Telecom Procedural Letter Adressed to Anne McMillan (Distributel Communications Limited)

Ottawa, 22 July 2016

Our reference: 1011-NOC2016-0192

By EMAIL

Ms. Anne McMillan
Distributel Communications Limited
421 Bentley Street, Units 7, 8, 9
Markham, Ontario  L3R 9T2
anne.mcmillan@distributel.ca

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

Dear Madam:

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.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Andrew Falcone
Senior Manager, Strategic Planning and Research
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Suneil Kanjeekal, CRTC, 613-668-6561, suneil.kanjeekal@crtc.gc.ca
Josiane Lord, CRTC, 819-576-2568, josiane.lord@crtc.gc.ca
Eric Macfarlane, CRTC, 819-997-4389, Eric.Macfarlane@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (1)


Questions:

  1. Considering your intervention with respect to permitting differential pricing of certain categories, classes, types, etc. of applications:
    1. Define precisely what categories of service for which you think differential pricing would be acceptable
    2. What criteria you would use to define categories of service?
    3. What services would be included and excluded from them, why?
    4. How would the distinction between categories of service be compliant with section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.
    5. Explain how, technically, you would identify data from those categories of service for differential pricing purposes.
    6. Explain whether your suggested approach to identify data from those categories of service would be compatible with the different privacy requirements currently in place in Canada, including those from the Commission’s Internet traffic management practices framework.
    7. Explain whether the use of a virtual private network (VPN) would impede an end-customers’ ability to access zero-rated content in your suggested approach.
  2. 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: