ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Distribution List

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Ottawa, 1 April 2016

Our reference:  8663-T117-201513325


Distribution list

RE:  Part 1 application by TekSavvy Solutions Inc. in respect of ensuring transitional wholesale access – Request for information

Dear Madam, Sirs:

The Commission has received the above-mentioned Part 1 application by TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TekSavvy). The parties identified below are to provide the Commission with their responses to the following questions.

Responses to the interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, and served on all other parties by 11 April 2016.

Written arguments may be filed with the Commission with respect to the responses to these interrogatories, serving copies to all parties by 18 April 2016.
Please repeat the questions in your response.


Questions for Rogers Communications Canada Inc., TekSavvy, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Telus Communications Company, and the Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.

  1. In Telecom Decision 2015-40, the Commission directed the industry to address a number of issues relating to the provision of wholesale high-speed access services, including the “advance notice of network changes”, through the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC).
    1. Comment on whether the guidelines currently being developed by CISC will address the matter of the appropriate notification period, and associated notification informational requirements, associated with network changes similar to the ones made by Rogers in the Bayview Mills Condominium Townhouse community (Bayview Mills)?
    2. In light of your response to (a.), comment on the appropriateness of addressing the issue of the notification period required for network changes similar to the ones made by Rogers in Bayview Mills as part of the current proceeding while the discussion of the CISC 1540 working group is ongoing?
  1. Comment on the possibility and practicality of using a standardized notice form for notification of network changes that affect competitor access to facilities such as the one proposed by TekSavvy below:

Notification of Withdrawal of Service

Name of carrier

Contact information for carrier

Notice reference number

Affected network element

Technical description of the network change

Geographic scope of the affected area

Expected time of carrier notice to residents

Expected start time

Expected end time

Number of affected TPIA end-users

Addresses of current affected TPIA end-users

Network upgrades

Questions for Rogers

  1. Provide a description of the nature of Rogers’ network changes in Bayview Mills and a diagram of the network infrastructure and its constituent elements, before and after the changes. Confirm whether the technology used is radio frequency over glass (RFoG).

In answering, Rogers is to clearly identify the nature of any relevant equipment and the location of ifs deployment.

  1. Provide a list of the network components and facilities that were used prior to the upgrade and are still part of the upgraded network.
  2. Provide a list of the network components and facilities that had to be installed in order to upgrade the network, as well as the cost of those elements (e.g. implementation cost, cost of new elements, cost of upgrading existing elements, etc.).
  3. Did the upgrade to Rogers’ network in Bayview Mills require the deployment of:
    1. optical line termination (“OLT”) in the cable carrier head-end;
    2. optical network termination (“ONT”) equipment at the end-user premise;
    3. any other optical network equipment?
  4. Did Rogers make any similar network upgrades within its territory prior to 22 July 2015? If so, did it allow continued access to its services for:
    1. end-users of Internet service providers (ISPs) that were using the service prior to the upgrade?
    2. new end-users of these ISPs?
  5. Provide a comparison of the technical capabilities and differences, including bandwidth, signal quality and speed threshold, between the fibre to the node (FTTN) technology used prior to the network change in Bayview Mils and the current technology used.
  6. Explain what it would entail for Rogers to add a new TekSavvy customer on the upgraded network, in the area where it would have previously been possible for TekSavvy to add customers. Compare it to adding a TekSavvy customer on the prior FTTN network.

Please file your response with the Commission using the secured service “My CRTC Account” (Partner Log In or GCKey).


Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

Distribution list:
Bram Abramson, 
David Watt,
William Sandiford, CNOC,
Dorothea Schramm,
Andy Kaplan-Myrth,
Josiane Lord,
Stephen Schmidt,
W.N. (Bill) Beckman,
Geoff White, 
Jean-François Mezei,
Tyler Tyler,
Dan Awesomely,

Date modified: