. Le coût de participation est -- pour venir à une audience du CRTC ce n’est même pas le coût d’un timbre, mais mettons.

18935 Et donc on a toutes sortes d’enjeux de gens qui viennent ici nous dire il y a un énorme problème par rapport à notre accès au système de télécommunication, pour des raisons socioéconomiques.

18936 Et je comprends on a peut-être nous un manque d’expertise dans le domaine, mais le fait demeure que ces gens-là sont à notre audience et ils reviennent.

18937 Et pendant ce temps-là personne d’autre ne semble s’occuper du problème et ces gens-là tombent un peu entre les chaises et c’est frustrant pour nous mais c’est très vital pour ces gens-là.

18938 Mme BROUILLETTE: Mais je pense que vous avez justement l’opportunité, par la création de cette table de les entendre, de les écouter.

18939 Surtout que tout le monde vienne à un niveau de compréhension pour être en mesure de déterminer les bonnes stratégies, la bonne règlementation, le bon support.

18940 Tout ce qu’on essaie de vous dire ce matin c’est que on est un petit peu en dehors de nos chaussures quand vient le temps de discuter de ça.

18941 Et qu’on est des gens pragmatiques, donc avant d’endosser quelconque position je pense qu’il serait urgent et primordial de réunir toutes les instances concernées pour bien entendre et bien déterminer les actions à prendre et on est d’avis que vous pouvez assumer un leadership avec innovation Canada à cet égard là, d’ailleurs on vous en fait la demande.

18942 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et Québécor va répondre à l’appel d’être présent?

18943 Mme BROUILLETTE: Absolument, oui.

18944 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

18945 Quels sont vos services les plus abordables dans votre territoire pour les services internet?

18946 M. HÉBERT: Actuellement notre service de base 5 mégabits est offert à 38$.

18947 LE PRÉSIDENT: À combien, pardon?

18948 M. HÉBERT: À 38$.

18949 LE PRÉSIDENT: Trente-huit (38) dollars?

18950 M. HÉBERT: À 37,95$ pour être exact.

18951 LE PRÉSIDENT: Bien oui, plus taxes.

18952 M. HÉBERT: Plus les taxes.

18953 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

18954 Et est-ce que vous en faites la promotion?

18955 M. HÉBERT: Absolument.

18956 Si vous consultez le site web de Vidéotron c’est probablement le premier accès qu’on vous présente lorsque vous choisissez l’option de consulter les forfaits, donc ce n’est pas un forfait qui est entre guillemet, caché et qu’il faut chercher sur le web.

18957 LE PRÉSIDENT: Par rapport au -- un abonné existent ou potentiel qui se demande dans le cadre d’un choix-là de service approprié pour leurs besoins ou de leur foyer, pour qu’ils puissent faire une décision éclairée et judicieuse est-ce que vous fournissez des outils?

18958 M. HÉBERT: Oui. Évidemment ce n’est pas -- c’est des outils pour faire des recommandations à notre clientèle.

18959 Qui est un outil aussi pour s’assurer qu’ils puissent bénéficier de la meilleure expérience client, donc ce n’est pas cet outil là n’est pas -- n’est pas hautement scientifique, mais je pense qu’elle fait très bien le travail d’orienter le client vers le bon forfait.

18960 Nous notre recommandation, une fois que le client a fait son choix de forfait, après ça on l’invite régulièrement à en faire un -- surtout le suivi de sa consommation et de s’assurer que le forfait qu’on lui a recommandé répond bien finalement à ses besoins.

18961 Donc c'est pour ça qu’on a mis en place une multitude d’outils, parce que de dire qu’on a un seul outil pour recommander un forfait, je pense qu’au départ -- on veut bien l’accompagner au départ, mais on veut surtout bien l’accompagner par la suite. Et donc on a plein d’outils qui permet à nos clients de suivre leur consommation en temps réel, de pouvoir avoir des avis lorsqu’ils atteignent 50 pour cent par exemple de leur quota de forfait, 75, 100 pour cent. Je pense qui peut même choisir le média de communication, donc si y veut avoir son avis de notification par courriel ou par SMS, y peut faire ces choix-là.

18962 Et même en plus, si par exemple le client a pas fait le bon choix durant le cycle en cours -- durant son cycle de facturation en cours, même si il dépasse -- pis je pense qu’on est les seuls à offrir ça actuellement dans le marché, même si il dépasse son quota de forfait, ben on le facture pas l’usage. Il suffit juste pour lui d’ajouter -- donc on ne facture pas l’usage excédentaire, donc il suffit pour lui de simplement rajouter un bloc de consommation dans le mois en cours, et puis voilà.

18963 Donc je pense que oui, y a des outils au départ qui permettent d’accompagner le client. Est-ce que c'est le seul outil qu’on devrait mettre à la disposition des consommateurs? Non. Je pense c'est important de le suivre par la suite dans sa consommation ---

18964 Mme BROUILLETTE: Et de l’éduquer.

18965 M. HÉBERT: --- et de l’éduquer. Et même ceux qu’on voit qui font de la consommation excédentaire de façon récurrente, on les appelle proactivement.

18966 LE PRÉSIDENT: C'était pour être ma prochaine question, donc vous y avez répondu. Qu’en est-il -- dans le sens inverse -- que les gens ont des forfaits qui sont bien au-delà de leurs besoins de consommation?

18967 M. HÉBERT: En fait, donc y ont des besoins -- ben effectivement, si les forfaits sont au-delà de leurs besoins de consommation, c'est possible pour lui de changer de forfait à tout moment. Quand qu’on regarde actuellement le plus petit ---

18968 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais vous êtes pas proactif pour ---

18969 M. HÉBERT: Oui, oui, oui.

18970 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui?

18971 M. HÉBERT: Absolument. Lorsque -- en fait, proactif ---

18972 Mme BROUILLETTE: Pour les vidéos ---

18973 M. HÉBERT: --- proactif dans -- chaque fois qu’on a un point de contact avec un client -- et Dieu sait on en a beaucoup de points de contact avec notre clientèle, donc nos agents du service à la clientèle se font le devoir de faire une revue de l’ensemble du dossier du client et de voir si effectivement la consommation qui est faite par le client est adéquate.

18974 Donc je pense que nos agents dans leur culture d’excellence de satisfaction, font un excellent travail de s’assurer que le forfait que le client a à son dossier est un forfait optimal.

18975 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc si quelqu'un communique avec votre service à la clientèle et il dit, « Ça me coûte bien cher », bien là vous allez voir votre -- l’utilisation pis dire « Ben peut-être que votre forfait est au-delà de vos besoins. »?

18976 Mme BROUILLETTE: Tout à fait. Et on le fait pour l’ensemble des produits, c'est important, oui.

18977 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais il faut quand même que le client vous contacte?

18978 Mme BROUILLETTE: Non, on est passionné par le client.

18979 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, oui, non.

---(LAUGHTER)

18980 LE PRÉSIDENT: Je le mets pas en doute, mais je ---

18981 M. HÉBERT: Je dirais que ---

18982 LE PRÉSIDENT: Si y a des mesures -- si y a des pratiques exemplaires de la part d’un fournisseur ---

18983 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui.

18984 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- faut les partager publiquement.

18985 M. HÉBERT: De dire qu’on les -- de dire qu’on appelle -- qu’on regarde les clients -- nous surtout on met -- évidemment c'est une question de capacités et de ressources. Donc on s’assure de mettre les ressources sur les cas qui se risquent de susciter de l’insatisfaction. Donc oui, dans certains cas on fait des appels proactifs pour s’assurer d’optimiser la facture, oui, on le fait. On le fait -- on le fait auprès de certains clients, mais on n’a pas la capacité de tous les appeler, ça c'est clair.

18986 Mme BROUILLETTE: Ceci étant dit, on est le joueur qui a les plus grandes parts de marché dans plusieurs portefeuilles, donc on est dans un univers de fidélisation, alors c'est une pratique qui est de plus en plus présente dans nos activités opérationnelles. On peut pas prendre le client pour acquis, donc si on n’est pas proactif envers ce client-là, y a des opportunités d’aller ailleurs, donc c'est -- c'est naturel.

18987 LE PRÉSIDENT: Je vais aborder la question du transport, on en a parlé un peu jusqu’à maintenant. Donc j’imagine qu’à votre avis d’avoir le bon système de transport partout au pays est important, même essentiel. Est-ce que vous croyez que y a un rôle pour des subventions pour appuyer les systèmes de transport? Pis quand je parle de subventions, je parle soit de la subvention gouvernementale ou règlementaire.

18988 M. BÉLAND: Si on revient encore une fois à notre modèle « Un Canada branché », ça c'est un des commentaires qu’on a entendu depuis les dernières semaines, c'est que possiblement le modèle ne tient pas suffisamment compte du coût de transport dans l’octroi de subventions. Donc encore une fois, c'est à notre avis un « tweaking » potentiel du modèle, de sensibiliser le Ministère de l’Innovation que vous avez entendu des opérateurs que eux-autres dans le cadre de leur grille d’analyse qui devraient être possiblement plus sensibles aux besoins de transport, à l’admissibilité des services de transport pour des subventions, et en ajoutant une obligation de partager ces liens de transport subventionnés. Tout à fait.

18989 LE PRÉSIDENT: À un tarif à déterminer? Comment qu’on déterminerait l’utilisation, les tarifs du service en gros pour le transport subventionné?

18990 M. BÉLAND: Tarif déterminé pour -- au niveau purement pratique, ça serait un exercice je soupçonne assez complexe. D’avoir -- d’avoir une obligation de partage déjà, j’irais avec ça pis j’aurais confiance que ça pourrait marcher comme ça.

18991 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et en cas de dispute, qu’est-ce qu’on fait? Est-ce que c'est l’entité subventionnaire qui le règle ou est-ce que ça revient au Conseil?

18992 M. BÉLAND: Bonne -- bonne question.

18993 LE PRÉSIDENT: C'est ma première bonne question aujourd'hui?

18994 M. BÉLAND: Non, pas du tout, pas du tout. Et ça ressemble -- y a d’autres domaines où vous partagez une certaine compétence, responsabilité. Le domaine de partage de tours m’arrive à l’esprit, ça risque d’être similaire.

18995 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais peut-être que dans les phases subséquentes vous pouvez peut-être y songer, parce que c'est une chose de dire que vous pensez qu’on devrait avoir de l’aide parce que des fois les forces du marché peut-être n’appuient pas le déploiement d’un système de transport. Et donc, inévitablement la deuxième question, c'est sous quelles conditions? Donc exclusivité, pas d’exclusivité, et cetera, et comment qu’on règle les disputes et qui ---

18996 M. BÉLAND: Oui.

18997 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- devra le faire?

18998 M. BÉLAND: Oui, on va le faire.

18999 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce qu’à votre avis y a suffisamment de transparence par rapport aux systèmes de transport -- ou les réseaux de transport déjà existants pour pouvoir maximiser vos besoins, même si les réseaux de transport sont déployés par d’autres entités?

19000 M. BÉLAND: Oui, Vidéotron on a -- dans nos équipes d’approvisionnement on a du monde qui -- c'est leur job d’être au courant de quelles sources de services de transport sont disponibles et où. Ça fait -- c'est une partie normale du travail d’une entreprise de télécommunications de savoir qui sont les fournisseurs de transport dans son coin.

19001 LE PRÉSIDENT: M'hm. Évidemment vous êtes une société plus sophistiquée avec plus de ressources. Nous avons entendu de la part de d’autres parties que eux sont peut-être pas aussi bien outillés pour identifier où se trouvent les systèmes de transport -- les réseaux de transport, le « backbone », pour examiner les options disponibles mettons pour une région ou une communauté.

19002 M. BÉLAND: En toute franchise c'est -- ce point de vue qui a été exprimé par une couple d’intervenants est étonnant. Si je suis un entrepreneur en télécommunications, même un entrepreneur relativement petit, prendre le téléphone, appeler les quelques quatre, cinq fournisseurs de transport de mon secteur pour savoir qui peut livrer un service d’un point à un autre, me semble que c'est une activité de base d’un entrepreneur en télécommunications. Donc l’idée de monter un « database » règlementé de ces -- de ces liens-là, je mettrais ça assez basse sur votre liste de priorités.

19003 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et puis c'est pas un secret d’état, donc si quelqu'un vous appelle, vous pose la question, vous allez y répondre?

19004 M. BÉLAND: Si quelqu'un nous appelle à la recherche de services de transport?

19005 Mme BROUILLETTE: Absolument.

19006 M. BÉLAND: Absolument. C'est une -- c'est une source d’argent.

19007 LE PRÉSIDENT: On a eu des discussions aussi par rapport -- on a entendu de la situation de la Nation Cree qui ont vraiment bénéficié du système de distribution de l’infrastructure d’Hydro-Québec. Est-ce que vous avez des recommandations par rapport à cette possibilité-là? On a entendu de la part de d’autres parties qu’au lieu de reconstruire des infrastructures, on devrait peut-être maximiser les infrastructures déjà existantes? Je parle de transport encore ici.

19008 M. BÉLAND: Oui, la notion que -- encore une fois, ça tombe sous le thème de barrière purement administrative. C’est quelqu’un qui aimerait coordonner avec le déploiement de lignes de transport d’électricité pour y ajouter une ligne de transport de fibre de télécommunications puis que le travail soit coordonné, c’est évidemment une bonne chose.

19009 Les barrières sont probablement au niveau administratif, communications. Tout ce qui peut être fait au purement pratique pour encourager cette coopération, c’est sûr c’est une bonne chose.

19010 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci.

19011 Par rapport aux enjeux de consommateurs, vous avez vu qu’on a posé des questions par rapport au -- si de vos concurrents ou d’autres joueurs dans le marché suivent et ont des banques de données sur la nature des plaintes qu’ils reçoivent des abonnés par rapport au service internet.

19012 Évidemment, vous devez suivre et avoir des banques de données pour identifier les plaintes, oui?

19013 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui, on peut déposer ça. On a vu effectivement la question, on déposerait en confidentialité.

19014 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc vous -- toujours demandez la confidentialité là. C’est les trois premiers sujets de plainte là.

19015 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui, c’est ça. On va vous le déposer.

19016 LE PRÉSIDENT: Okay. D’accord. C’est pour le 5 mai. Ça va ça; oui?

19017 UNDERTAKING

19018 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et aussi si vous pourriez nous déposer -- est-ce que c’est des contrats ou des ententes, des termes de service? Comment vous faites quand quelqu’un n’a qu’un seul -- qu’un seul service? Je sais qu’il y a des forfaits mais qui ont seulement un service internet, est-ce que vous avez un contrat?

19019 Mme BROUILLETTE: Non. Au Québec, y a aucun contrat. Donc les consommateurs ---

19020 LE PRÉSIDENT: Il y a une relation contractuelle mais pas de ---

19021 Mme BROUILLETTE: Y a -- c’est ça; effectivement, y a une relation contractuelle mais le client peut résilier son abonnement là au moment qu’il le veut.

19022 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais il y a -- est-ce qu’il y a des modalités par contre?

19023 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui. Oui.

19024 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et c’est -- et est-ce que vous êtes en mesure de partager votre -- vos modalités-types.

19025 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui.

19026 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui?

19027 Mme BROUILLETTE: Absolument.

19028 LE PRÉSIDENT: Avec les documents connexes, j’imagine que l’utilisation équitable y fait -- fait partie de vos modalités; c’est ça?

19029 M. BÉLAND: Oui, absolument.

19030 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc vous pouvez déposer ça pour le 5 mai.

19031 ENGAGEMENT

19032 LE PRÉSIDENT: En ce qui a trait aux personnes avec des handicaps physiques ou cognitifs, est-ce que vous faites des consultations auprès de ces groupes?

19033 Mme BROUILLETTE: Ben, en fait, on n’a pas de processus formel. Ceci étant dit, on a un lien très -- très ouvert et très entretenu avec notre secteur des affaires corporatives, où d’ailleurs on l’a vu là dans l’exposé, on a donné et on donne encore des fois des liens de connectivité dépendamment d’une association.

19034 Donc il n’y a pas de processus formel mais la relation est entretenue sur une base, je dirais, régulière. On est très à l’écoute.

19035 Et sur le plan -- je pense qu’en fait vous voulez également en venir sur tout ce qui était la notion des forfaits sans voix et tout ça.

19036 LE PRÉSIDENT: C’était ma prochaine question, oui.

19037 Mme BROUILLETTE: Donc voilà. Alors on a une réponse pour vous.

19038 M. HÉBERT: Je rajouterais aussi ---

19039 LE PRÉSIDENT: On est très prévisible en fin d’audience, n’est-ce pas?

19040 M. HÉBERT: J’ajouterais aussi, nous, on s’est associé avec l’ACTS. On a participé avec l’ACTS à des consultations auprès des gens souffrant de différents handicaps.

19041 Donc oui, on a fait certaines consultations mais c’est avec -- sous le leadership de l’ACTS pour laquelle on est membre.

19042 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc est-ce que vous avez un forfait donné exclusivement pour les personnes sourdes, par exemple?

19043 M. HÉBERT: En fait, on a un forfait, nous, qu’on appelle le forfait texto.

19044 LE PRÉSIDENT: Comment?

19045 M. HÉBERT: Un forfait texto.

19046 LE PRÉSIDENT: « Texto », oui, okay.

19047 M. HÉBERT: Forfait texte, qui principalement pour faire de l’usage texte et ce forfait-là est modulaire en termes de capacité. Actuellement -- en termes de capacité de data, merci.

19048 Et on peut aller jusqu’à 2 Gigaoctets en termes de modularité. Donc -- et inclut un certain -- bien en fait, tous nos forfaits incluent un minimum de voix. Et une des raisons pour laquelle ça inclut un minimum de voix c’est qu’on -- je pense ça été mentionné cette semaine ou la semaine dernière, c’est pour permettre la fonctionnalité 9-1-1.

19049 Donc c’est des forfaits voix, data mais dont l’emphase est mise -- voix et texto dont l’emphase est mise sur la portion texte. Parce que si on prend notre plus petit forfait à 20$, 21$ -- 20,95$, on parle de 50 minutes, donc qui est pratiquement, qui est pratiquement rien mais qui ---

19050 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc qui est là mais qui ne fait pas la grosse différence. Même s’il n’était pas là ou même s’il était à une minute, ça serait à peu près le même prix?

19051 M. HÉBERT: Oui.

19052 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc si je comprends bien, vous n’avez pas un bureau ou un point de chute pour les individus avec handicap qui voudraient peut-être discuter avec quelqu’un de leurs besoins particuliers?

19053 Mme BROUILLETTE: Sur le plan -- en fait, il y a deux éléments. Une demande précise, oui, le point de chute c’est nos affaires corporatives.

19054 Mais en ce qui a trait au service, on a -- nous, on est -- on a un guichet unique.

19055 Donc l’ensemble de nos agents sont habilités à répondre à tout type de clientèle. Donc on n’a pas une ligne dédiée pour, par exemple, les sourds, les aveugles dans le cas de la télé, mais on est habilité à répondre à ces clients-là.

19056 Donc je ne sais pas si ça répond à votre question.

19057 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc même dans -- donc vous allez faire -- vous faites la formation -- admettons dans un kiosque Vidéotron là ---

19058 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui.

19059 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- dans le centre d’achats local, votre agent a reçu de la formation pour répondre à cette clientèle?

19060 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui, nos agents répondent -- reçoivent 100 pour cent de la formation. Ceci étant dit, il y a un niveau de pratique après.

19061 Donc est-ce qu’ils vont être des experts? Probablement pas, dans le cas que vous expliquez. Mais ils savent -- ils ont un mécanisme en place qu’ils doivent escalader à un niveau 2, qui va rapidement, lui, maîtriser le requis. Donc ça fait partie de nos protocoles.

19062 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc s’ils sont désemparés par la nature de ---

19063 Mme BROUILLETTE: C’est sûr.

19064 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ils peuvent ---

19065 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui.

19066 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ils ont des ressources à l’interne.

19067 Mme BROUILLETTE: Oui et on va plus loin que ça. Nous, on a des experts dans tous nos points de vente qui n’ont pas à faire ni de vente, ni de tout soutien technique pur. Leur job c’est d’être là pour les clients pour les aider.

19068 Alors par exemple, on a beaucoup de clientèle âgée et on va leur donner des formations gratuites. Donc effectivement, si ça tombe dans ce créneau-là, un handicap précis, elle veut comprendre sur la télé, entre autre, comment activer le support vocal, on va avoir tout ça. On a des experts qui aident.

19069 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’accord.

19070 Vous avez mentionné tout à l’heure le déploiement là du système relais vidéo à l’automne. Je comprends bien votre position que vous croyez que 5 et 1 est abondamment capable de traiter le téléchargement, notamment, pour le SRV.

19071 Mais est-ce que vous avez une préparation au-delà pour traiter avec cette clientèle-là?

19072 M. BÉLAND: On a -- il risque d’avoir une vague d’intérêt à court terme à l’automne.

19073 Mme BROUILLETTE: Opérationnellement, c’est sûr là qu’on a -- quand on anticipe ces mouvements-là, on a des formations accrues. On a des agents additionnels qui rentrent en poste pour -- pour prendre la vague.

19074 Donc la réponse c’est oui, on va être prêt.

19075 LE PRÉSIDENT: C’est bien.

19076 Et sur le plan technique, vous avez aucune préoccupation par rapport, notamment, à la vitesse de téléversement?

19077 M. ROY PORRETTA: Non. Si on regarde le rapport qui a été fait justement par l’organisme responsable et les vitesses nécessaires pour répondre aux besoins de l’ensemble des clients et ce qui a été dit jusqu’à maintenant et qu’on voit ailleurs dans d’autres pays, nous considérons que ça répond aux besoins, oui, effectivement.

19078 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mon dernier champ de questions avant que je me tourne vers mes collègues porte sur la subvention pour les services de voix.

19079 Dans vos arguments écrits, vous avez préconisé un examen en profondeur de la structure des coûts.

19080 Aujourd’hui évidemment, vous avez concentré votre temps d’antennes sur d’autres sujets. C’est compréhensible évidemment à ce stade-ci.

19081 Est-ce que votre position a évolué par rapport à la demande d’avoir un examen en profondeur de la structure des coûts pour la voix?

19082 M. BÉLAND: Notre position demeure qu’à notre avis les exigences de subventions ou les -- en fait, les subventions reçues actuellement en les fournisseurs des services de voix sont probablement exagérées.

19083 C’est une opinion qui est fondée sur deux aspects; l’aspect de coûts. Ça fait très longtemps depuis que ces coûts-là ont été évalués en profondeur. On sait qu’entre temps, depuis 15 ans à peu près, il y a eu des évolutions dans le marché. À titre d’exemple, il y a eu l’abandonnement d’un pourcentage important de lignes de cuivre au cours des dernières années, ce qui suggère l’existence des excédents de capacité qui devraient être reflétés dans un examen des coûts à jour.

19084 Y a aussi le côté revenu qu’on devrait pas oublier. Cette ligne de cuivre qui est subventionnée depuis des décennies avec des modèles de coûts qui datent de, si je me rappelle bien, 14-15 ans, entretemps, ces lignes de cuivre-là on a commencé à livrer bien d'autres services évolués. Donc y a des revenus additionnels qui arrivent avec ces services évolués de large bande entre autres.

19085 Donc on est confiant que si on regardait de façon cohérente à jour autant les coûts que les revenus générés, que le besoin de subventions est probablement nettement moins élevé que les subventions octroyées aujourd’hui.

19086 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce que vous êtes d’accord que si on le faisait d’une façon traditionnelle, qu’un tel exercice nécessiterait le déploiement de beaucoup de ressources non seulement de la part du Conseil mais aussi des intervenants?

19087 M. BÉLAND: Oui.

19088 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce que ça vaut vraiment la chandelle de mettre de tels efforts, déployer de tels efforts sur quelque chose qui devrait se résorber naturellement?

19089 M. BÉLAND: Le Conseil est souvent créatif dans sa recherche de méthode alternative ou de solution alternative. Oui, l’abandon progressif de services vocaux sur cuivre fait la job à certains points. Une autre mesure que le Conseil pourrait peut-être considérer c'est de réintroduire le facteur de gain de productivité qui a été enlevé en 2011, 2010-2011.

19090 LE PRÉSIDENT: M’hm.

19091 M. BÉLAND: La dernière fois que le sujet a été abordé parce que ça aussi c'est un mécanisme naturel de réduire les subventions progressivement dans le temps.

19092 On est d’accord avec vous que l'étude en profondeur n’est peut-être pas la meilleure utilisation de vos ressources mais on espère que vous pourriez trouver d’autres moyens de réduire le besoin ou les subventions qui, encore une fois à notre avis, semblent être gonflées.

19093 LE PRÉSIDENT: Heureux d'entendre que vous pensez qu’on est créatif mais c'est les parties intervenantes qui sont nos muses pour la créativité. Donc si vous avez des idées dans ce sens, ça serait peut-être utile de partager parce qu’il faut être pragmatique aussi. Et le Conseil, mes collègues ici, on préfère avoir notre œil sur l'avenir que sur le passé.

19094 M. BÉLAND: Oui.

19095 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc nos ressources devraient être alignées en conséquence.

19096 M. BÉLAND: On le comprend.

19097 LE PRÉSIDENT: Okay. Merci.

19098 Je me tourne vers mes collègues pour voir. Monsieur le Vice-Président?

19099 COMMISSAIRE MENZIES: Je vais poser mes questions en anglais.

19100 I was looking at this and in terms of -- the question really is whether the “Connecting Canadians” funds is, in your view, sufficient just in the context of a lot of the asks and some very visionary looks ahead at the usage of the internet that we would have?

19101 We've had -- Bell mentioned at one point $7 billion. Eastlink, when we talked about the nature of the problem in front of us, talked about tens of billions of dollars. Others have talked about a billion to get caught up quickly and the world is changing very quickly.

19102 And when I was thinking about this, $500 million, $100 million a year over five years to try to get 5 and 1 to people five years from now, some people would say that's -- that the speed -- that the way the necessity of internet is increasing as more and more government services are exclusively on it and the education system that that's inefficient.

19103 What is your view on that? What is $100 million a year, given to size of the problem we're looking at, going to do to get Canadians fully connected in five years?

19104 Mme BROUILLETTE: En fait, je pense que y a une réalité aussi d’exécution. Il faut être en mesure de déployer ces dollars-là. Même s'il y en avait plus, il faut exécuter les programmes. Certains territoires qu’on doit couvrir sont complexes.

19105 Alors, à notre avis et quand on ajoute le financement privé qui vient avec ça, on est d’avis qu’on est capable de se rendre avec ces enveloppes-là pratiquement un maximum de population couvert.

19106 Là la question c'est est-ce qu’on peut accélérer? Faudrait réfléchir sur des mécanismes en place mais je pense qu’il y a une réalité d’exécution également du déploiement technologique qu’il faut prendre en compte.

19107 MR. BÉLAND: And I’ll just add that the -- in a sense, we're technological optimists here. So if you just let it alone, we would be confident that technology would take care of the job within a fairly short period of time, particularly with the evolution of wireless -- fixed and mobile wireless technologies and satellite technologies.

19108 What the “Connecting Canadians” program and the new 500 million of the federal government does really is accelerate that job rather than just letting technology take care of it. Even if we're confident that that will happen, it accelerates the job a bit.

19109 And that's why we're so insistent with our recommendation about renewing that program -- maybe tweaked but renewing it because you can do that fast. And in terms of the amount of money, if you just look in round numbers, you know, the last chapter of “Connecting Canadians” was roughly 300 million and it connected roughly 300,000 homes. That's $1,000 a home. So $500 million of new money at $1,000 a home, that's a lot of connections.

19110 And even if the next wave is a little harder to get to than the last wave, maybe it's not 1,000, maybe it's 2,000, that's still an awful lot of money, an awful lot of people that you can connect quickly if you renew the existing model rather than spending two years studying a new model.

19111 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: It's really the timeframe of the spend that caught my eye more than the amount.

19112 Another question, many people have asked us to implement subsidies and funds ourselves and by the end of the first week, we were talking $2 a month on people’s internet bills. At the end of the second week, it was more like five and yesterday, they're estimating around 10.

19113 What is the tolerance among your customers for increases or additional fees on their internet bills to participate in bringing more service to Canadians?

19114 MS. BROUILLETTE: You mean like taxing all Canadians to make sure that everybody can access?

19115 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: You might use that word but ---

19116 MS. BROUILLETTE: Yes. I think -- I think it's a risky place to look at. We should be careful and I think that the way the program has been built so far, because the way it's done, we have to also talk about price point in the new deployment and I think that so far it worked pretty well.

19117 So I wouldn’t go there shortly and I just would tweak, as Dennis mentioned, the applicable forum to make sure that maybe the pacing of deployment is faster if needed, but I think it's a risky path to take.

19118 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay. Merci. Bonne journée.

19119 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Vennard?

19120 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: I would like to follow up on what Vice-Chair Menzies was just talking about and that is the tweaking of the “Connecting Canadians” program.

19121 You mentioned that you had a different vision for it than what Bell proposed. And you mentioned an analysis grid and then we kind of circled back to that and then sort of touched on it again.

19122 Could you explain -- or I'd like to put some edges around that. What would be on that analysis grid?

19123 MR. BÉLAND: We don’t actually know in detail because that's Industry Canada’s internal assessment grid for the program.

19124 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: M'hm, but if you would do that ---

19125 MR. BÉLAND: We have ---

19126 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: --- what would you put on it?

19127 MR. BÉLAND: Well, we have -- first of all, we have some pretty good indications with their detailed document that they provided to -- a public document that guides the parties that would like to submit projects for subsidies.

19128 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: M'hm.

19129 MR. BÉLAND: And it's admittedly complex, but a lot of procurement -- in a sense, it's almost a procurement program. A lot of government procurement is complex.

19130 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: M'hm.

19131 MR. BÉLAND: So the -- part of it is you need to define clearly what you're buying, what you're subsidizing, in this case. So you're talking about the speeds, and the retail price, and the data cap, and any other pertinent factors.

19132 But in terms of the analysis grid, you're looking at things like how many homes will be covered, because again, one technology might cover more than another. You're looking at things like the evolution path of the technology. There has to be a sense in that grid that if someone is proposing a technology that factually, you know, based on the understanding of the experts in Innovation Canada that factually looks to have a better technology evolution path in another technology, you win points for that.

19133 Another issue that was raised by some participants at this hearing is the notion that there should be some sense of additional points for a player that has a demonstrated past success in deploying networks. So it's the compilation of these factors that forms your analysis grid for the program.

19134 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: So that would be the technical factors, the track record of the people that will be deploying it.

19135 What about the -- and of course, price would fit in to it -- characteristics of the community? Do you see this analysis grid as having a public input into it as well? Because really, if we're looking at an analysis grid, what we're doing is saying this is the way we're going to make decisions, whoever this "we" is that is making the decisions.

19136 MR. BÉLAND: Again, our view is the model is there. Again, it works very well. I think the public input is happening right now. You're hearing, over the past three weeks, some of the factors that parties believe may not be sufficiently considered. And I think you've just had that phase. You can make your recommendations to Innovation Canada.

19137 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: But we've heard differing perspectives, too, and also some different facts. Where people will look at even something like our mapping and say, well, it says that we're covered but we're not. So there is -- there's, you know, sort of room for improvement in mapping and different pieces of information too, upon which very important decisions will be made.

19138 MR. BÉLAND: Yeah, on the mapping point, as we mentioned earlier, there -- it appears there may be place for some improvement in that interchange to allow communities to question their status in the map, yes.

19139 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: Okay, so that -- with that kind of tweaking, then, you would be reasonably happy with what there is already?

19140 MR. BÉLAND: Yes.

19141 COMMISSIONER VENNARD: Okay, thank you.

19142 Those are all my questions.

19143 LE PRÉSIDENT: Je crois que ce sont toutes nos questions. Donc merci beaucoup pour votre participation, on l'apprécie beaucoup. Et on va prendre une courte pause jusqu’à 10h40.

19144 Merci bien.

19145 Mme BROUILLETTE: Merci.

--- Upon recessing at 10:25 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 10:42 a.m.

19146 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please.

19147 It would appear that our hearing room is less empty than it normally is on the last day of the hearing, but that's all good.

19148 Madame la secrétaire.

19149 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

19150 We will now hear the presentation of OpenMedia. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

PRESENTATION

19151 MR. TABISH: Good morning.

19152 Before we begin, OpenMedia wishes to acknowledge the unceded Algonquin territory upon whose land we stand today for this important hearing.

19153 Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for having us here today.

19154 My name is Josh Tabish and I am the Campaigns Director for OpenMedia, a community-based organization that sees the Internet as a place equally accessible to everyone that empowers people to build a more connected and collaborative world.

19155 I am joined today by OpenMedia's Digital Rights Specialist, Ms. Laura Tribe to my left; and our Policy Consultant, Dr. David Ellis, to my right.

19156 I'd like to thank the CRTC staff, especially Madame Secretary Jade Roy for all her help so far, and I would also like to appreciate OpenMedia's inspiring community, many of whom you can in the audience behind me.

19157 Finally, I would like to thank our amazing staff back home at OpenMedia HQ, who have made a number of sacrifices to help us be here today.

19158 Before I begin our presentation, I'd like to hand the floor -- or as we begin our presentation -- sorry -- I'd love to hand the floor over to my colleague, Laura.

19159 MS. TRIBE: Since 2008, OpenMedia has engaged hundreds of thousands of Canadians to identify citizen-driven priorities for a more equitable digital future. Through this process, we have created two crowdsourced telecom reports, which propose common-sense telecom policies to remedy our dysfunctional Internet market.

19160 In the present proceeding, nearly 45,000 members of OpenMedia's community have endorsed an open letter asking that basic service in Canada must be defined to include affordable, world-class broadband Internet for 100 percent of the population. Several thousand more provided unique testimonials.

19161 These citizens' voices constitute what we believe was the largest source of public participation in this proceeding, and we urge the Commission to use their voices as a compass when making your final determinations.

19162 As Heidi Daehler from Montreal, Quebec, said:

19163 "Internet access has become a basic tool necessary for most people. Please do what you can to help it be accessible to all. Thank you."

19164 Or as Hugo Vaillancourt, from North West River, Newfoundland, put it:

19165 "Do we want Canada to keep making the headlines about how we're one of the industrialized countries that pays the most for the worst Internet? Or do we want to be number one? It's all a matter of vision, in the end."

19166 After reviewing our community's contributions and placing them on the public record,

19167 OpenMedia consulted with Dr. Ellis to develop a strategy consistent with the grassroots priorities identified. We are here to ensure 100 percent of Canadians have both fixed and mobile broadband access to the Internet that is affordable, high quality and offered by a wide range of service providers.

19168 A handful of parties in this proceeding claim there is no problem. Yet scores of intervenors such as the Affordable Access Coalition, Media Access Canada, and the Eastern Ontario Warden's Caucus and Rural Network, have all convincingly demonstrated that Canada's digital divide crosses urban-rural boundaries.

19169 Put simply: This is not just a rural problem, or a problem of the North. This is a national problem and it calls for a national solution.

19170 As powerful, courageous testimony from ACORN members and disabilities stakeholders reminds us, Canada's digital divide doesn't just prevent marginalized groups from accessing the Internet. This divide actually perpetuates and -- worse yet -- accentuates problems of inequality. This gap between digital-haves and digital-have-nots is a glaring problem the Commission must address.

19171 And now, I turn the floor over to David, to outline some forward-looking considerations for the Internet in Canada.

19172 DR. ELLIS: Thanks, Laura.

19173 I'd like to make a brief comment about four topics, and we have slides today.

19174 First of all, whatever the outcome of this proceeding, there should be no further public support for outdated legacy networks. Cable's market lead over DSL is an old story, but we decided to raise this issue today after hearing SaskTel suggest on Monday that their 5/1 platform is perfectly adequate for their customers' needs, and I think we heard much the same story just now from Quebecor.

19175 We're concerned some carriers will fight to keep DSL running even at the expense of losing more customers to cable. DSL is now over 10 years old and can no longer meet the needs of Canadian consumers.

19176 I apologize; this one is a little hard to read. I'll explain it in our discussion later, perhaps.

19177 Our second point here is that we believe that the most significant price issue in Canada's ISP market is the gradual disappearance of low-cost plans. In early markets, where broadband is a luxury product, service providers provide a wide range of prices to gain market share.

19178 As penetration rises, however, broadband becomes a necessity and demand, as the economists say, becomes inelastic to price. In other words, consumers will keep buying even as prices rise. Then providers no longer need to offer low-cost plans -- exactly what has happened in Canada and exactly why adoption is not a proxy for affordability.

19179 Third, we believe that the CRTC must keep careful track of customer demand and encourage investment in network growth to meet that demand. Cisco estimates that over the 2014-2019 period Canada’s IP traffic will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 22 percent. Canada’s actual internet traffic, which is a large proportion of all IP traffic, is itself growing at a compound annual growth rate of 27 percent. This growth is reflected in the number of networked devices used by Canadians, which will double over this period from 185 million to 382 million.

19180 Finally, the results from the Commission’s two broadband surveys point to a critical, but little-discussed issue, the information deficit that afflicts end-users.

19181 In the main survey, 50 percent of respondents say they have no idea what they’re paying for. I believe that figure greatly under-represents the real problem. Other research suggest that as many as 80 percent of broadband customers are in the dark about their own service speeds. This information challenge extends to all aspects of the subscriber relationship with ISPs, which make little effort to help their customers understand how they can get the best out of their internet access or what it would take to improve their service and save money.

19182 I urge the Commission to consider carefully what this information deficit means for claims by the incumbents that their customers are satisfied with under-performing 5/1 service or that there’s no demand for higher speeds. This is another indication of the need for the Commission to play a much greater role in assessing what consumers need and whether ISPs are meeting current demand.

19183 I hope we’ll have time to discuss these issues further. I’ll hand the floor back to Laura in the meantime.

19184 MR. TABISH: Or to Josh.

19185 DR. ELLIS: Or to Josh, if you prefer.

19186 MR. TABISH: Commissioners, evidence over the past three weeks confirms that market forces alone continue to be inadequate to provide reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality, accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada. Indeed, Canadians continue to pay some of the highest prices in the industrialized world for what’s widely recognized as middle of the road service.

19187 Mr. Chairman, on April 19^th you asked presenters to focus on the task of figuring out what to do. You posed three important questions to us which we would now like to address.

19188 Your first question, Mr. Chairman: Where are there gaps in access to connectivity? As we just heard, low cost options have disappeared in Canada. As the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project pointed out, nearly one in five households have no residential internet connection, and nearly one in three have no mobile phone. Unserved and underserved areas exist all across Canada.

19189 To demonstrate this, we created a short documentary detailing the gaps of Bowen Island -- the gaps in access to Bowen Island, a small community just off the coast of Vancouver. The full video can be found at unblockcanada.ca, and we would love to screen it for people in the room with your permission, Mr. Chairman, at the end of our speech.

19190 Your second question: Given those gaps, what are the best strategies in order to close or eliminate them? First, mandate that all Canadian carriers offer a reasonably priced 5/5 basic broadband plan with minimum speed guarantees. Second, ensure policy is based on real-world performance measurements. And finally, create a sustainable funding mechanism drawn from the large operators to encourage both fixed and mobile broadband development with open access rules.

19191 Which brings us to your third question, Mr. Chairman: Who is in the best position to implement those strategies? Right now, the answer is you, the CRTC in coordination with others.

19192 The Commission has the mandate, and as you’ve said yourself, this may very well be our last best chance to get this right, and we agree. And our fellow intervenors and nearly 45,000 OpenMedia community members who have spoken out through our campaign to put this issue -- sorry -- who have spoken out through our campaign have put this issue on the table and made your path very clear.

19193 And I will make you a promise, if you get this right and plant a bold flag for Canada’s internet, the OpenMedia community will do everything in its power to drag the federal government, kicking and screaming if necessary, into a coordinated national broadband strategy that will build on your vision and ensure every Canadian has access to broadband internet services.

19194 Now, as we approach the end of this proceeding, a theme has clearly emerged that we can’t afford to overlook. The internet’s importance for markets and the digital economy is only part of the story. This hearing is about something a bit bigger.

19195 At OpenMedia, we believe the internet is crucial infrastructure for democracy.

19196 As we’ve heard for weeks, government consultation, access to education, and public services, to name a few, are increasingly happening online.

19197 Citizen engagement online is a lot more than sending emails and online banking, despite what some parties may tell you, and we need forward looking standards that reflect that.

19198 The OpenMedia community is calling for faster, cheaper internet for 100 percent of Canadians.

19199 The question may arise, is our vision for Canada’s digital future too good to be true? No, absolutely not. Democratic necessities are never too good to be true, they’re just hard to get.

19200 You asked us to bring the voices of Canadians and we did so, and we sincerely hope that you listen to them. We know it won’t be easy, and we know this is not going to happen overnight, but it’s time for bold action.

19201 Thank you for your time today, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

19202 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

19203 First of all, with respect to your video, you know, we’ve got to be equitable to everyone in allotted time, so it’s publicly available and it’s probably now been posted through our Twitter link, your full submission, and you’ve got your link in there so people can go and watch it obviously after they’ve heard your presentation.

19204 MR. TABISH: Of course.

19205 THE CHAIRPERSON: We wouldn’t want that happening, let alone it might take down our local Wi-Fi.

--- (LAUGHTER)

19206 THE CHAIRPERSON: And my second comment is, you know, kicking and screaming is not my normal modus operandi, and I’m sure there’s a lot more goodwill out there then having to drag anybody into something, so let’s be positive about this.

19207 I’ll put you in the hands of Commissioner MacDonald to start us off.

19208 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Good morning, and thank you for being here today all the way from Vancouver.

19209 I did have a chance to view your video last night, and I prepared my questions but I’m going to change things around, and I’d like to have a conversation about -- or ask the questions in the context of what I viewed on the video.

19210 Because although the viewpoint was very clear -- I mean, obviously that was part of a larger conversation that you were having with the residents of Bowen Island, and in the interest of time I’m sure part of those conversations ended up on the cutting room floor.

19211 So I’d like to understand exactly what services and speeds are available to the residents of the island today.

19212 MR. TABASH: Absolutely. And I’ll just preface my answers with saying I don’t want to be seen as speaking on behalf of the residents -- or rather, the municipality of Bowen Island, I will only be speaking to you what I have heard and what I’ve been told, so I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth.

19213 The services available to Bowen Island are a TELUS DSL network and a Shaw cable network that is fed by a microwave transmission tower, which I think the -- if I remember this correctly, it was something like -- it was under a gig for the tower that then gets split between all the households. The tower doesn’t receive very much bandwidth.

19214 The second piece that’s most frustrating for the residents of Bowen Island is that a fibre line transport facilities owned by TELUS travels undersea from Vancouver over Bowen Island, cuts right through the middle of it using their public rights-of-way, goes back under water and terminates on the Sunshine Coast.

19215 And so the question has been for residents of Bowen Island can’t we get access to that, and those discussions, as I understand it, have not been terribly productive between the residents and TELUS.

19216 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And, to the best of your knowledge, what has been the response or the rationale that TELUS has provided?

19217 Is it it would be too expensive to break out that fibre that’s crossing the island or it would be too expensive to build the last mile facilities on the island? Where’s the stumbling block?

19218 MR. TABISH: That question is best answered by the Bowen Island’s Connectivity Working Group. I would say that I know that Telus and Bell have both sent representatives since my time on the island to appear before them. But the status of those negotiations is not clear to me.

19219 I know that the municipality was debating asking about access to that transport infrastructure. Unfortunately, because of the forbearance decision in 2015-326, I think that’s going to be a bit hard for them. They may be able to come to some type of private arrangement if that’s what the municipality wants to pursue. But as I understand it, both Shaw and Telus have made commitments to work with them, but I don’t know the status of that since I appeared a few weeks ago.

19220 MR. MacDONALD: We heard from other service providers, and I believe it might have been SaskTel, that when there are situations where they can’t make a business case work to build into a community that they will work with the community in question and perhaps do a bit of a cost share between themselves, between area residents or between the municipality. To your knowledge, have the conversations between Telus and the residents on Bowen Island progressed that far yet?

19221 MR. TABISH: Since my visit was so recent, I think it was about three weeks or four weeks ago, I don’t know if they’ve gotten that far in their discussions.

19222 In general, OpenMedia is supportive of approaches that leverage the knowledge and institutional strength of local intermediaries like the municipal government to find solutions. You’ve heard on the record of the proceeding, the Eastern Ontario Regional Network and Stratford, Ontario and others who have cobbled together these networks that have been very powerful. So I wonder if that might be an option for them.

19223 But in terms of cost sharing, as in like if everyone chips in 1,000 bucks we can get fibre to your house, I don’t know if they’ve gotten to that point yet. Our kind of more preferred approach is to leverage those local institutions and drive that in the public interest.

19224 MR. MacDONALD: In your video, and it looked like you were in a bit of a town hall setting having a conversation with multiple residents, you outline different things they could do. They could contact the CRTC. They could engage their local MP or essentially they could look at building the network themselves. And you were having a conversation with one gentleman. And what was the reaction to the “you can build it, you can build your own last mile network as other regions and municipalities have done?”

19225 MR. TABISH: It was a mixture of curiosity and incredible excitement. The idea that communities across Canada are stepping up to fill -- to bridge the digital divide and to meet the requirements of their constituents in a way that is guided by the public interest and suited to their social and economic needs is a very exciting one. And it’s not one that I think many municipalities realize they have available to them.

19226 My colleague Robin Winsor from Cybera yesterday was talking about -- or it may have been Barb, sorry. But from Cybera they were talking about barriers to this knowledge, to expertise, to what their rights are. I mean, one question that I was asked was as simple as do we even have a right to do this? Is this okay under the CRTC’s rules?

19227 And so there’s a gap in knowledge there that I think the Commission could work to help address by working with, as Chairman Blais pointed out, a kind of more coordinated strategy that leverages various levels of government to put options on the table that improve the health of our ecosystem.

19228 But I think to answer your question, to give you a shorter answer, they were very excited by the idea. But they started asking of course then, how does it cost? And what’s the price per foot? And, you know, I’m the advocate. I’m not the engineer. So that’s their next step.

19229 MR. MacDONALD: We’ll leave those conversations to the engineers.

19230 And you started to touch on it, but what can -- setting aside funding for right now because that’s a conversation we’ll get into later, what do you think the CRTC could actually do to help get that information out there in a public forum, make our rules more clear, help these parties engage with other communities that are out there doing this already? What role can we play in that relationship?

19231 MR. TABISH: I think that -- a while back I started a research project with my colleague Cynthia who is now at PIAC. We did a quick research project and we were looking at what research on municipal networks and the rights of municipalities to build municipal networks exist. And I said, “Why don’t you phone the CRTC and see if they’ve got a starter pack, you know?” And I know you won’t have a starter pack, but you see the point I’m making. You know, what are our rights as a municipality?

19232 And we didn’t get -- we had a hard time identifying a resource that quite fit the bill. And so I think looking at, for example, consultations with EORN, with Stratford, with the City of Coquitlam, with the SuperNet in Alberta to look at what are the ranges of options available in consultation with these regional municipal governments and find out just what’s out there and what the options are, to then distribute those in consultation with these stakeholders. I think it’s about coordination and communication. And I -- and helping bridge that gap.

19233 But a good starting point is what can they do? A resource like that from the CRTC would be very powerful.

19234 MR. MacDONALD: In your original submission you had letters from many thousands of individuals. And in the letter, just to read one line, “The U.S. recently defined broadband 25 megs down, 3 megs up. Our targets should be at least this ambitious.” So 25 down, 3 up. And then today you’re recommending a five and five service. So I’m just wondering what’s changed?

19235 MR. TABISH: I’m going to start to answer that question and then I’m going to offer opportunities for David or Laura to jump in.

19236 So we’re arguing for both. We’re arguing for a basic 5/5 symmetric package that’s reasonably priced now, and we’re arguing for aspirational targets for 2020. And the reason is, in our interrogatories we -- and in both our interrogatories and in our survey of M-Lab data on real world network performance we came to 5/5 because it’s what the -- it’s what the carriers can do nationally now. It’s well within their capabilities to do 5/5 symmetric. Both the interrogatories and the network data available suggest that.

19237 And the challenge here is that the low cost options have disappeared. And we need a reasonably priced low cost option that is uniform across the country to give some reassurance to the businesses, to the individuals that, you know, live their lives here in Canada, that there’s a basic quality level guarantee across the board from coast to coast to coast. So it’s us trying to be reasonable is the 5/5, and to be helpful.

19238 The ambitious speed targets, that’s the second stage. Get a baseline now and bring relief as fast as we can because we could do 5/5 tomorrow. We can’t do 25/3 or 25/15 tomorrow so this is kind of the first step and I’ll offer Laura or David if you want to add anything to that.

19239 DR. ELLIS: Commissioner, let me add a comment to what Josh has just said about the assumptions that we would like to see behind either an aspirational target or the other target for a basic service like 5/5.

19240 And without overstating the point, I think I’d like to say that the assumptions that go with revising targets are every bit as important as the targets themselves. So first of all, there has been a good deal of talk about advertised versus measured speeds. And we would -- we feel very strongly that any monitoring and enforcement of speeds in the future is based on a measurement rather than on advertised speeds or anything that's less adequate.

19241 The second thing is that these speeds have to allow for annual growth, something that I touched on in our opening remarks.

19242 The third thing is that -- and I don't if we're going to have a further conversation about data caps -- but we also feel very strongly that any attempt to include data caps with -- into the calculation of whether targets have been reached, in other words, whether a policy is successful, I think is going to be self-defeating.

19243 And I think the last thing is that that these targets are intended to send a signal that symmetric bandwidth is extremely important. One of my big problems with the 5/1 configuration is that it assumes that the uplink is of no real interest to Canadians and we don't need symmetric bandwidth and may not for a very long time.

19244 Well, there's a whole series of things going on in the industry now, not the least of which is Cloud computing, which I think tells us that we have to work a lot harder and faster to get to symmetric or near symmetric access networks.

19245 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So what would you say to a company like SaskTel, for example, who were here and they were very much of the belief that 1 meg up was adequate? I don't even believe they offered a service that provided more than 1 meg up.

19246 DR. ELLIS: Any support.

19247 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So what would your comments be to that company and others that share that belief that 1 meg is adequate?

19248 DR. ELLIS: Well, my comment, Commissioner MacDonald, is -- and I happened to be in the room for that presentation, and we were here this morning for Quebecor. I think this is, first of all, an entirely self-serving position. It has little or nothing to do with what the incumbent ISPs think that their customers actually need.

19249 They've -- they base their business plans on making bandwidth a scarce resource, which of course, goes along with their use of data caps. And the idea that this is -- that this somehow reflects consumer needs, I think is a little disingenuous.

19250 The other thing is that -- and I confess that I am baffled that an incumbent like SaskTel, or for that matter, Quebecor, would be planning its own future on the basis of this kind of networked apology, when it seems so obvious to many of us that it's going to be entirely -- well, I would venture to say it's entirely inadequate already, and certainly will be very soon for most Canadians.

19251 And this is apart from the whole issue of trying to have some vision to apply to the development of networks, which I think has been entirely missing from the incumbent's plans.

19252 MS. TRIBE: I would just add to that that I think one of things we would say to SaskTel is we need better. And we can't just be basing our service on the minimums that we can provide now. Those aren't meeting the needs of Canadians.

19253 Advertised speeds are different from a lot of the speeds that people are actually receiving, and beyond that, we're asking for a minimum that brings all Canadians online, gives them the services they need, and then above that, we're saying we need a vision. We need to look for future proof technologies and we need to be looking for something that's going to continue to meet the basic needs and all of the additional needs that Canadians have in the future.

19254 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So not to dwell on SaskTel, but just as a follow-up. A couple of their packages don't even provide 1 meg up, and they said that they still receive a significant amount of uptake from customers purchasing speeds that are below 1 meg up.

19255 So why are people buying that?

19256 DR. ELLIS: Well, Commissioner, I think that there are a couple of reasons for that, the most obvious of which is price. And I noticed with great interest that SaskTel, in particular on Monday, kept talking about how their consumers like to -- tend to opt for slower packages down at the low end without ever mentioning the idea that price might be a barrier for buying into speeds at the higher end.

19257 And the other thing that strikes me about that is that -- and this is something that I touched on in the last slide during our presentation -- I believe very strongly that we have a serious digital literacy problem in Canada that we share with other countries, like the United States. And when I say serious, I mean one that affects the majority of mainstream ISP customers.

19258 And the net effect of this, I think -- and to return to your particular question -- is that the vast majority of ISP customers are in absolutely no position to judge what they're going to get by more bandwidth. I mean, first of all, they don't know what bandwidth is. They have a vague idea of what speed is.

19259 They don't know what a gigabyte is, they don't know why they've caps, they don't know why they run over. It's almost impossible for the average customer to make rational choices about what their ISP is offering. Apart from the fact that, of course, what data caps are designed to do is to upsell customers from the cheaper packages with low caps to more expensive ones wherever they can.

19260 MR. TABISH: So yeah, if I were to just summarize quickly. The question to SaskTel, and others, might be do they want to be Internet service providers of the 21^st century or not. Because we've heard scores and scores of intervenors saying 5/1 isn't adequate, 5/1 isn't adequate. And so I'd put the question back to them.

19261 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Just before I move on, the 5/5 target, should that be universal across the country, or do we need to look at the various geographies and the challenges they face in obtaining service and set different targets based on the geographic realities of the country?

19262 MR. TABISH: I think the -- so the answer is ideally, yes, coast to coast to coast. And what we see here before the Commission in creating a 5/5 symmetric basic package is a tremendous incentive for the management of these companies to invest in more advanced network technologies and new offerings to ensure quality and to ensure a different experience for Canadians.

19263 We see it as not interfering with market forces but encouraging our providers to do better. And again, as I said, our evidence that we've surveyed suggests they can do it.

19264 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Who should pay for it?

19265 MR. TABISH: The question of who should pay has come up quite a bit, and I think, you know, every level of government has a role to play. So a subsidy -- a sustainable subsidy regime developed by the Commission has a big role to play. Increased funding from the Federal Government, from Cabinet has a big role to play. There are other granting agencies throughout the country who have money to give out for these things.

19266 So I think the answer is everyone has a role to play and we need to get together and make sure we're having the same conversation, which the Chairman alluded to in his speech last week.

19267 And I'll invite Laura or David to add anything they want to that.

19268 DR. ELLIS: I'd just like to add, Commissioner MacDonald, that the -- one of the issues I think in getting a number of different levels of government and the private sector cooperating in trying to get Canada caught up is coordination. And -- I mean, I think that while there's a major role for the CRTC to play on a number of fronts that have been discussed in this proceeding, it's not equipped to do it alone and it will have to partner up with sister agencies and other institutions that have resources, again, including the private sector.

19269 But I don't believe that coordination is getting enough attention. So for example, we just heard from Quebecor a great deal of discussion about the $500 million, and Commissioner Menzies asked, I believe, whether that was adequate when it's spaced over five years.

19270 Well, in addition to my sense that that's not adequate the other problem is, is this is just money that's being kind of tossed out with the best wishes in the world but there's very little way that we can judge whether this money is going to be well spent. And I say that on the basis of the way that $200 or $300 billion was spent by the previous government.

19271 It's very difficult to assess whether the money was well spent and whether it could have been better spent if there was better coordination, not to mention that -- a little something called the National Broadband Strategy.

19272 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So I take the point that money perhaps could be spent better and leveraged better, but if we continue talking just about government funding for a minute, if there needs to be more money directed from governments of all levels that means either they can raise taxes or they can cut that funding from other programs.

19273 So to jump back to Bowen Island, where does internet rank in the priorities of those residents? Because if the funding goes to build broadband infrastructure maybe that means they don’t get the new school down the road. So where’s the priority?

19274 MR. TABISH: This question comes up quite a bit, what is the cost of implementing these strategies, and, as I said on CBC Radio this morning, I think a great question in response is what is the cost of leaving Canadians behind.

19275 Broadband services are a priority for Canadians. You’ve heard that for three weeks from all sorts of passionate intervenors.

19276 Where does it sit for the community of Bowen Island? It’s pretty high up on the list right now. People are looking at having to move back to the mainland, which faces an extremely high housing affordability crisis. People are looking at having to change jobs. They’re worried about youth leaving in the summer. They’re worried about tourism because of course the usage demands are much higher in the summer than they are at other times of the year.

19277 This is a huge concern for Canadians, and, as we said, the low cost options have disappeared and so we’re going to need to exercise some pretty exciting regulatory imagination across all levels of government to think about what the cost is of leaving Canadians behind and how we can bridge that.

19278 Commissioner Menzies has mentioned that, you know, we’re hearing figures as high as, you know, billions and multiple billions of dollars and, you know, we can run the military for three years on these sums of money. That’s true, but if you spend this money on broadband development you get to reap the benefits for the next 25 to 50 years in the global marketplace.

19279 There’s a big question of investment here in our digital future, and it’s a question of political will at this point.

19280 And as I promised to the Commission, using admittedly aggressive language, we’re going to be there. If you guys chart this strategy, you plant the flag, we’ve got your backs.

19281 DR. ELLIS: May I add something to that?

19282 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Yes, of course.

19283 DR. ELLIS: I think that you’ve got -- or perhaps I should say we have got a two-pronged problem here. There is the basic fiscal problem which you’ve raised, which of course is a serious one, we’re talking about a lot of money and it’s got to come from somewhere and not many people -- or a lot of people won’t be happy to see that money diverted from other programs, as was just mentioned.

19284 But I think that there’s -- not to sound overly pessimistic, but I think that there’s another problem on top of that which has to do with the political sell. And I say that because I believe that in the long run if we added -- I know the price has been going up day by day at this hearing. If we added X number of dollars to everybody’s monthly bill -- I don’t know what it’s at now, $10 or something -- that we would -- I can’t prove it, but I think we’re convinced that we would save a lot of money in the long-run instead of going from patchwork quilt to patchwork quilt. That five or 10 years from now over the longer term that Josh was referring to we’ll save money. But that’s very difficult to sell to subscribers or taxpayers, and it’s difficult for two reasons.

19285 Taking my $10 now, you’re going to take less five years from now doesn’t cut a lot of ice. But even worse than that, I go back to my hobby horse about the information deficit. If you tell people “Look, we know from the development of cloud computing that, you know, we’re going to need to spend this money” people don’t know what cloud computing means, they don’t know what it’s being spent on.

19286 And I say this -- by the way -- if you’ll indulge me, Mr. Chairman, just to illustrate what I mean. I teach liberal arts undergraduates how the internet works, and I can tell you after years and years of doing this that these 20-somethings who think they’re digital natives who are majoring in communication studies are as baffled as everybody else. They don’t know what a megabit per second is until I beat it into them for weeks.

19287 And so I extrapolate from that interesting classroom issue to the larger picture and I’m pessimistic about being able to tell Canadians “Look, if we take your money there’ll be a great future for cloud computing” whatever that is.

19288 MS. TRIBE: I just wanted to add one thing to that. But you’re sort of framing this as though it’s just an expense, but we would put forward the argument that this is actually an investment, and rolling out this high quality services across Canada provides the residents of Bowen Island, and numerous other communities, more opportunities and the investment will be repaid in the long-run.

19289 And so in some of these expenses that we’re treating like a trade-off that’s when you’re just pouring money out the door, and that’s not how we view this investment.

19290 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: I’ve spent 10 years of my life selling broadband, so I was selling the benefits of it, so I don’t need to be sold on the benefits, I get that. And people in this hearing have been very clear about the benefits and they’ve been very free with those opinions. What there’s been a little bit more reluctance to do is to pull out their wallet and say “Yes, I’m ready to have my bill go up by $10 a month.”

19291 So if that is what needs to happen to build out the network, and knowing what the benefits would be, how do we balance that need for the extra $10 a month on everyone’s bill to build out the network with the affordability concerns that you also raise?

19292 MR. TABISH: So step one is the near-term solution, which is the mandated basic package that will help bring quality and a reasonably priced option to all Canadians. That’s the short-term goal.

19293 The long-term goal is a structural one. The fact that prices are going to go up in the near-term is a sign that we need, as others have said, more service-based competition and choice of providers in the market.

19294 And so our proposals detailed in our submission balance both the near-term fix, which is get much needed relief in quality and price as soon as possible, and the long-term fix, which is ensure that any infrastructure that’s built out has great open access provisions in it; make sure that any provider can sell on that; make sure that municipal and non-profit actors are empowered to join the market and sell services. That’s how we fix the problem is by fostering choice and diversity of offerings and innovation.

19295 So our proposals attempt to address that question both in the near-term and in the long-term and we think that’s the elegance of it.

19296 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: When you were inviting your members to come here today, you outlined five things that you wanted to accomplish, make sure that Canada no longer has slower broadband speeds, addressing, to use your words, oppressive data caps, the most expensive packages in the industrialized world, huge digital divide and the market being controlled by -- 90 percent controlled by big telecom. So I think we’ve covered off much of that in the conversation so far, but I want to get back to oppressive data caps.

19297 What should a data cap be on a basic package and is that something that should be mandated? Should there be a mandated minimum data cap on a basic package?

19298 MR. TABISH: So on the basic package question there shouldn’t be data caps.

19299 There’s a number of other criteria that we feel the basic package needs to have -- and we can talk about those later -- things like it needs to be access to the full real internet, it can’t be, for example, the incumbents version of free basics from Facebook. That would be a disaster. So there’s quality constraints that we have and criteria we suggest around that.

19300 But to come back to the question of data caps, data caps harm low income users disproportionately, because where do you find data caps, on cheap packages. Data caps have lost their utility as a network congestion management practice. That rationale doesn’t cut it anymore and people are recognizing that through the course of this hearing. They’re at this point a pricing tool, which doesn’t quite jive with the principles set out in the ITMP framework.

19301 The basic package needs to allow unfettered access to the Internet and oppressive data caps would hurt that. So if a provider said -- say you believed us and you decided you were going to do this basic package. The providers could come back and say, okay, we’ll do the basic package but we’re giving it a five gig cap. Well, how does that help Canadians?

19302 Data caps broadly need to be phased out. We’ve heard other people say this. If you look at OECD data, data caps are non-standard in OECD countries. You don’t see them on wireline networks. And there’s some other interesting insights from the Open Technology Institute’s recent Artificial Scarcity Report that we cite.

19303 So I would start there and I’ll invite my colleagues to finish my answer -- or our answer.

19304 DR. ELLIS: Well, I think that Josh has covered most of the important points. But I really want to emphasize the harm to exactly the market segment that we’re trying to provide relief to, which is low income households, and for several reasons.

19305 One is that low income households do not need any more complication or confusion about what they’re buying and what they’re getting for their money. And what they certainly don’t want or need is a plan that will punish them financially if they use the Internet too much, which is a phrase I hope will disappear over the next couple of years as though there’s something about using the Internet too much. And I’m accepting, of course, anything that’s straightforward abuse of network resources. It’s a concept that just doesn’t belong in this kind of conversation.

19306 And I’ve noted over the last three or four years that one of the things that the incumbent ISPs have done is that they have priced their low-end packages in a way that charges those subscribers more money per megabit per second and applies higher penalties at the low end than for faster packages.

19307 So what I deduce from all of this is that the very Canadians that we would be setting out to help would be harmed by this. And this is not even to speak of what is discussed at some length in the Open Technology Institute report. The psychological disincentives that subscribers have if they are -- if they have data caps -- and by the way, I think this is very important because when we heard the group this morning say that only a certain number of customers actually get up to their cap, that people have lots of capacity because we can see what people are using, there are lost opportunities there that that ISP is not measuring. There are people are not doing thing online that they would have if they didn’t have a cap.

19308 MR. TABISH: And finally, data caps are especially important to keep in mind in an environment that is as vertically -- in a market environment that is as vertically integrated as Canada’s is. There are tremendous incentives for the big telecom providers to use data caps as a means of protecting legacy services, like cable TV, to prevent people from streaming too much.

19309 And, you know, we’ve heard in other proceedings that Canadians are tired of bloated, outdated cable packages. And the Commission has taken really commendable steps towards that. And so we hope they do the same on this issue of data caps because the two are more related than they might seem off the top.

19310 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: At my home I’m on municipal water services. If I use more water I pay more. I have natural gas. If I use more natural gas I pay more. Why is the Internet different than that with respect to unlimited packages?

19311 MS. TRIBE: Yes, I understand your point. But there is not a limit on the number of bits and bytes that we can have coming through. When we’re looking at maximum capacity on the networks, I think that’s what data caps were originally introduced to address. And as David and Josh have both pointed out, that’s just not working right now. That’s not what they’re being used for anymore.

19312 And there are fixed resources in the amount of natural gas that we have and the amount of fresh water that we have available in a way that just doesn’t apply to the Internet. So I would argue that they’re different.

19313 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Just a couple of just final questions and then I’ll hand it back over to my colleagues.

19314 Okay. We’ve got this 5/5 package. It’s an unlimited service. How do we determine what a fair price is? Is it in relation to other countries? Is it a percentage of income? Cost to deliver the service?

19315 MR. TABISH: That is a very good question. And it’s one we admittedly struggled with a bit. But I think if we’re going to talk about principles here, we see again -- sorry to sound repetitive, but we see a lack of low-cost options in the market. One of the charts we supply shows that the bottom range is considerably higher or the entry point price in the market is considerably higher than of comparable jurisdictions. And so the price for this package needs to be significantly below the going rate.

19316 So if we -- we heard I think it was the Eastern Ontario Warden’s Caucus talk about how prices have clustered around $50 depending on which region you’re in. It needs to be significantly lower than that, say 30 or less. But I know the Commission has a variety of techniques and tricks and tools to arrive at that conclusion. And so that’s where we would turn it over to you.

19317 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So if it’s 30 bucks a month, does that eliminate the need for any other further subsidies for low-income individuals? Or is it 30 plus subsidy?

19318 MR. TABISH: We think the approaches are complementary and that there could be space for both in the market. I don’t want to be seen on the record of this proceeding as saying anything that underscores -- or sorry, undermines my colleagues in the Affordable Access Coalition and their proposal. We think their proposal is very well suited to their constituents and their -- who they represent. We think our proposal brings much needed relief and quality in price as fast as possible to as many people as possible. And so those approaches can be complementary. Put simply, it’s a both and, from our perspective.

19319 DR. ELLIS: Commissioner, could I just add to that a comment about eligibility. Just to reassure the Commission that, ever mindful of your resource constraints, we didn’t imagine that this was the kind of program that the CRTC should tackle on its own just to take the eligibility issue by itself. This is something that your counterparts in Washington have -- are currently doing a great deal of work on for their -- the modernization of their Lifeline program, as you know.

19320 And it’s a big, complicated and expensive program to run. And I would imagine that the Commission would want to partner with other agencies, for example, Statistics Canada, to begin to get a, you know, a good picture of how you might frame the issue of eligibility in terms of household income and that kind of thing.

19321 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions.

19322 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

19323 Vice-Chair Menzies?

19324 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Thanks.

19325 Two or three questions. In terms of getting to where you want to go, given that we can’t -- well, we could try to get there all at once, but I asked this yesterday, if we were to triage the problems in terms of like the north filling the gap, remote First Nations affordability and capacity, where would we start?

19326 MR. TABISH: You would start, I believe, by asking the people who know best. And those are the people on the ground.

19327 We’ve heard a lot about the -- what the model could -- well, we’ve heard a bit about what the model could be for ---

19328 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: To be fair, that’s what this is.

19329 MR. TABISH: This is true. This is true. Sorry, this is true. No disrespect intended.

19330 But in the situation where we’ve mandated it as a basic service and now we’re looking at a world build out, say we mandate a world build out fund that’s drawn from the big operators and we’re going, okay, where do we point first? One of the things that we’ve heard is what should the -- or that’s been asked a bit is what should the distribution mechanism look like? Should it be, you know, NCF 2.0? Or are there other options available to us?

19331 I think the thing that we worry about is that that decision-making power would become too centralized if it were NCF 2.0. We think there’s a role for intermediary organizations and communities to play in the allocation of that funds. I know that takes us down a rabbit hole and is really complicated, but I worry that it would be too concentrated in the hands of the incumbents to make those decisions.

19332 I think the more -- an approach that supports the public interest is one that leverages the knowledge of folks on the ground, and whether it's Bowen Island, or it's rural Ontario, or it's Nova Scotia, these groups have a lot to say about that question in particular.

19333 And so we would hope the actual governance of that fund outside of this hearing, that the actual governance of that fund leverages that -- those smarts.

19334 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, this -- I mentioned this yesterday and it comes up from time to time in terms of how Canada compares internationally. And in your opening remarks, I think you -- I mean, we can all be prone to hyperbole from time to time but you mentioned that we have one of the worst?

19335 MR. TABISH: I've never been accused of that, actually.

--- (LAUGHTER)

19336 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, I imagine not, nor have I. We can keep that between us.

19337 The -- in terms of fair comparisons between countries, it always come up. And it's, perhaps -- I didn't wish to be unkind to Cybera yesterday, but when you get an example from England and I've looked at other connectivity lists, and here's the top 10 countries in the world. And because I get bored sometimes, I add up the square kilometres of all those countries and discover that I can fit them all into British Columbia.

19338 And so what is -- the question being, this is a very, very large country with significant challenges around that. So in the course of your research, what would you recommend to us that we -- what are the fairest comparisons that we could look at in terms of performance in other countries?

19339 MR. TABISH: I'll answer your ---

19340 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Or the most -- fairest isn't the right word, the most relevant ---

19341 MR. TABISH: Right, right.

19342 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: --- comparisons in terms of ---?

19343 MR. TABISH: And your point about comparing geographies is well taken. It's not always a fair comparison.

19344 I'll start -- my first answer to your question is let's not look elsewhere too quickly. Let's look in our own backyard.

19345 We see amazing work being done by the Eastern Ontario Regional Network, which is adapting, not only their socio and economic needs but their geographic needs, using a variety of technologies that are quite impressive. And we see other examples across Canada, the SuperNet being another example.

19346 We have a lot to learn about our own geography within our own borders and what the solutions are. As my colleague, Dwayne Winseck, said many weeks ago now, geography is a factor but it's not a crutch, and it's being used as a crutch by certain operators and parties.

19347 But if I were to directly answer your question and look at a comparable jurisdiction. Scandinavian countries that have embraced open access policies, the type that this Commission has very -- has put forward, that we approve of and applaud, countries that have embraced those policies to ensure a wide range of providers on infrastructure that isn't unnecessarily duplicated, and who faced -- like Sweden -- faced some of a similar geographic problems Canada does, we think there's a lot of insight to be learned there.

19348 I know a lot is said of the EU laggard problem, but the lessons from the EU are on a case-by‑case basis, not looking at the whole. And when you look at countries like Sweden, for example, or others, Scandinavian countries, Canada can learn a lot.

19349 And I'll invite others to add to that.

19350 DR. ELLIS: I think that the point about geography is certainly well taken, although it does overlook a couple of very important facts, one of which is that most of the Canadian population is in a very small area of the country. So those who are opposed to international comparisons tend to skew the comparisons by taking, you know, density across the whole country, and of course, even if you confine it to the border, there's still an issue of a country like the United Kingdom, which came up in the discussion yesterday.

19351 But I think that in addition to that, there is a -- I think there's an issue if the comparisons are made strictly in terms of the outcome or the cost, I think there are also useful comparisons to be made in terms of what policies were initiated by governments, like South Korea, for example. And again, yes, extremely dense, probably more so than the United Kingdom. What policies were put in place by the government that had good policy outcomes? And obviously, density and cost and so on are a factor in that, but they're not the only factors.

19352 And the one other thing that I would say is that especially because there are some folks who just don't want to hear about the, you know, the OACD, comparisons of speed and price, and so on. And I would suggest that some measurement, some comparisons are a lot better than none. They still provide guidance.

19353 And if, to take the example of the OACD, since they have been doing their measurements for, I don't know what it is now, perhaps 8 or 10 years, there are trends that you can see, you can make comparisons from year to year, that I think are quite meaningful. Perhaps in some cases, more meaningful than just country-to‑country comparisons.

19354 MS. TRIBE: I just wanted to add to build on David's point. It's important to look to other countries, and try and find examples and lessons that we can learn. And we do keep coming back to geography as this challenge that Canada faces, and I think this might be one issue where just need to lead and we need to figure out what works for us. And there might not be a solution elsewhere that we can completely compare ourselves to in terms of finding ways to move forward.

19355 So I think this might be one case where we should embrace the fact that we're a pretty unique country. Josh has given lots of examples of ways that we're starting to work with that and around that for our own benefit, and I think that this could be a chance where, hopefully soon, other countries are actually looking to us for what they can do.

19356 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, thank you.

19357 I might be accused of being the one who asked how much does this cost, from time to time. And your answer regarding what is the cost of leaving Canadians behind is a question too, but that doesn't mean it's not a good question.

19358 So what is the cost of leaving Canadians behind and what is the cost comparison of this and the cost to that?

19359 MR. TABISH: I don't think you can put a price tag on leaving Canadians behind, which I know isn't the most helpful answer. But if we think about the experience of staying in touch with our friends and family, going back to school to skill up for jobs training, which is a major concern given the current economic climate, you know, access to information. I mean, the list goes on.

19360 As somebody -- myself, speaking very personally for a second -- who grew up in a really small community, and my Internet connection was my connection to the outside world, I don't really want to put a price on that. Because that's what -- that was the start of what brought me here before you today, in my personal journey.

19361 On the question of what will it cost, we answered this question or attempted to answer this question in our 2011 or '13 report, Connecting -- sorry, Casting an Open Net. We put a price on -- we put the price at 2.2 billion at the time.

19362 I think that number needs to be revised, based on what I've heard throughout the course of this proceeding. And when I've looked at national broadband strategies and what the price tags on them are, I think that number is probably low.

19363 But that number came from a consultation between our community and experts who regularly appear before you. People like Tamir Israel of CIPPIC and Christopher Parsons, and others.

19364 So I don't have the magic number, but it's definitely in the -- it's in the billions and that's where federal support is going to be crucial.

19365 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, it sounds like it's not -- and we had an odd synchronicity this morning between Quebecor and Bell. And your number is not that far off Bell's. So anyway, thank you very much.

--- (LAUGHTER)

19366 MR. TABISH: That's terrifying for me.

19367 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Yeah, I know. I don't want to cause you a night's sleep on that, so -- anyway, thank you very much. Have a safe trip home.

19368 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Molnar?

19369 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Good morning, barely morning.

19370 I was pleased that you brought up the information deficit. Certainly, before and since this hearing occurred, I have been a bit concerned about literacy, and since this hearing occurred, I've also been concerned about the information deficity for what I would call community champions, and you mentioned it a little bit. So I want to talk to you about both of those.

19371 You make the point that consumers really don’t know what they’re getting, they don’t know what they’re getting for speeds. I think we have an indication then when people are underserved they know that but they don’t really know when they’re overserved, and you make that point. They continue to sort of upgrade their services, and so on, not knowing really what they’re getting or if they require it.

19372 And I don’t disagree with you at all, but I wonder, as it regards how to address that issue, I mean, first there is educating and informing Canadians about what -- you know, how the internet works, and what are their needs and so on, and I’d like to get your sense as to who all should be playing in that field.

19373 MS. TRIBE: I’ll start us off. But I think that ---

19374 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Yeah, let’s talk about that first.

19375 MS. TRIBE: --- we’ll all have some answers on that one and some thoughts.

19376 I think that the digital literacy is a huge concern, and I think that definitely is part of the CRTC’s mandate to address.

19377 I think, you know, when it comes to telecoms, it’s complicated. The way that the systems work, the way that we’re billed, are very complicated. What we have access to is very complex.

19378 And, you know, you’re filled with a room of people who are either quite frustrated or quite excited about what’s to come, or are experts in this field, but there are a number of people that are not here that don’t know what access they have, what they’re getting, what their package says. It’s a lot of numbers. And they don’t know how many megabytes they have to upload or download or what that means to them.

19379 I would argue that the biggest challenge right now -- which I’m sure David has a nice anecdote for you in his own experiences -- is that it is impossible to even find that information from our internet service providers right now. So even if you are trying to find out how much information you’re using, how much you need, it’s very difficult to find out what your package actually provides you with, and what you’re using, and how that compares.

19380 So I think there is a huge requirement for the service providers to actually be more transparent and open about what that -- what the services they’re providing and what you’re actually using and your needs are.

19381 I would add that I also think that there is a roll for a larger education piece from the Commission that would both require them to do that but also provide those pieces to the public as well.

19382 And I’ll let David answer because I think David has some thoughts on this literacy piece as well.

19383 MR. TABISH: My answer is short for once. I heard at some point in this hearing, and I don’t remember who asked it so forgive me, but one of the Commissioner’s asked literacy -- digital literacy is a problem of -- is a problem that could very easily be addressed -- or not easily, but is a problem that could be addressed by the education system, welfare services, social assistance, there’s a variety of actors who have a role to play in that, and so, you know, speaking informally for a sec, who are we to barge in on that, or what role do we play.

19384 And I think the insight there is those agencies, even educational institutions, are not experts on telecommunications, but you folks are, and they could use your help.

19385 And I’ll pass it over to David.

19386 DR. ELLIS: I couldn’t agree more, especially after the experiences that I’ve had in the last 10 or 11 years in my teaching role.

19387 But I would say something -- would like to say something about the role that the CRTC might play in this. And I appreciate that this is yet another responsibility that we sound like we’d like to heap onto all the others. Your resources are limited. Staff expertise is limited. We’re trying very hard not to make your job even harder.

19388 But I think there’s some things that the Commission can do in the short-term, short of, you know, launching an extension school out the back door. And if I may not be forgiven for saying something that may sound critical of the Commission, I think that a better job could be done of the current communication strategy with Canadians and the publication strategy.

19389 There has been a great deal more communication over the last three or four years, which is absolutely terrific, but there is some ways in which I think the Commission in trying to help Canadians understand what’s going on better doesn’t have a very clear sense of its audience.

19390 And I’ll take an example that we were discussing yesterday. If you look, say, in one of your communications monitoring reports, like the one from last fall, you will see text boxes that provide -- this is after, you know, you’ve slogged through maybe 140 pages, what is a broadcasting distribution undertaking. Well, you know, my sense is that if you’ve managed to read through that much of the CMR you probably don’t need that kind of help, but there are other concepts, whether they have to do with broadcasting or telecommunications, that are not clear to Canadians and that some real effort could be put into trying to help them figure out what’s going on.

19391 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Well, I do think the information deficit is a very, very important issue, and I think -- you know, I will accept that our monitoring report has some acronyms in there, but I really think that Canadians -- you know, there’s important issues about privacy, about security, about safe use and understanding, you know, as you pointed out here, what size of plan do I need, and so on.

19392 So, you know, we’ll take away defining BDU but I really think there’s really big issues around this and I don’t think it’s been discussed, frankly, enough at this hearing.

19393 Because once you empower Canadians I think a lot of this -- a lot of the rest could be possibly solved by the market. And I say that -- I’ve been on this Commission for I guess as long as -- longer than anyone, and I’ve gone through a number of hearings dealing with issues trying to enable greater competition in the market, and some of that’s worked. And if I look at some of the players that are in the market and the tools they’re providing and -- you know, I guess I’ll just, you know, put the little hand out here to TekSavvy. I looked on their website and they have a really good tool to try and help a consumer find what kind of package they need based on how they use the internet and so on.

19394 So do you think there’s any possibility that we could focus on -- you know, focus priorities not just closing the gaps but rather than imposing some sort of basic pricing plan across the entire industry, helping to educate and inform consumers, enable and encourage competition, and let the market do that instead of us imposing pricing plans on the market?

19395 MR. TABISH: Well, in regard to your comments about the need for bridging that digital literacy gap and the role industry can play on that, to use the vernacular plus-one, that’s great and we appreciate that a lot.

19396 There’s no doubt that industry could do better to inform their customers of how the stuff all works because it’s complicated.

19397 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Sorry, if I left you with the impression that I felt -- I did sort of challenge industry through this hearing as to whether or not they could lead it and, you know, I guess we all heard the answer they gave us.

19398 MR. TABISH: Right.

19399 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So I was not suggesting that this be solely in the hands of industry.

19400 MR. TABISH: Okay. I understand.

19401 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: What I was suggesting is that if we were able to provide consumers with the knowledge to be empowered and informed and we focused our attention on creating a competitive market where there’s choices, is that not a better solution or could that not be a solution.

19402 MR. TABISH: Do you want to jump in?

19403 MS. TRIBE: Sure. I’ll go first. You can probably finish up.

19404 I think that the digital literacy piece is a critical first step for that. And so your question is after that market forces would be sufficient, I think that’s implying that the only reason market forces have been insufficient so far is because of a lack of digital literacy, and we just haven’t seen that. So it would definitely help.

19405 I think that it would be a big step but it would help push consumers to put added pressure onto their service providers to increase the competition, but we haven’t seen it work yet, and I think that it’s unfair to imply that all of the pressure and responsibility for failed market forces around consumers for their lack of knowledge at this point.

19406 So while we definitely think that that digital literacy piece is critical for the first step, we think that there is definitely a large role for the Commission to play in providing that immediate access in the meantime as well. So it's both.

19407 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: And if I could. I think it's unfair for you to say that I said that I'm going to blame this on consumers, because that is not at all what I said.

19408 MS. TRIBE: No, sorry, I know. I apologize.

19409 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: You gave that ---

19410 MS. TRIBE: That's not what you meant.

19411 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: --- statistics that said 80 percent are in the dark about their own service speeds.

19412 So ---

19413 MR. TABISH: We -- sorry, we understand ---

19414 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: --- I do want to ---

19415 MR. TABISH: We understand the distinction you were making there. We weren't meaning to put words in your mouth.

19416 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: M'hm.

19417 MR. TABISH: I apologize.

19418 DR. ELLIS: I think also, Commissioner Molnar, that it might be useful to keep in mind that it's not really in the incumbents' DNA to be forthcoming with information.

19419 One of the most startling things that came out of the experiment I did a few months ago, when 40 students did -- graded reports, ISP profiles. They had to assess their own service and then compare it to two competitive offers.

19420 The single most compelling and shared observation that came out of that was that it is almost impossible to get a straightforward piece of information from the website, from the phone, or from a chat session, from any of the incumbents about anything to do with their service, unless it involves today's big discount -- sign up now so you don't lose out. This was a source of tremendous frustration.

19421 And I'm pointing this out because I -- I mean, we've heard what the licensee said to you about this. It's disappointing, but I don't think that they're going to be pitching in and helping you out a great deal on this matter.

19422 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: And that's very fair, and that's why I asked -- you know, there is a parallel focus here -- empower consumers and enable competition.

19423 MR. TABISH: And we agree, and I just -- just to finish that thought.

19424 One example that I gave in the video, which Commissioner MacDonald saw and mentioned, that community monitoring programs. So the initiative from CIRA around their Internet performance tool and helping empower communities to use open source -- open data technologies to understand what's going on, how does this stuff actually work, they've been doing tremendous work around that. And I applaud them for that as well as Professor McKelvey, who spoke at the beginning of this hearing, who helped push that forward.

19425 That's the kind of initiative that the Commission could help bring to people, and that could be as easy as sharing it on your Twitter feeds and helping folks that way. We think that that -- if there was institutional support from experts like yourselves and this institution to help bring that to a wider audience, we would applaud that. That would be great.

19426 And so there's people doing great work to bridge that literacy gap, and support for that is, I think, badly needed, as you've identified.

19427 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: I have just one more question, as it regards data caps. And again, like I said, I've been around a long time. I know what was promised, and what they are, and we've identified that.

19428 But particularly on satellite, where there truly is a high cost to capacity. And we've heard, you know, today, the environment is they do math, right. You can do speeds, you can do caps, you're trying to share this capacity as equitably as you can.

19429 Would you say there may be a role for caps in certain situations, such as there where you truly have high cost constrained capacity?

19430 MR. TABISH: So we were hoping you wouldn't ask that question. And my answer is a begrudging yes, not towards you but towards the question, of course.

19431 Until that -- that technology has limitations, and until we get higher throughput satellites, low orbit satellites, we could understand that need. But it is definitely a problem that -- that scarcity of bandwidth is a huge problem for the North and will become an increasingly huge problem as more exploration happens, more people move into these communities, and usage becomes higher.

19432 So yes, I -- like I guess my answer is, yeah, I guess. If that makes sense.

19433 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thanks. That's all I have.

19434 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it doesn't always come out in the transcript but it did sound very reluctant.

19435 Just a few last questions, and first of all, you know, you seem to be walking on eggs when you're commenting on our communication strategy. We're not that thin skinned. And it's something that, you know, we -- I certainly see it as a shared responsibility. So we have our part to do and so if there's any constructive ideas, very much appreciate it.

19436 The reality is, this is the sort of thing that keeps me up at night, because you know, there's 450 commissioners and staff, so that means 1 of us for every 76,000 Canadians, or about. If -- and we do a lot. We use various corridors of communication. So we tend to use our Facebook for families and individuals and less complicated language. And then we're accused of being too simplistic.

19437 And then when we use Twitter, we're accused of, oh, you know, only going to a certain group of people. And then I get up early and do a lot of radio -- there's a lot of radio stations in this country and I do a lot of those and early morning shows. And when we do faxes and our notices of public hearing, we're accused of being dinosaurs.

19438 Anyway, there's ---

19439 DR. ELLIS: I'm going to restore my Facebook account, then Mr. Chairman.

19440 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, so -- but we are conscious that there's various groups of people we try to communicate to, and one solution doesn't fit all, and we're always looking for constructive ideas. And so we welcome that.

19441 DR. ELLIS: Thank you.

19442 MR. TABISH: And we recognize that. We try to give you guy's credit for that where we can.

19443 You are doing a much better job than previous -- this Commission is doing a much better job than the Commission has done in the past to engage Canadians. The stuff around Let's Talk TV has been great, and it's a constant struggle.

19444 And when I was hearing your list, we actually have a lot in common, because we get the same thing from our community.

19445 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right, and if we weren't criticized we wouldn't try to do better.

19446 MR. TABISH: Exactly.

19447 THE CHAIRPERSON: Help me understand what, in your view, is affordable?

19448 Another one of those questions that you didn't want me to ask?

19449 DR. ELLIS: We're all passing the buck.

--- (LAUGHTER)

19450 MR. TABISH: Yeah.

19451 As we've heard for three weeks, the status quo is not affordable. This ---

19452 THE CHAIRPERSON: So what's the status quo, then?

19453 MR. TABISH: The present range of offerings in the market skews quite high for what Canadians feel they should be paying, and there's a number of indicators of this.

19454 We've heard from disabilities groups. A powerful testimony from ACORN, MCC, others, they've given their -- they've talked to us about how affordability is hitting them. We've heard from more, let's call them typical users, about how affordability is impacting them.

19455 What I think the answer is we see huge variation regionally. As you move across the country, you see the prices change quite a bit, whether you're in Halifax, or B.C., or Ontario, or Quebec, or the North.

19456 And you know, what we want to see -- and that is why we've pushed this basic package. We want to try to bring some -- we want to try to draw a straight line through that scatterplot and find a base level that gives Canadians and Canadian businesses reassurance that no matter where they are in the country, where they want to operate, there is going to be something there for them. This could be new Canadians, this could be old Canadians, this could be whoever.

19457 And so what we're trying to identify is a national floor for what affordability looks like, and what we're saying is that has to be lower than the cluster that we see. Because as David pointed out, and I'll ask him to comment more on this, but -- if he's willing -- but what we see is a lack of those low cost options. It's just the variation there is not high enough. So we need to see that bridge gapped descriptively in the market. Yeah.

19458 DR. ELLIS: Mr. Chairman, I would just add to that, the item that Josh was just mentioning about the disappearance of low cost options. This is a pretty well established pattern that I just mentioned for a few seconds in the opening presentation. Whereby as broadband penetration increases and it becomes more and more like an essential service, the providers are able to charge higher and higher prices and they don’t need to depend on a wide range of prices to keep market share away from their competitors.

19459 So there’s no doubt that part of the problem that we’re facing is that quite apart from how you look at eligible Canadians or Canadians that are being disadvantaged, there is a serious structural problem in that the low-cost options have disappeared. And this is a phenomenon that I understand is quite well known to economists.

19460 But I think that there’s another side to this as well to go back to Commissioner Molnar’s point about the information deficit. Affordability, to me, has to do with being able to make, not necessarily rational, but well-founded or informed decisions. Should I take plan A or should I take plan B? And it’s very often difficult for the average consumer to realize that if they take the cheaper option and just behave the way they’ve always behaved online, they’re going to end up paying more because they’re going to go over their cap and the $50 service turns into a $100 service.

19461 And I mean, I don’t want to flog this horse too much, but I think there’s something in what Commissioner Molnar has said that would be helpful. Of course, not to the exclusion of all of the other things that need to be done.

19462 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you be open to -- I noticed you put the point that there’s very important regional distinctions. But would you agree that there may be actual objective geography technology reasons why affordability may be defined differently in different parts of the country? And the most extreme case perhaps is in the north. Would you agree with that?

19463 MR. TABISH: So I think, as others have said, the north is definitely a special case. It has a variety of factors that distinguish it.

19464 I think the question of, in the remaining provinces, where what should the expectation be around affordability. And I think there’s a significant structural problem. I think insufficient choice in the market is what’s rendering this issue. And we see this too, I should say, in the wireless sector it’s very pronounced. The way the price varies.

19465 And so, you know, our call in the big picture is to move towards a service-based model. We -- for example, I’m sure the Commissioners are aware that we’ve been a bit stuck on this whole mandating MVNO thing for a while now. And ---

19466 THE CHAIRPERSON: I may have seen that.

19467 MR. TABISH: And because the -- we -- the lesson in the wireless sector is -- for end users is companies that are expected to come in and build their own facilities it hasn’t worked so well.

19468 And so what we’re hoping to see is new national providers that can fill those niches, can fill the need for those low-cost options. MVNOs are very well positioned to do that.

19469 And the metaphor extends, of course, to the wireline sector. Open access on networks would allow for new national providers to come in.

19470 I make this point occasionally in interviews but, for example, rollover billing would be a startling revelation in Canada for end users. And that’s exactly the type of thing something like Ting or Google’s Project Fi or FreedomPop or a public wireless are itching to do.

19471 And so I think the answer is, to get at affordability we need greater choice. That’s what Canadians want. And I think a national strategy to do that is the best way to address that so that there is some equalling out --

19472 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

19473 MR. TABISH: -- across the existing infrastructure.

19474 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I did hear you admit that maybe in satellite delivered communities that might be an exceptional case.

19475 MR. TABISH: Yeah, the competition factor there is pretty huge.

19476 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

19477 MR. TABISH: And so we definitely need public interest regulation to ensure that their needs are still met, but it’s a special case.

19478 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m always afraid when we start doing international comparisons we go down rabbit holes. I mean, sometimes people come to this hearing with experts with -- that say, well, you know, this foreign jurisdiction does it this way and then we end up having to have a little inquiry as to well, how different or not different is the regulatory regime in that country or not. And just to build on what the Vice-Chair was asking you, I mean, you answered, you know, Scandinavia might be a comparable. Does your Scandinavia include Norway and Iceland?

19479 MR. TABISH: Allow me to rephrase my answer.

19480 If we look at -- and thank you for that opportunity. Where we look at -- so okay. So when we look around the world we see markets that have embraced open access are selling faster services at lower prices and quality is higher and people are happy. And there’s some examples in Asia. Japan -- I don’t know if they mandated access to fibre but they had open access provisions early in their history of deploying fibre. The same thing can be seen across kind of old Europe. That is where we see -- those are the -- that’s the model we’re looking for.

19481 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

19482 MR. TABISH: Yeah.

19483 THE CHAIRPERSON: From a pure objective analysis, I saw your table, the OECD table there. To my knowledge, that just does retail price; is that correct?

19484 DR. ELLIS: Yes, that’s my understanding.

19485 THE CHAIRPERSON: So it doesn’t really take into consideration implicit or explicit subsidies that may otherwise affect what the retail price is; does it?

19486 DR. ELLIS: I think that’s true. And of course, if wholesale prices are high in one jurisdiction and low in another, that skews the comparison.

19487 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. So if you were going to do a -- and I’m not suggesting that this is an avenue because it does seem like a bit of a rabbit hole, but scientifically, if you’re going to compare you got to compare the whole thing. And there’s a lot of things -- like if you pay less because somehow there’s a government subsidy or regulatory subsidy, it’s like comparing apples to watermelons; is it not?

19488 MR. TABISH: There’s an insight there that is helpful though, which is that as Professor Winseck pointed out, the subsidy that Canadians are paying for broadband development is actually quite low. And one of the questions in the present proceeding is should we do something to help that. And so I see that opportunity -- I think that insight is useful for our discussion.

19489 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation. Those are our questions.

19490 And I do want to thank you. You do bring people to our hearing and that’s a very good thing. And ---

19491 MR. TABISH: On the last day especially, it’s a ---

19492 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, well, not just for that. I mean, I think you do bring a generational change to those that attend our hearing. And I think that can nothing be but positive for the work we do. Doesn’t mean we agree with everything, but it certainly is a positive. So thank you very much for ---

19493 MR. TABISH: Thank you very much. We appreciate your time and questions.

19494 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. In the hope of trying to finish the last presenter, Madam Secretary, could you ask the next intervenor to come forward?

19495 THE SECRETARY: I will now ask the Canadian Network Operators Consortium to come to the presentation table.

19496 THE CHAIRPERSON: So welcome. Just so you know, what we’ll do is we’ll hear your presentation and I think I’m -- we’ll do at least a short health break right after that, at the very least, if that’s okay with you. So please identify your panel and we’re listening to you.

PRESENTATION

19497 MR. SANDIFORD: Try this one.

19498 MR. TACIT: Yeah, mine isn’t ---

19499 MR. SANDIFORD: Use this one, Chris.

19500 MR. TACIT: So I guess I can actually say good afternoon as the notes require me to do.

19501 Mr. Chair and Commissioners, my name is Christian Tacit. I’m counsel to CNOC. Seated to my right is William Sandiford, Chair of the Board and President of CNOC, and seated to his right is Christopher Hickey, CNOC’s Director of Industry Affairs. Seated to my left is Lynne Hamilton, Government Relations Consultant to CNOC and National Chair of Equal Voice.

19502 Mr. Sandiford will start our opening statement.

19503 MR. SANDIFORD: Thank you, Chris.

19504 Mr. Chair, in the statement that you made on April 18^th you challenged participants in this proceeding to address a number of specific issues.

19505 The first one is where there are gaps in broadband connectivity. These gaps can relate to geographic access, technological attributes, economic access and affordability and digital literacy.

19506 You also challenged us to consider strategies for closing these gaps and to identify the parties best placed to assist with each area.

19507 We are structuring our submission today to address these issues.

19508 As someone who has led a company involved in the rollout of broadband infrastructure in rural areas, I find the opportunities presented by this proceeding to be very promising.

19509 Mr. Hickey will take it from here.

19510 MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Bill.

19511 In my part of the presentation, I am going to identify gaps in broadband access connectivity according to the four categories identified by the Chair. I will then put forward some approaches for closing the gaps.

19512 No one disagrees that broadband access is fundamentally important to the lives of Canadians. However, we believe that setting appropriate speed targets is crucial to the elimination of connectivity gaps.

19513 We have listened carefully to the evidence in this proceeding and are of the view that a minimum speed target of 10/3 megabits per second is required in order to enable participation in the digital life of Canada now and over the next few years.

19514 A 10/3 speed target will also ensure that any access facilities that are subsidized as a means of meeting the target speed requirement would be capable of scaling to provide greater speeds. We do not want to see a situation where subsidized facilities, such as pure copper, become obsolete requiring duplicate investments later on. From a practical perspective, this means prioritising the rollout of FTTN and FTTP, followed by fixed wireless and lastly, satellite.

19515 But even more is required. In order for the applications of today and tomorrow to function as intended, targets should also exist for other attributes such as availability, latency, jitter, packet loss and data caps.

19516 Getting a handle on these targets for these attributes is more difficult since doing so depends on complex technical considerations. As a result, we do not believe the record of this proceeding is sufficiently well developed to determine specific targets at this time. However, we believe that the Commission should confirm that setting targets for these QoS measures is important. It should then use the regulatory tools at its disposal, such as CISC or the ability to appoint an inquiry officer, to study these technical issues further and make specific evidence-based determinations.

19517 The Commission’s initiative to develop maps showing connectivity gaps is a very important tool for narrowing the gaps.

19518 We urge the Commission to supplement this work through the mapping of available transport facilities on a nation-wide basis in order to ensure that the lack of discoverability of transport facilities does not become an unnecessary roadblock to the competitive rollout of broadband connectivity in Canada.

19519 We also recommend a review of the forbearance regime related to transport facilities. This would remove any roadblocks to connectivity that may be present as a result of excessive pricing of such facilities due to insufficient competition.

19520 Finally, we reiterate the request we have made in this proceeding for a transport subsidy applicable to the operating territory of Northwestel that is accessible to all carriers. The mechanism should subsidize the transport costs in Northwestel’s territory that exceed comparable costs for transport facilities in Southern Canada. This subsidy mechanism would replace all other Commission approved subsidies in this territory.

19521 It is only through the deployment of such subsidies that CNOC members, such as Iristel and its affiliate Ice Wireless, which have built their Northern infrastructure without any subsidies, will be able to continue to bring the benefits of competition to the Canadian North.

19522 We believe that the best way to remove economic barriers to connectivity is through competition. It is competition that leads to lower pricing and service innovations that benefit consumers. This means that the Commission must remain vigilant and ensure that the framework for regulated wholesale high-speed access and related services remains robust.

19523 As such, access to the subsidized facilities used to provide broadband internet services should be available to competitors on a mandated wholesale basis. However, in order to not burden small service providers with the complexity of wholesale obligations and regulations, this requirement would only apply to service providers that serve a number of locations over a specific threshold using their own access facilities.

19524 Affordability of broadband service is an important issue and one that needs to be addressed. Many CNOC members are contributing to the increased affordability of services. They do so by offering services at prices that are significantly lower than those of the incumbents every day. However, we do not think that the broader affordability problem can be solved through Commission intervention without the creation of significant economic distortion in retail markets.

19525 For this reason, we do not believe that a contribution levy or a skinny internet package are the appropriate vehicles for addressing affordability concerns. On this note, it would not be economically feasible for independent ISPs to offer a skinny internet package under the existing pricing of underlying regulated wholesale facilities. The appropriate authority and expertise for addressing affordability issues rests with provincial and territorial governments that deliver social assistance programs.

19526 We do have two further recommendations for promoting competition without creating unwanted economic distortions.

19527 First, we believe that the construction of broadband networks in unserved and underserved areas should not be funded by a levy that applies to the closed system of TSPs that the Commission does or can regulate. Instead these projects should be funded by the federal government with appropriate input from the Commission, as Lynne will discuss in a few minutes.

19528 Second, we are asking that the Commission replace the current contribution threshold with an across the board exemption for the first $10 million in contribution eligible revenues for all TSPs. This approach will place TSPs of all sizes on equal footing with respect to the obligation to contribute to the National Contribution Fund. This modification should apply without regard to whether the Commission decides to apply the contribution regime to broadband services as well. We also think that it is time for the threshold to be increased to $15 million and that it should be further reviewed every five years.

19529 Making broadband a basic service to ensure ubiquitous availability of connectivity is one important step towards promoting digital literacy. After all, if connectivity is not available, the need for digital literacy becomes largely moot. In addition, the Commission could have an important role in promoting digital literacy objectives by encouraging public discourse and promoting relevant resources more readily available.

19530 Fundamentally though, we believe that the delivery of programs aimed at increasing digital literacy is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments. Such programs are best delivered locally, for example, in schools, community centres and retirement homes.

19531 I will now turn the presentation over to Ms. Hamilton.

19532 MS. HAMILTON: Thank you, Christopher.

19533 A national broadband strategy cannot develop in a vacuum. We believe that to be successful the federal government, the Commission, industry and other interested parties need to collaborate.

19534 I am going to spend a few minutes discussing how various stakeholders could work together and what they bring to the table in terms of closing the broadband access gaps.

19535 The federal government has the responsibility, resources and the authority to develop a national broadband strategy. That strategy must include a program to fund the rollout of broadband facilities in unserved and underserviced parts of Canada. The government also has the taxing power necessary to spread the very significant funding required for such a program across the entire Canadian tax base over a number of years.

19536 First Nations, provincial governments and municipalities also have the capacity to make contributions to programs designed to improve broadband infrastructure and to deliver digital literacy and skills training.

19537 For its part, the Commission has significant means at its disposal to collect, analyze and obtain public input on the data that’s critical for the formation, by the Federal Government, of a comprehensive national broadband funding program. The Commission’s regulatory arsenal for performing these tasks include the ability to solicit submissions, issue RFIs, appoint Inquiry Officers and hold public hearings.

19538 The Commission also has the ability to create and oversee an entity similar to the Canadian Telecommunications Contribution Consortium to implement, at arm’s length, an evidence-based funding model for large scale and regional projects. Now subject to the appropriate legislative amendments, the Commission could be tasked to do this. Other orders of government could also choose to contribute funding for these types of projects that benefit their particular jurisdictions.

19539 ISPs can apply their expertise, capital and other resources to deploy and improve broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved parts of Canada, but in order to do this, we need the support for this type of national broadband infrastructure program. CNOC members are very conscious of the need for affordable and innovative services to be delivered to Canadians every day. It’s why we exist.

19540 We urge the Commission and the Federal Government to begin a dialog on how they can work together to create this kind of program. Input from other stakeholders such as provincial, territorial and municipal governments, as well as First Nations, will be crucial to the success of this approach.

19541 I’ll now pass it back to Mr. Tacit.

19542 MR. TACIT: Thank you, Lynne.

19543 This concludes our presentation. Thank you for your attention. We’ll be pleased to answer your questions.

19544 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great, thank you.

19545 I’m told that we only need seven minutes, so let’s take a 12-minute -- so we will be back at 12:37 for the question period, if that’s okay?

--- Upon recessing at 12:30 p.m.

--- Upon resuming at 12:39 p.m.

19546 THE SECRETARY: Please take your seats.

19547 LE PRÉSIDENT: À l’ordre, s'il vous plaît.

19548 Thanks for that break. And Commissioner -- Vice-Chair Menzies will be asking you questions to start us off.

19549 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Good morning.

19550 MR. TACIT: Good morning.

19551 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: I thought we’d start with your presentation from today. In terms of the 10 and 3 target, you -- I’d like you just to unpack that a little more as to why that -- how you came to that number and -- yes. And you can address also in there in terms of the upload. It’s been raised -- it’s been -- in response to questions, it’s been indicated from others that that’s a challenge.

19552 MR. TACIT: Sure, we’ll ask Mr. Hickey to start.

19553 MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Chris. So with respect to the 10 itself, the -- we’re not of -- we’re not of the view that 5 today is sufficient. And so in interrogatories and questions we were reviewing and it came through that to ensure that any subsidized facilities aren’t deployed. There was a Bell interrogatory response that said that would require 10 meg to ensure things like copper and straight copper aren’t been deployed.

19554 And so we looked at that and effectively said, okay, it needs to be more than 5, if we have to do a base minimum, that falls also within our category of the services have to be upgradable to be able to meet faster speeds in the future, then that becomes basically a 10-meg floor, to our understanding.

19555 And the 3 megabit itself was due to basically building in some overhead. And so today you get 5/1 services that are in many ways 5/800. And when you look at, you know, video relay service requirements that require 1/3, and videoconferencing and things like that that are going to continue to increase, we want to make sure we build in a little bit of overhead so your 10/2 isn't 10/1, and then not sufficient to actually meet the uploading requirements for the applications currently in the markets and will be introduced as we move forward down this path.

19556 MR. TACIT: And I just want to add one thing to that, and that is we recognize that the programs we’re talking about, regardless of whose estimates you believe that have been before you, involves a tremendous amount of money. And what we don’t want to do is have a program -- and especially given the nature of regulatory lag and the difficulty of getting government funding -- where we have a partial solution, and then in two to three years we find that it really hasn’t solved the problem and we’re right back at square one. We want to be a little more forward-looking than that.

19557 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, I prefer the term regulatory latency.

---(LAUGHTER)

19558 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: But just a bit more, please, on why -- I mean lots of people have come here and said 5 covers all the basic needs that people have, they can have streaming video. I mean it was indicated by many folks that it’s more data caps than speed, they can get access to basic government services and all that sort of thing. And I -- why did you -- why do you see 5 as insufficient? Why are they wrong, in other words?

19559 MR. HICKEY: Well in many ways I think it comes back to what Chris was talking about. So if we accepted that it was 5, and we deploy subsidies and everything to meet this 5 targets, and we’re all striving towards this 5 targets, and 2020 comes and we’ve checked that box. Then the next time we have this hearing it’s going to say, “Well now it’s 25, now it’s 50.” And all the infrastructure we put in place to get us to 5, now we have to upgrade that and then go forward.

19560 So it’s more from a forward-looking approach that says that, you know, in searching ways for multi-household use, there's a couple better uses for things like 10 compared to 5, but it’s really from a forward-looking approach to ensure that we’re not being wasteful towards our approach when we have to use things like subsidies to meet a goal.

19561 MR. TACIT: From a technological perspective too there's an inflection point at 5, and that is that’s where you go from -- for example, if you're in the copper world, from pure copper to FTTN and then FTTP, once you go there you can do 10, you can do 25, you can do 50. And if you’ve got FTTP you can do 100.

19562 So the point is, do we want to incent people to take subsidies to build basic copper loops? Is that what we want to do in the 21^st century by setting a target of 5? So we can have a program that would be very successful at doing that, but then what happens the year after?

19563 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Right. I guess that opens the door to what would be the point in setting 10 when -- I said is funding 5? But we can get into that a little bit later in -- and when we talk about some -- some other things.

19564 In that paragraph 13 of your oral remarks it says, “From a practical perspective, this means prioritizing the rollout of FTTN and FTTP followed by fixed wireless and lastly, satellite.” So where to? Just to give me some idea of where you're talking about when you say the rollout of fibre. Is that -- are those progressive, fibre first, then at the end of that road comes fixed wireless, and at the end of that road it's all aerial, satellite?

19565 MR. TACIT: So the notion there is that if there's an area that can be built out practically, economically using fibre, that’s the technology that’s preferable because it’s the most robust, it’s the most -- it’s the one that will give you the most long-term benefits.

19566 Fibre essentially has capacity only limited by the electronics that you put on the ends of it. And as the electronics improve and the productivity of those electronics improve, as we’ve seen it’s happened over the last few decades, you're going to get more and more capacity.

19567 If in a spot -- if in an area its nature is such that it is not practicable to put in fibre, then you would go to fixed wireless. And only as a last resort would one use -- would one rely on satellite. So it’s a -- it’s a model that prefers certain solutions over others because of the funding component. You're trying to get the best leverage for the funds you spend.

19568 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Right. You can correct me, but the way I see it is a upload speed of 3 more or less requires fibre, so you're setting that. So you're setting a target that’s going to incent fibre builds, but then you're also going to be at the end of that road having fixed wireless providers and satellite providers unable to meet that standard.

19569 So would you foresee a technology-agnostic series of targets in that regard? Or would you be afraid that that would, you know, if you said 10 and 3 for -- 10 and 3 generally in areas where only fixed wireless can be provided 10 and 1 or satellite 5 and 1, what are we talking about here?

19570 MR. HICKEY: Yeah, I think our approach is, effectively, we’re going to have to face the realities that we face difficult and change in circumstances in different areas across the country.

19571 And in our intervention we had talked about the fact that we may need to look at the reality that we’ll have to set a specific target in places that are very remote and hard to reach, and a separate target in places that don’t share those characteristics.

19572 And our point there is that, effectively, yes, if you have an area that’s more accessible and can meet FTTP deployments, we want to make sure whatever goal we set is high enough to be ambitious for that deployment. But that doesn’t mean we can necessarily say that, in this very remote place that is impossible to get FTTP to, has to have those same exact service characteristics as those more accessible locations.

19573 And so there you may say, due to that, we have to make sure they’re connected and give them the best connectivity possible. But in this area, due to these constraints, that may look different than this area where those constraints don’t exist.

19574 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: In terms of -- in paragraph 15 of your oral remarks, it’s -- you list these other attributes: availability, latency, jitter, packet loss and data caps. And I’m a little surprised that you said that this is difficult -- getting a handle on targets for these attributes is more difficult because it -- others have been able to give us a ballpark number on, for instance, latency. Data caps, at least a couple of parties have said there just shouldn’t be any. And others have said like 25, things like that.

19575 So with all your expertise and speaking of regulatory latency, why this big process in here as opposed to at least giving us something that we could call an interim position or a preliminary view on these things?

19576 MR. HICKEY: I think that’s fair. I think where we came from this is following up on the last question was that we may be facing a solution that includes various technologies, satellites, fixed wireless and FTTP and wireline solutions. And so with that, you know, we want to make sure that whatever target we set is also achievable by all facilities or you need distinct targets there. And I think that’s where the -- this target should apply needs to be strongly considered to make sure whatever target’s set, if it’s a uniform target, can be met by everyone.

19577 I mean, oftentimes we look at the basic of, you know, what’s required to support VoIP or video conferencing. And if you take that as a bare bones, you know yes, we can propose 100 to 150 milliseconds of latency, less than 30 milliseconds of jitter, and packet loss less than 1 percent. But before we just -- I guess our thought was before we blindly just say that should be it, we need to make sure that setting those can be also achieved by the various technologies that will have to play a role in achieving the solution to the issue that we’re facing.

19578 MR. TACIT: I think the other thing is we did have some evidence on the record of the proceeding that showed that these things are problematic to pin down, that they’re somewhat depend on the types of services you want to provide. And also, that some of them can be affected by end user equipment and behaviour. So they’re not quite as straightforward.

19579 So in terms of getting a more precise handle on them, I think we do need a further process. I remember we posed interrogatories to all of the incumbents on what they thought these things were and we couldn’t get a straight answer. And, you know, we queried our own members and had trouble coming to any kind of consensus on it.

19580 So that told me this is an area that requires some further investigation. I don’t have an objection to some interim targets based on what’s here. But I think that if we want to get, again, a longer term solution, we need to do a little bit more work in this area.

19581 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: So there are areas like that where we could at least state aspirations to be checked against reality?

19582 MR. TACIT: Sure.

19583 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Right. Okay.

19584 When you talk about the -- in paragraph 17 the maps, and you say “the mapping of available transport facilities on a nation-wide basis in order to ensure the lack of discoverability of transport facilities does not become an unnecessary roadblock,” that issue came up at some point. A little bit of a blur now, but the -- there was some acceptance by one of the larger companies that that wasn’t so much an issue getting that information out. But there were also issues regarding confidentiality and security that people don’t necessarily want to publicize where their fibre’s running for those who are inclined to mischief and more nefarious ambitions.

19585 MR. TACIT: So a simple solution to that would be that those maps would only be accessible to those who are registered with the Commission as carriers providing certain types of services. There is already that sort of check for certain types of data that’s out there right now. And I don’t see why that -- those concerns which are quite legitimate couldn’t be addressed in that way. I mean, I’m not suggesting we just post this on the website or anything.

19586 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Good. Just wanted to make that clear.

19587 The review of the forbearance regime, is that similar to the ask that came from the joint task force?

19588 MR. TACIT: It’s similar to the ask that came from TekSavvy, I know, because they were --

19589 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay.

19590 MR. TACIT: -- first to talk about this.

19591 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay. I believe it’s the same -- we’re discussing the same issue there. Somebody can correct me later I’m sure if that’s not the case.

19592 Moving forward, affordability. Looking at paragraph 22. You say your members advanced the cause of affordability, more or less, because they offer prices that are significantly lower than those of the incumbents. How much lower? How do your prices compare with the incumbent’s?

19593 MR. TACIT: It’s actually in Exhibit 4, I think.

19594 MR. HICKEY: Yeah, I won’t pull out a couple, but in the -- I’ll pull out just a couple from the Commission’s exhibit that I put forward on this proceeding.

19595 The -- if you take a [sic] area like Toronto and you’re looking at the 5/1 that was detailed in the exhibits, you have our member TekSavvy 24.95 for 150 gig. You have Execulink at 29.995 for 100 gig. You have Distributel for 36.95 for unlimited. You have Bell at 42.95 with a question mark because the data cap isn’t listed. And you have Rogers at 54.99 for 60 gig. And so if you look at TekSavvy to Rogers, you’re looking at a substantial difference.

19596 Though it doesn’t just stop in purely urban areas like Toronto. If you go to Halifax it lists, for example, TekSavvy is a 41.95 products versus -- for unlimited at versus Bell 76.45 products for unlimited, also for 5 to 1 services.

19597 So you see that across the board in many ways. And the -- we think that is significant savings and everyday pricing. So these are also just not promotional. That’s everyday website pricing.

19598 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Right. So I was thinking about that in terms of some of the folks we saw a couple weeks ago from the ACORN group and that sort of stuff. Some had -- were talking and their Internet prices were much higher than those were available. And in some of the places they were from your members have service.

19599 So is that a market -- just a, what do you call it, a discoverability issue? Is that -- because it seems to me that some of the groups that work with these people in their troubles, it would be useful to them if they could direct them to people who -- at least a list. I mean, it can’t be agents on your behalf, but they could at least direct people to a list of more affordable service providers.

19600 MR. TACIT: So that’s certainly true and maybe there is a way that we could do that. Certainly, you know, one thing that could be done so as to make it commercially neutral, for example, is the Commission could have links based on its resell -- some of its resellers lists to the various sites of competitors, and then let people just look through that. Promote it as a separate list from the registration list to say these are -- if you’re interested in any of the companies that are on our list, here are the websites and people can find. So in terms of discoverability, that's just one thought that comes to mind.

19601 But the other is just the ongoing role of competition to help push out this pricing, you know, nationwide. And you've been doing great work as a Commission on that, and we're getting there, but that's really one of the major steps that needs to be pursued.

19602 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: You're the second person today who said we're doing great work. That makes me happy. Thank you.

19603 The -- I don't want -- I don't think I want to get into this point, but I do want to confirm in paragraph 23 when you're talking about a skinny Internet package is not reasonable. That would have to do with wholesale rates; is that what you're saying there?

19604 MR. TACIT: I think for a whole host of reasons. Wholesale rates is just one. The other is we think that that would -- could potentially lead to a need for sort of service providers to start trying to cross-subsidize and increasing prices for other packages. We just don't think that that's an efficient way to address affordability.

19605 When you look at affordability, you have to consider that affordability has as much to do with people's income as it does with the prices of the goods and services they buy. A single mother in Toronto holding down two jobs, two part time jobs with a couple of kids, may not be able to afford a $30 or $40 package. Somebody with a family of four in Northern Ontario, whose cost of living may be higher but who have much lower housing costs, for example, and have a full time job, may be able to afford it.

19606 So to have this broad spread solution to affordability is very economically inefficient, in addition to having a real problem based on current wholesale rates. So it's both of those reasons that lead us down this path.

19607 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Cybera suggested to us yesterday that we should be engaged in regulating retail rates.

19608 MR. TACIT: I think that ship is past, and rightly so. I think if we're going to have a competitive retail market, we need to have a competitive retail market.

19609 I think the Commission's been wise to focus on access issues and to make wholesale access reasonable and as open as possible with all of the various balancing considerations that are brought to bear with that.

19610 And we accept that and we participate in that exercise on an ongoing basis, as you know. But I think if you're going to make that choice, you know, unless there's a particular area where you've got a monopoly situation, you know, really retail forbearance is the way to go generally.

19611 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, when you suggest in paragraph 27 that the threshold be increased from $10 million to $15 million in terms of that. I think you need to justify that. That's -- I mean, if we're all in this together, right, we should all be in this together. And that's a big jump.

19612 MR. HICKEY: So to clarify, are you talking the changing from a threshold to an exemption, or the 15 -- the jump from 10 to 15?

19613 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: The jump from 10 to 15.

19614 MR. HICKEY: So, you know, when we set out to do this, we had looked at -- and so I just want to clarify where this comes from a little bit.

19615 So when we have a small and growing service provider that today passes the $10 million threshold and starts to pay into contribution, we don't have a ramp up process. It's you were $9.99 million one year, and now you're over 10 and you're in the system. And that's not a bad thing. It's not the issue of our members not looking to contribute.

19616 But with a couple examples from the RFI that was given. You know, a competitor that just breaches 11 million and has 3 million of intercarrier expenses or terminal equipment revenues, will owe 44,000 on those revenues, which for a growing service provider could mean a salary, could mean a piece of equipment, or another important need that wasn't there one year and is there the next. So that's one of our concerns with the contribution regime as it is, it's the just the no ramp up.

19617 So when we were looking at it, we went back to 20 -- 2,745 and we said, well, what was the original $10 million threshold established based on. So at that time, it was effectively administrative efficiency and to ensure that providers can earn enough revenues before being required to contribute.

19618 And if you do the math, at that time the sufficient revenues was basically .032 percent of the total telecom revenues in the market. So in 2000, it was 31 billion of total telecom revenues, and at 10 million of a threshold that would be .032 percent was considered sufficient revenues before you start to contribute.

19619 So all we did was we took that and we scaled it. We said today, the market's 45.9 billion, .032 percent of that market brings us to 15 million. You can get a similar outcome if you use inflation that's occurred; 31.72 percent is your inflation from 2000 to 20 -- current period, and that would get you a little less at around 13 million. But you can do those types of measures to kind of scale up what was considered at that time and making it modern based on the changing conditions.

19620 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, thank you.

19621 Ms. Hamilton, I think this is probably for you, in terms of your remarks.

19622 I need you to sort of take us through the steps as to how this might happen in terms of what you outline here. You know, something more specifically in terms of, I mean, who leads this process? What is industry's involvement? Is it similar to what Roger's outlined? A sort of national advisory panel for a couple of years and -- to get everyone coordinated and not to drag things out and end up just sort of disappearing into a single point of light eventually.

19623 But how do we advance that? How quickly does that happen? Who chairs the first meeting? That sort of thing.

19624 MS. HAMILTON: Essentially, we see it functioning very similarly to the Canadian Telecommunications Contribution Consortium, where you would have industry players at the table. You'd also bring governments in...

19625 Basically, it's a discussion that needs to happen first between you and the Federal Government. How do you want to move forward? How do we put the structure in place so that essentially a lot of the technical stuff is ironed out?

19626 And then essentially this is just a neutral third party arm's length funding organization that is fairly neutral in terms of it's taking it out of government, necessarily. So those decisions that can sometimes be made in minister's offices and other places, and just take it to the CRTC at an arm's length level, where they would be making funding decisions based on technology and based on just the economics of it. They would be pretty much down to price at that point. And based on need.

19627 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Right.

19628 Just so we're not talking at cross-purposes.

19629 This is all part of the development of a national broadband strategy that we're talking about? And I just kind of want to make sure that -- I mean, obviously, all these -- some of the others have discussed, and you mention it too.

19630 I mean, we have us, the Federal Government, provincial governments in some cases, civic, municipal governments, and I would think industry. And I think it would probably -- or as some have suggested, let me put it that way, that it would be most -- would be very useful to have industrial leaders within that sort of thing.

19631 So is that sort of Roger's-Bell-style, the sort of models they throw out, or are you talking about something significantly different?

19632 MS. HAMILTON: This would be more CRTC-driven at an arm's length level, where they would have input, as would the governments at the onset. When they were putting the project together, taking more a full-scale approach as opposed to, okay, so what are we going to be in for, how much money are we going to be looking at, who is going to be putting money into the pot, who is going to look after this.

19633 Like having that conversation right now, we couldn't be at a more pivotal time, where this government is, where you guys are, to bring the partners together to have a discussion led by the CRTC and figure out how we need to move forward. Industry will come to the table. We're ready, willing, able. We've got the partners that are ready to jump in.

19634 You've got a funding pocket of money for about $500 million on the table right now. How do they want to move forward with that? Have that conversation first, and then basically, once it comes down to the actual nuts and bolts of who's going to disseminate that money, it'll largely just come down to technology and price.

19635 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, that would need -- that would require some significant partnership in a sense with -- might not be the right word but with industry, because for an organisation such as ours to lead, I mean our historical relationship as you are aware, with parliament is not one in which we tell them what to do.

19636 So it would need some -- we can advise, we can make suggestions, but they are parliament and we are not, in that sense.

19637 So, okay I guess that would ---

19638 MS. HAMILTON: Through their legislative authorities they’re going to have to disseminate the power for you to be able to do this. You are absolutely correct.

19639 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Yes, okay, thanks.

19640 MR. TACIT: So if I could just clarify a couple of things there?

19641 First in terms of the steps, I think what’s envisioned is first have a dialog between the government and the CRTC and see if the government’s willing to play ball and do this with you, because you’re right they would have to drive it.

19642 And it has certainly been the case before that this Commission has made recommendations to government on how it should proceed on things -- even the current, you know, internet speed targets were CRTC targets and you’ve suggested legislative changes that are desirable from time to time; many of which have been adopted over the course of time.

19643 So you’re quite right. I mean it’s not perhaps a completely equal role in that sense, but if you drive it in terms of recommendations and the government does come to the table, and then you get input from the other stakeholders into that process, so it’s well defined transparent, clear, then the administration becomes neutral I think you’ve got a pretty good model for moving forward.

19644 Now your concern might be well this is going to take such a long time, what are we going to do?

19645 Reality is you could start this dialog or recommendation tomorrow if you wanted to. It’s not out of the realm of practice for this commission to make some recommendations or rulings from the bench. It did so, for example, in the previous CCTS review in 2011.

19646 So to start the dialog you could start it right away. It will take some time no matter what. It will take some time even if the government acts on its own to spend this 500 million, to put in a program to do that.

19647 It will -- it’s not going to happen tomorrow anyway. We’re just thinking that a coordinated approach during that period is better than an each going their own way approach.

19648 So in other words let’s converge you two as quickly as possible, get you working together, get the input from other stakeholders and move ahead.

19649 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay thank you for that. My concern was that the sound of one hand clapping is not very loud --

--- (LAUGHTER)

19650 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: -- when you get through that stuff, so.

19651 We touched on this before, but slightly when we were talking about fibre and fixed wireless and satellite.

19652 What do you think -- obviously if you want 10 and 3, unless OneWeb is right, that’s not going to happen for satellite and satellite served communities who -- which in general are struggling. They’re sort of on the edge, geographically and in other ways, of society. Many of them anyway. Too many of them.

19653 What would be an appropriate standard for satellite?

19654 MR. TACIT: Well the standard for satellite may be lower and it will be whatever makes the satellite function without crippling it, I suppose, and you have to be realistic about that and we can’t make policy based on speculative technology.

19655 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: It is not good when the satellite (inaudible).

19656 MR. TACIT: No I agree with that.

19657 So, you know, it can’t be -- they can’t be unrealistic targets. So I -- we’ve already conceded that at least for a time that may be the case, but in terms of making even that capacity ---

19658 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Five in one?

19659 MR. TACIT: Perhaps that’s useable. I’m hoping that they would -- the satellite people would agree with that target. If not I think they should really have to demonstrate technologically why that’s not appropriate.

19660 The onus should be on them to demonstrate, at least that much, given that 5/1 is sort of the minimum national conversation we’ve been having.

19661 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: And these targets you would see with that exception, applying equally to urban core and rural remote areas?

19662 MR. TACIT: Yes.

19663 There are other problems to be solves, like, as we mentioned with transport in the north relative to other types of focus in the south and so on.

19664 And a lot of these would go into helping create more usable and affordable internet for people, but there will be some technological constraints based on, you know, if you’re using satellite or not. There’s no way around that.

19665 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: When it comes to funding, Canada Connects and other and subsidy, there’s been quite a bit of discussion the last -- particularly the last few days about funding transport as a preferred -- and perhaps Canada Connects and other funds would be more efficient if that was the focus of the funding. I’d like your view on that issue.

19666 MR. TACIT: I think here we separate what we call the north and although we focused largely our comments on Northwestel we can see that there may be other parts of the north that go into, you know, the northern parts of provinces that have similar very high cost characteristics that might need this approach.

19667 But the north requires a lot of focus on transport, because transport is very expensive, much more expensive by orders of magnitude sometimes hundreds and tens of orders of magnitude compared to the south to be able to get.

19668 And without that transport it’s very hard to develop a more competitive marketplace that will actually help consumers and push technological advancement in the long run. So that is one consideration.

19669 In the south the transport issue is, as we see it, where prices can still be high but for other reasons, I think those are more issues of premature forbearance in some routes.

19670 Where in fact, because we are working with an outdated forbearance test, and because we don’t know in some cases that we have competitive choices because we don’t know who’s there in terms of transport because we don’t have the maps, we can run into inefficiency for service providers that want to offer competitive services.

19671 So I think the solutions are a little bit different in each case. And it stems from this order of magnitude difference in cost and the different environments.

19672 Where you, in the south, do have more duplicated facilities and you need to know where that is and you need to focus on, you know, seeing if you need to modify the forbearance test if there isn’t enough duplication on certain routes of really high speed capacity.

19673 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: So in terms of that northern transport subsidy, it would be primarily focused on the establishment of transport networks or would it be a cost subsidy to access existing transport networks?

19674 MR. TACIT: It -- basically the idea that we proposed -- and I think SSI had a very similar proposal quite in parallel, which is interesting because I guess it shows you that there’s a commonality of what -- of the perception of the problem, is that you would have subsidized rates for transport.

19675 Now the difference between us and SSI, is SSI focused more on the terrestrial Northwestel transport and we are focusing, I believe, more on both the terrestrial and the satellite piece.

19676 So there would have to be a mechanism found to transfer the existing subsidies, the SIP and the PEZ(Ph) subsidies, into -- roll those into instead a transport subsidy, then you would attract other parties to come in using those transport facilities at subsidized rates, wholesale rates, and they’d be able to roll out the access and so on.

19677 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: And that should, by creating that theoretically -- by creating that competitive framework would allow residents of the north to have access to comparable retail rates?

19678 MR. TACIT: Yes, certainly pricing. Like -- now we may still have some technological constraints in terms of speeds and so on, as I mentioned, but it will certainly help bring down prices quite a bit if you have -- if you took that approach, we believe.

19679 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay, one of the impacts of that, the way I understood it when you outlined it, was you’d be looking at transferring the existing wireline subsidy into that framework and I’m concerned that that would strand wireline.

19680 MR. TACIT: And I think, you know, that’s a fair observation and critique.

19681 And I think the way that SSI dealt with that, as I recall, is they proposed a gradual transitioning from one to the other and I think that that’s probably a wise way of dealing with that in order to make sure that it doesn’t overnight strand people.

19682 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: So that would be at the customer end where they could choose to remain, I mean, I -- it’s very difficult to figure out how that would work for Northwestel because, for instance -- as the -- you know, the provider of, primarily, -- SSI does as well but of a voice service like that, as money moves out, I mean the cost of maintaining these networks is not insignificant in terms of that.

19683 So how would that transfer occur?

19684 MR. TACIT: Oh, as I’m saying, it wouldn’t happen in a flash cut. You’d have a gradual reduction of one subsidy and a gradual increase of the other.

19685 As you start increasing the other, you’re going to start attracting other players who then are going to -- you know, be able to offer services at reduced prices at the retail end.

19686 So I think that’s ---

19687 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Are you talking about VoIP services?

19688 MR. TACIT: It could be VoIP. It could be -- it could be existing circuit switch that -- you know, I mean I think the technologies will evolve to fill the need and people will buy whatever they think is most efficient for them.

19689 The reality is that, you know, the wireline business is in decline everywhere and VoIP is increasing much more quickly than -- so it’s where the market is headed.

19690 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: I know. It’s a little bit like trying to whip the tablecloth off and not spill the wine at the same time.

19691 MR. TACIT: I agree we have to find a way to do it to calibrate it in a delicate way, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.

19692 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: In terms of adoptability, it was one of the issues that was presented to us. What do you think -- what role do you think your members play in advancing the cause of adoptability throughout the country, encouraging people to access networks, signing new people up as opposed to existing ---

19693 MR. TACIT: Well, look we compete for people’s business, so we go after every possible customer which I guess increases adoption, right?

19694 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Let me put it this way; is it better with you or without you?

19695 MR. TACIT: Well ---

19696 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: I know the answer to that, so that’s a fat pitch. So go ahead, swing for the fences.

19697 MR. TACIT: Well, I certainly appreciate having this client, I can tell you that.

19698 But no, I think, you know, we provide value to consumers. That’s why we’re here. We believe we fill a niche that others -- incumbents in particular don’t, and people vote with their wallets and come to us for that reason, and that increases adoption.

19699 The other thing we do -- and this is important and it also ties in to an earlier question of yours, by providing lower cost alternatives, you’ll see that a lot of the customers of CNOC members are people who care a lot. They’re very price sensitive.

19700 Now, whether that’s because of their income or for other reasons, we don’t know, but they are -- they are factually very price sensitive.

19701 So we provide that option. Perhaps the people who might choose to not have a permanent home connection and rely solely on a mobile phone or something in a less optimal solution.

19702 And it’s also that price sensitivity that is one of the reasons, you know, we said that this whole notion of a skinny internet package is problematic because it increases other prices along the way for packages that people might need.

19703 MR. HICKEY: If I could just add for one second. I just want to build on the niche comments.

19704 You know, many of our members pride themselves on finding a market that is either -- and not using the same terms as we’re talking today, but just un-marketed to, unserved as from a direct kind of marketing campaign, whether it be a language or a culture or a, you know, place in town or a very technically -- technically- minded, and they drive towards those communities.

19705 And you see some responses that maybe you don’t get from just a broad based type marketing.

19706 And so by driving to those niches you can also ensure that adoption also grows as people find a company that they can respond to and want to make their service provider.

19707 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay. Speaking of price sensitivity, I think I asked this earlier and to be fair I will ask you as well, not to be repetitive but to be fair.

19708 Various folks have come before us with good intentions and great ambitions from time to time. And as I was saying earlier, at the end of the first week, we were looking at average internet bills maybe going up by $2. By the end of the second week, it was 5. And then we were talking 8 to 10 earlier this week.

19709 What sort of tolerance do you think there is among your customers and clients for increases on their internet bills in order to fund and address some of the issues we’ve been talking about?

19710 MR. HICKEY: Yeah, it’s one that we -- that’s difficult for us because a lot of our -- a lot of our members offer highly competitive rates in the market today. And we went through them a little bit ago where they’re already significantly low.

19711 And a lot of their customers, as Chris was talking before, are just very price sensitive. And $1 to $2 may not sound very much, but it does make an impact or a difference to a very price-sensitive customer.

19712 And then you can’t really add that on by -- you can’t look at it as a silo because costs are generally rising. So it’s not just a “let’s do this with a 1 to 2, let alone a $5 to $10 increase.”

19713 So it’s difficult to look at it as a silo, especially when 48 percent of Canadians have already responded that they don’t like the price of their existing service.

19714 And I would also just be remiss to say we’ve looked at adding these types of charges before. We’ve recently dealt with paper bills that people didn’t like having an additional bill charge. So those were addressed. And the passing through of the Local Programming Improvement Fund, when that occurred, there was customer outcry on that front.

19715 So I think when you look at quantums of similar situations we’ve been through, there is quite a large amount of sensitivity to even $1 to $2-type rate increases.

19716 MR. TACIT: And just to add to that, and I fear that we are on the higher side, not the $1 and $2 side, particularly if we want to have a more robust longer-term solution for Canadians. Which is why we are much more focused on a government broadly based tax driven solution than what we can do in the closed system of the telecom industry to fund this.

19717 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: So the solution -- your recommendation, as I take it from your oral presentation, is Ms. Hamilton’s advice to have the federal government, which has the power to tax everything, take it on in order to fund these subsidies?

19718 MS. HAMILTON: That’s true.

19719 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Except in the Northwestel case, where you want a transfer of existing subsidy.

19720 MS. HAMILTON: Industry will come to the table and we’ll partner on the projects, but there needs to be a significant influx of cash from the federal government and a long-term strategy to take us where we need to go.

19721 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay. So is the 500 million in current federal funding, is that sufficient to get this done, given that it’s over five years? And if yes, it’s one thing. If no, how much should it be?

19722 MR. TACIT: Well, we’ve seen the numbers from a lot of parties and, as I said, because we -- you know, we are of the view that we want the solution to be a longer-term solution and not just be sort of doing it in increments, we think some of the larger numbers are probably more accurate.

19723 We haven’t been able to quantify it ourselves precisely but we think that -- and that’s our fear that we do think some of the larger numbers are the correct numbers and that that’s beyond the capacity of the industry to deal with, without significant market distortion, which we would want to avoid.

19724 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: So even if we went with Bell said 1.7 billion, OpenMedia said 2 billion, but that number was a little old. But going all Carl Sagan on you, it’s billions and billions, right?

19725 MR. TACIT: Yeah.

19726 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: So 3, something like that, so ---

19727 MR. TACIT: It’s still ---

19728 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Putting that in context with $100 million a year, right?

19729 MR. TACIT: Exactly.

19730 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: And but there is matching private investment that goes along with this.

19731 MR. TACIT: Absolutely. Nobody is saying that this is 100 percent funded with -- and that’s why we say -- that’s why Lynne said, you know, we’re coming -- we’d come to the table as willing partners. But these are cases that, by definition, without some assistance, you know, require help.

19732 Bill has had some firsthand experience. Perhaps he can share that with you.

19733 MR. SANDIFORD: When you asked the first question, is the 500 million enough, I mean I was simply going to say no, it’s not.

19734 We saw -- the original program for “Connecting Canadians” was highly contested with a lot of projects that did not get funded, that could have funded other parts of the country, simply because there just wasn’t enough funds available.

19735 You know, the number is in the billions of billions of dollars and it’s going to take some time and there will be matching funds to help match that.

19736 There’s a lot of people who are willing to invest and invest heavily but the matching funds need to be there.

19737 MS. HAMILTON: And all I would say is that by using the model that we're putting forward, you can assume that you're going to get the best bang for your buck and you're going to get it where you need it, as opposed to where folks want to give it.

19738 MR. SANDIFORD: The other thing that I thought I'd mention as well too is that the 500 million that's been recently announced, to my knowledge, there hasn’t been a declaration yet that there is matching funds attached to that. I mean we're using that base on the assumption that the last 300 million had matching funds.

19739 But there's no -- there's no sense of exactly how that 500 million is going to be deployed as of yet. We don’t know that it's going to have matching funds with it.

19740 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Okay. So the sky is the limit, right? I mean we all have to be reasonable but a doubling of -- I mean if you wanted to get there quickly, it would take a doubling of that investment. Would that be fair to say?

19741 MR. SANDIFORD: Yeah.

19742 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: I mean the world is changing very quickly. That's -- I mean that's been made clear to us by many that, you know -- and it's been made clear too that these funds have been effective and there's, you know, hundreds of thousands of homes served that weren’t five years ago. But, you know, when we said 5 and 1 five years ago, people thought, “Well, you'll never get there” and, I mean, we didn't get all the way there but we got way passed -- I mean, demand grew and government shifted and made it more necessary to have -- I mean, a lot has changed in a very short period of time.

19743 So if we wanted to address the concerns of those who had said that Canada is just going to slip farther behind, this would be the time to be very aggressive about this build.

19744 MR. TACIT: Yeah, absolutely, it would be. And, you know, I think we're at an inflection point at a country. You know, there's been I think perhaps not enough attention given to our national productivity and, in fact, one the mandates this Commission has is to promote the efficiency of telecommunications, both nationally and internationally, not to mention the internal productivity that can be leveraged.

19745 This is a very analogous project to, you know, the railways of the 1800’s and it could be just as beneficial in terms of its impact for just as long if we get it right and do it quickly. Or else, we could be bypassed by those who do it and be left behind and that's why we're concerned.

19746 When we say that, you know, you folks have great ability to collect the data that's compelling about what it costs, where it's needed, how such a transparent program might be designed, the federal government, you know, has the authority to come out and actually create the program and to fund it, and it needs that broad-based funding. We just can't do it entirely out of the pockets of this industry to achieve those objectives.

19747 MS. HAMILTON: And I’d be remiss if I didn’t say we appreciate the federal government making that investment. Like that's huge. There are many competing political priorities and others throughout the country and we are grateful that they recognize that but the problem is great and the challenge ahead of us is huge. And if you're going to put a strategy together, let's be forward thinking and figure out what we -- where the puck is headed, not where it is today.

19748 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: So this is probably my last question but you never know. I've put this out before sort of for pressing issues in front of us. The north which we -- Northwestel territory basically plus Katimavik, filling the gap in those sort of semi-rural, sub-rural territories, other remote and First Nations communities, and affordability. So how do we prioritize those? Which do you think should be first?

19749 MR. HICKEY: It's a very difficult question, to be perfectly honest, but ---

19750 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: You can disagree with the question and say ---

19751 MR. HICKEY: Oh, no, if I were to take the “we should leave no one behind” ---

19752 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: It can’t be possibly ranked and -- but I just want to get your perceptions on that.

19753 MR. HICKEY: It's one of the hard realities that we have to face as we go forward to deploy.

19754 You know, I think as we look at things, there's, you know, critical areas where broadband as a quality of life is very important and you mentioned things like First Nations and things like their, I would say, kind of critical infrastructure in many ways that they're lacking now. We think that one is very important and that kind of follows the line with places without connectivity. So that's kind of the types that we would say we need to focus on those first where there's either absence and it's a critical issue, or absence and you have no connectivity. And let's fill those gaps first.

19755 Following that, I think then you'd have to look at the issues of affordability. I mean we understand that affordability is a concern but that one, we have to make sure we get everyone connected first I think before we can start saying we need to start addressing items such affordability, because affordability really only matters once you have connectivity and there's places out there have no connectivity and wished in many ways they could have an affordability problem.

19756 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: It's very inexpensive when you don’t have it.

19757 MR. HICKEY: Yes, exactly. Oh, yes, or costly I guess as Lynne would say. So I know that doesn't give you a one, two, three, but that's kind of -- we're very sensitive to affordability but we just think that has to become after we get people connected.

19758 MR. TACIT: And we did also, as part of our position, you know, indicate that most of these facilities should be subject to a wholesale access obligation. So in terms of the affordability component, the competitive aspect would also look -- help look after that once people are connected or have their improved facilities in place.

19759 COMMISSIONER MENZIES: Thank you. Those are my questions and the broadening of your wingspan was noted at today’s meeting as well. So thank you. My colleagues might have some questions.

19760 THE CHAIRPERSON: Apparently not. So those are all our questions and I do want to thank you for your participation in the hearing. It is valuable and very much appreciated.

19761 I have checked with the Secretary and apparently she doesn't have any final comments.

19762 Alors, ce n’est qu’à moi de clore l’audience et, avant de conclure cette audience, permettez-moi de remercier diverses personnes qui ont contribué à cette importante audience.

19763 Premièrement, je voudrais souligner le travail des interprètes et des sténographes qui s’assurent que rien ne se -- que rien de ce qui est dit en cours d’audience n'est perdu, y compris la façon que je viens de lire cette phrase.

19764 Un merci également à l’équipe de CPAC qui a diffusé la présente audience sur leur site web.

19765 I would also like to thank all the reporters, bloggers, and social media users who bring the hearing beyond these walls and into the digital world so that those who can’t attend or participate directly can still keep up with the hearing as it unfolds.

19766 But please remember, in order for your views to be considered, they must be on the public record. I want to thank everyone who has participated in our online discussion forum throughout the hearing. Your voices have been heard and put on the record.

19767 D’ailleurs, il nous reste encore quelques heures pour partager vos opinions sur le forum en ligne qui sera disponible jusqu’à 20 heures ce soir, heure de l’Est.

19768 Je voudrais également remercier mes collègues du panel qui se dévouent à plein lors de chacune des audiences auxquelles ils participent. Celle-ci a été particulièrement très exhaustive et je les remercie de leur rigueur et de leur professionnalisme.

19769 Je voudrais aussi reconnaître le travail acharné du personnel du CRTC, que ce soit ici à l’audience ou encore à partir de nos quartiers généraux ou des bureaux régionaux. Vos conseils sont toujours d'une grande aide pour le panel dans sa prise de décision. Merci à vous tous.

19770 But I would like to give a particular thank to those Canadians who answered our invitation to come to the table to share their views. And I mean here both the witness table, the physical table in front of us, but also the notional table of our various submissions we received through both analog and digital channels.

19771 As I mentioned at the beginning of the second week of this hearing, the Panel acknowledged that broadband is vital to economic, social, democratic, and cultural success of individuals and communities. So, in a sense, we're taking that vitality as a given.

19772 In doing so, the Panel reframed the focus of proceeding, called on parties to explore the elements that should be included in a national broadband strategy for Canada.

19773 I also mentioned that this is possibly our best last chance to create together a national broadband strategy through an open and transparent process, based on evidence from Canadians, to achieve it, to the extent possible, through consensus and implement it through shared responsibility.

19774 But I remind everyone although I’ve used the word “strategy”, strategy comes with action. We are looking for concrete actions to move forward.

19775 Nous devons maintenant nous pencher sur la grande quantité de renseignements obtenus au cours de cette instance publique, et ultimement parvenir à des décisions. Évidemment, toute information soumise sera considérée avec soin.

19776 J’en profite également pour rappeler à toutes les parties qu’il y a eu des changements dans les dates limites prévues pour les soumissions des répliques.

19777 In order to provide parties with additional times to review new information that will be added to the record of this proceeding and provide their views on a national broadband action strategy for Canada, the deadline for filing the final written submissions have been extended to May 25^th, 2016, and, in addition, parties will be provided with the opportunity to file final reply comments by June 13^th, 2016.

19778 This is not about filing new evidence. These final phases are about written arguments based on the pre-existing evidentiary record.

19779 Je vous remercie encore une fois pour votre participation. La présente audience orale est maintenant terminée.

19780 Merci bien.

--- Upon adjourning at 1:38 p.m.

REPORTERS

Sean Prouse

Mathieu Bastien-Marcil

Lucie Morin-Brock

Renée Vaive

Lyne Charbonneau

Karen Pare

Ian Schryber

Krista Campbell

Kathy Poirier

Karen Noganosh

Mathieu Philippe

Date modified:

2016-04-28