ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada)

This page has been archived on the Web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, 22 July 2016

Our reference:  1011-NOC2016-0192


Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Senior Legal Counsel
Bell Canada
19th floor
160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4

Re: Examination of differential practices related to Internet data plans, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2016-192, 22 July 2016 – Requests for Information

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to paragraph 37 of Telecom Notice of Consultation 2016-192, attached are requests for information from the Commission.

Responses to these requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by 12 August 2016. The responses must be received, not merely sent, by this date.


Original signed by

Andrew Falcone
Senior Manager, Strategic Planning and Research
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Suneil Kanjeekal, CRTC, 613-668-6561,
Josiane Lord, CRTC, 819-576-2568,
Eric Macfarlane, CRTC, 819-997-4389,

Attach. (1)



  1. In Bell Canada (CRTC) 20May16-2 (page 2), Bell stated that the Telenav GPS Navigation application is zero-rated for customers who subscribe to the application. Provide the commercial agreement between Telenav Inc. and Bell Canada regarding this application.
  2. For all mobile wireless plans with a 2 gigabyte data cap or higher, provide or estimate the following information with regard to the music streaming applications: 8tracks, Analekta, Bandcamp, Deezer, Digitally Imported, Google Play Music, Groove, Jango, Jazz Radio, RadioTunes, ROCKRADIO, Slacker Radio, Spotify, and Stingray Music. For the period of 1 June 2015 to 30 June 2016, provide:
    1. the number of wireless subscribers using each app;
    2. the percentage of your total wireless subscriber base this represents;
    3. the average monthly data in gigabyte(s) consumed for the use of each app by those customers in a); and
    4. the percentage of their monthly data use this represents.
    5. If available, also provide responses for (a) through (d) above separately for subscribers using LTE enabled mobile phones
  3. To assist the Commission to gain a better understanding as to the relationship between differential pricing and data caps:
    1. What factors, considerations, criteria do you consider when determining data caps levels?
    2. What factors support a higher cap?
    3. What factors supports a lower cap?
    4. Does zero-rating factor into cap setting now? If yes, why and if not, why not? Is your assessment likely to change in the next 2 years and, if yes, how? If the answer is no, why not?
    5. Annually since 2011 (1 January - 31 December) and ending June 2016, provide separately, your total number of i) wireline and ii) fixed wireless access Internet customers. For each, provide the percentage of these customers that are subject to data caps:
      1. of 20 gigabytes and under
      2. Between 20 and 75 gigabytes
      3. Between 75 and 150 gigabytes
      4. 150 and 300 gigabytes
      5. 300 gigabytes or more
    6. Annually since 2011 (1 January - 31 December) and ending June 2016, provide separately, your total number of i) mobile wireless and ii) satellite internet customers. For each, provide the percentage of these customers that are subject to data caps:
      1. of 500 megabyte and under
      2. Between 500 and 2 gigabytes
      3. Between 2 megabytes and 5 gigabytes
      4. Between 5 and 10 gigabytes
      5. 10 gigabytes or more
  4. Considering paragraph 12 of intervention number 137 from AT&T Mobility Canada Co and with respect to the Internet of Things (loT):
    1. Do you have any arrangements with device providers that result in your customers being exempt from data charges that would otherwise apply in relation to the use of an internet-connected device?
    2. If you have any such arrangements, what percentage of your customers would be subject to such data charge exemptions?
    3. If you have such arrangements, what factors and considerations determine whether you, the ISP, will agree to exempt your customers from data charges?
    4. If you do not have any such arrangements, why not?  What factors and considerations have led you not to enter into any such arrangements?
Date modified: