ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Distribution list

Ottawa, 4 November 2016

Our reference: 1011-NOC2016-0116

BY EMAIL

Distribution list

Re:  Requests for information related to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2016-116 on the Establishment of a regulatory framework for next-generation 9-1-1 in Canada

Dear Madam/Sir:

In order to assist the Commission in its consideration of the issues raised in the context of the Notice of Consultation referenced above in the subject line, Commission staff is requesting information from certain parties.

Attached to this letter are requests for information addressed to the National Pensioners Federation, Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of B.C. and Public Advocacy Centre (collectively “NPF-COSCO-PIAC”), Québecor Média inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc., Shaw Telecom G.P. and WIND Mobile Corp.  These parties are requested to respond to the requests for information addressed to them.

Responses to these requests for information are to be filed via My CRTC Account by 22 November 2016.

Responses should be set out in a single document, with each question reproduced prior to the relevant response, in order to facilitate accessibility and administrative processing.  These responses will be published on the Commission’s website under the file number identified above.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Eric Bowles at eric.bowles@crtc.gc.ca

Sincerely,

Eric Bowles
Legal counsel
Legal Sector

c.c.: Renée Doiron (renee.doiron@crtc.gc.ca); James Ndirangu (james.ndirangu@crtc.gc.ca); Alexander Ly (alexander.ly@crtc.gc.ca)

Enclosures

Distribution List

National Pensioners Federation, Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of B.C. and
Public Advocacy Centre (lawford@piac.ca; alau@piac.ca)
Québecor Média inc. (regaffairs@quebecor.com; dennis.beland@quebecor.com)
Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com;
simon-pierre.olivier@rci.rogers.com; Nathalie.sageau@rci.rogers.com)
Shaw Telecom G.P. (regulatory@sjrb.ca)
WIND Mobile Corp. (eantecol@windmobile.ca)

Requests for Information addressed to National Pensioners Federation, Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of B.C. and Public Advocacy Centre

1. In your intervention and responses to requests for information issued on 22 July 2016, you propose the creation of a national administrator that would have responsibility for such matters as the implementation of national standards and the allocation of NG9-1-1 network funding, including decisions on the network related tasks and activities that would be eligible for funding.
   
   Explain, with supporting rationale, whether your proposal entails the delegation of powers or oversight authority whether specifically authorized in the Telecommunications Act or not, and, if yes, why such delegation is lawful and appropriate. If not, explain the legal basis for the national administrator and the powers proposed to be given to it.
   
   
2. At paragraph 30 of your 20 May 2016 intervention you indicate that your proposed national administrator would “direct funding to ILECs or other TSPs for those areas the administrator deems requires maintenance or upgrades.”
   
   Explain what role, if any, the Commission would play with regards to determining what network maintenance or upgrades are required and allocating funds for such exercises, including the jurisdictional basis for such role.
   
   
3. Explain whether the Commission could require the operator of the national NG9-1-1 network contemplated by your proposal to upgrade or modify facilities and to build out infrastructure or operate third party owned infrastructure necessary to provide end users with access to NG9-1-1 services.  To the extent that your answer to this question relies on section 42 of the Telecommunications Act, explain what underlying power the exercise of which by the Commission would provide for recourse to section 42.
   
   
4. Clarify the following matters with regards to the national administrator of the NG9-1-1 network contemplated under your proposal:
   1. Would the administrator be an individual, an entity or a collection of entities and, if an entity or a collection of entities, which entity or entities would constitute the administrator.
   2. How would the administrator be chosen and what, if any, role would the Commission have in this determination, including the jurisdictional basis for such role.
   3. If the administrator would be composed of a plurality of individuals or entities, how would decisions be made and what role, if any, would the Commission have with regards to determining membership and establishment of governance documents, including the jurisdictional basis for such role.
5. In your submissions, you propose that the NG9-1-1 network be funded by way of the national contribution fund (NCF) but that the allocation of funds to the NG9-1-1 operator would be determined by the NG9-1-1 network administrator contemplated in your proposal:
   1. Would the administrator be an individual, an entity or a collection of entities and, if an entity or a collection of entities, which entity or entities would constitute the administrator.
   2. How would the administrator be chosen and what, if any, role would the Commission have in this determination, including the jurisdictional basis for such role.
   3. If the administrator would be composed of a plurality of individuals or entities, how would decisions be made and what role, if any, would the Commission have with regards to determining membership and establishment of governance documents, including the jurisdictional basis for such role.
6. What jurisdiction, if any, does the Commission have to establish privacy obligations governing personal information that is not retained by a TSP but that is simply transmitted over telecommunications facilities, for example, personal information that is pulled by a PSAP from a third party operated database?

Requests for Information addressed to Québecor Média inc.

1. In your intervention and responses to requests for information issued on 22 July 2016, you propose the creation of a national consortium that would have responsibility for several functions, including responsibilities associated with NG9-1-1 funding, the recovery of such funds from TSPs and interconnection with the NG9-1-1 network(s).

   Explain, with supporting rationale, how your proposal is consistent with the Telecommunications Act, including the requirement that, subject to the Commission’s exercise of its powers under section 34 of that Act, no Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission.

   In answering this question, explain, with supporting rationale, whether your company’s proposal entails the delegation of powers or oversight authority whether specifically authorized in the Act or not, and, if yes, why such delegation is lawful and appropriate. If not, explain the legal basis for the national consortium and the powers proposed to be given to it.

2. In your response Québecor Media(CRTC)22 Jul 16-9(f) you foresee the possibility that the NG9-1-1 network operator may not be considered a telecommunications common carrier under the Telecommunications Act. Should this situation arise, what would be the consequences for:
   1. the Commission’s capacity to approve interconnection arrangements between the NG9-1-1 network operator and TSPs;
   2. the Commission’s capacity to impose conditions of service on the NG9-1-1 network operator;
   3. the Commission’s capacity to set standards for the technical aspects of telecommunications associated with facilities operated by the NG9-1-1 network operator;
   4. the Commission’s capacity to require that new facilities to be operated by the NG9-1-1 network operator be built or that existing facilities be updated. Should your response be based on section 42 of the Telecommunications Act, explain what underlying power the exercise of which by the Commission would provide for recourse to section 42.
3. Describe how the Telecommunications Actgives the Commission the capacity to order telecommunications service providers to create the NG9-1-1 network management consortium proposed by your company.
4. What mechanism would be available to the Commission to require the NG9-1-1 network management consortium proposed by your company to admit an entity as a member?
5. In your response Québecor Média(CRTC)22Jul16-10 you contemplate the possibility that NG9-1-1 funding form part of agreements relating to TSP participation in the entity created to manage and operate the NG9-1-1 network.
   1. Is your company contemplating having the amounts to be paid by TSPs established by the entity created to manage and operate the NG9-1-1 network, and if so, what role would the Commission have in establishing these amounts, including the jurisdictional basis for such role?
   2. If NG9-1-1 funding is to be sourced from TSPs, describe an example or examples of mechanisms or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine the amount of money to be collected from the TSPs (e.g. which entities would need to contribute to the funding of NG9-1-1 and on what basis).
   3. Would the consortium being contemplated by your company have the responsibility of disbursing funds to the NG9-1-1 network operator for the purpose of operating the NG9-1-1 network and, if yes:
      1. Provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of operating the NG9-1-1 network(s).
      2. Whether and what role the Commission would have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight?
      3. What enforcement mechanisms would be available to the consortium and the Commission to ensure that funds disbursed to the NG9-1-1 network operator are used for the purposes for which they were disbursed?
   4. Would the consortium being contemplated by your company have the responsibility of disbursing funds to the NG9-1-1 network operator for the purpose of building out or upgrading the NG9-1-1 network and, if yes:
      1. Provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of building out or upgrading the NG9-1-1 network(s).
      2. Whether and what role would the Commission have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight?
      3. What enforcement mechanisms would be available to the consortium and the Commission to ensure that funds disbursed to the NG9-1-1 network operator are used for the purposes for which they were disbursed?
6. In your 20 May, 2016 intervention, you contemplate a process by which the Commission would approve the governance structure and responsibilities of the consortium proposed by your company, as well as the definition of the architectural parameters for the NG9-1-1 network to be implemented. Describe in detail the Commission’s jurisdiction to approve the governance structure and responsibilities of the consortium in question.
7. In your response Québecor Media(CRTC)22Jul16-9(h) you foresee that the selection process for the national operator of the NG9-1-1 network would be repeated at the end of each contract term governing the provision of the NG9-1-1 network.
   1. If, at the conclusion of a bid solicitation, a new NG9-1-1 network operator were selected by the consortium, what would happen to the existing facilities?
   2. If a facility transfer were necessary, and if that transfer were not on a voluntary basis, would the transfer be mandatory? Should your response be based on section 42 of the Telecommunications Act, explain what underlying power the exercise of which by the Commission would provide for recourse to section 42. Your response to this question should account for situations where the NG9-1-1 network operator does not qualify as a telecommunications common carrier.
8. In your response Québecor Media(CRTC)22Jul16-9(i) you indicate that original TSPs would be obligated to interconnect to the NG9-1-1 network. What role would the Commission have in establishing interconnection terms?

Requests for Information addressed to Rogers Communications Canada Inc.

1. In your intervention and responses to requests for information issued on 22 July 2016, you propose the creation of a national consortium that would have responsibility for several functions, including responsibilities associated with NG9-1-1 funding, the recovery of such funds from TSPs and interconnection with the NG9-1-1 network(s).

   Explain, with supporting rationale, how your proposal is consistent with the Telecommunications Act, including the requirement that, subject to the Commission’s exercise of its powers under section 34 of that Act, no Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission.

   In answering this question, explain, with supporting rationale, whether your company’s proposal entails the delegation of powers or oversight authority whether specifically authorized in the Act or not, and, if yes, why such delegation is lawful and appropriate. If not, explain the legal basis for the national consortium and the powers proposed to be given to it.

2. In your response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-5, you indicate that membership in your proposed national consortium should be mandatory for all TSPs.

   (a) Provide a detailed explanation of the jurisdictional basis for mandating both the creation of and participation in your proposed consortium.  In answering this question, cite all relevant statutory provisions of the Telecommunications Act and explain how these provisions confer upon the Commission the authority to implement the company’s proposal;

(b) What legal mechanisms are available to the Commission to require the consortium to accept a TSP as a member?

3. In your response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-5, you indicate that your proposed national consortium could assume responsibility for, amongst other matters: NG9-1-1 funding, establishing and maintaining interconnection between the TSPs and the PSAPs and establishing network standards. 

   In this same response you suggest that consideration could be given to having TSPs collect monies from their subscribers and remit these funds to the proposed consortium.

(a) Elaborate on your suggestion that the proposed national consortium would be responsible for NG9-1-1 funding.  In answering this question, clarify:
1. whether the consortium would establish the amount of funds needed from the TSPs and, if yes, whether and what role the Commission would have with respect to determining the overall amounts required, the allocation of responsibility for funding amongst members and the collection of monies from members, including the jurisdictional basis for such role;
2. whether the consortium would be responsible for disbursing funds to the NG9-1-1 network operator(s) for purposes of operating the NG9-1-1 network(s) and, if yes:
1. provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of operating the NG9-1-1 network(s);
2. whether and what role the Commission would have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight;
3. what enforcement mechanisms would be available to the consortium and to the Commission to ensure that funds were spent for the purposes for which they were disbursed;
3. whether the consortium would be responsible for disbursing funds to the NG9-1-1 network operator(s) for the purpose of building out or upgrading NG9-1-1 network(s) and, if yes:
1. provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of building out or upgrading the NG9-1-1 network(s);
2. whether and what role the Commission would have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight;
3. what enforcement mechanisms would be available to the consortium and to the Commission to ensure that funds were spent for the purposes for which they were disbursed.
4. Elaborate on your suggestion that the proposed consortium could be responsible for establishing and maintaining interconnection between the TSPs and the PSAPs. To the extent that the proposed consortium would be responsible for establishing and maintaining interconnection between the originating networks and the NG9-1-1 network(s):
1. What, if any, legal mechanism(s) would the consortium apply  to impose its interconnection arrangements on the operators of originating networks;
2. What, if any, oversight the Commission would have with respect to mandating interconnection and the establishment of terms and conditions associated with such interconnection;
3. Should you foresee a role for the Commission with regards to mandating interconnection and establishing the terms and conditions associated with such interconnection, whether such a role would find its statutory basis in section 40 of the Telecommunications Act and, if yes, what would delineate the specific roles assumed by the Commission and the proposed consortium having regard for the fact that the jurisdiction provided under section 40 is limited to Canadian carriers.
5. In your response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-11, you indicate that your company foresees the possibility of having a single national NG9-1-1 network operator responsible for routing all 9-1-1 voice calls to a PSAP.  In this same response you explain that the NG9-1-1 network operator could be chosen by your proposed national consortium through a competitive RFP process and that this NG9-1-1 network operator would build out a national ESInet or inherit existing ESInets.
1. Explain what, if any, oversight the Commission would assume over the NG9-1-1 network operator and the statutory basis for such oversight;
2. Explain whether the Commission could require the NG9-1-1 network operator to upgrade or modify facilities and to build out infrastructure necessary to provide end users with access to NG9-1-1 services.  To the extent that your answer to this question relies on section 42 of the Telecommunications Act, explain what underlying power the exercise of which by the Commission would provide for recourse to section 42.

1. In your response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-11(f), you indicate that the single NG9-1-1 network operator should be considered a telecommunications common carrier for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act.  In its response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul2016-10(h), Shaw submits that the national ESInet contemplated under its proposal would “be a facility used to route emergency calls between networks” and that such functionality falls within the definition of “exempt transmission apparatus” set out in the Act such that the ESInet operator(s) would not qualify as a telecommunications common carrier for the purposes of that Act.  Identify and describe the transmission facilities that the single NG9-1-1 network operator contemplated under your proposal would own or operate that would serve to qualify this operator as a telecommunications common carrier for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act.
2. In your response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-11 you indicate that the NG9-1-1 network operator would be required to connect its network with PSAPs.  You also specify that the oversight of such connections would be the responsibility of your proposed national consortium.

1. Explain whether and how the PSAPs could be mandated or otherwise compelled to connect with the NG9-1-1 network;
2. To the extent that there is no statutory basis for compelling PSAPs to connect to the network operated by the NG9-1-1 network operator retained by your proposed national consortium, explain how such an outcome would nonetheless arise having regard to the relationships already established between the PSAPs and the ILECs currently operating 9-1-1 networks;
3. Explain how this approach would be more efficient than one which relies on existing interconnections.

1. In your response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-11 you foresee the possibility that existing infrastructure could be transferred to the new NG9-1-1 network provider.  You also indicate that as a result of an RFP process to retain a NG9-1-1 network operator, a fixed term contract would be awarded for the operation of the NG9-1-1 network and that, once such a term is concluded, a new RFP process could be initiated.

1. Explain whether the transfer of infrastructure contemplated in your response would be voluntarily negotiated;
2. If such transfers of infrastructure would not necessarily be voluntary, provide your views as to how such transfers could be compelled.  To the extent that your answer to this question relies on section 42 of the Telecommunications Act, explain what underlying power the exercise of which by the Commission would provide for recourse to section 42;
3. If a new RFP process is initiated at the conclusion of a given contractual term for the operation of the NG9-1-1 network and the previous operator is not successful in obtaining a new contract, what would become of the infrastructure built out by this operator?  In answering this question, clarify who would have ownership of the facilities used to establish and operate the NG9-1-1 network and whether a compelled transfer of ownership might be required and, if so, what would be the legal basis for compelling such a transfer of ownership.

1. In your response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-11 you foresee the possibility that the operator of any database required for the provision of NG9-1-1 services may not be an entity satisfying the definition of a telecommunications common carrier for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act.  In the event that the operator of such a database is not a telecommunications common carrier for the purposes of the Act:

1. Who would oversee the operation of the database operator?
2. What ability, if any, would the Commission have to ensure that various obligations (e.g. privacy) are imposed on the database operator?
3. What, if any, enforcement mechanisms would be available to the Commission to ensure that any obligations relating to the database operator are complied with and that any transgressions are quickly rectified?

Requests for Information addressed to Shaw Telecom G.P.

1. In your intervention and responses to requests for information issued on 22 July 2016, you propose the creation of a national consortium that would have responsibility for several functions, including responsibilities associated with NG9-1-1 funding, the recovery of such funds from TSPs and interconnection with the NG9-1-1 network(s).

   Explain, with supporting rationale, how your proposal is consistent with the Telecommunications Act, including the requirement that, subject to the Commission’s exercise of its powers under section 34 of that Act, no Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission.

   In answering this question, explain, with supporting rationale, whether your company’s proposal entails the delegation of powers or oversight authority whether specifically authorized in the Act or not, and, if yes, why such delegation is lawful and appropriate. If not, explain the legal basis for the national consortium and the powers proposed to be given to it.

2. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-3 you indicate that the creation of your proposed NG9-1-1 industry manager/consortium would require the creation of governing documents, identification of the class of members and determining appropriate voting structure for members.
1. Explain who would be responsible for overseeing this process;
2. Would the Commission play a role in the adoption of governing documents, establishment of member classes and voting structures and, if yes, what is the jurisdictional basis for the Commission’s role?
3. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-3 you propose a transitional funding model operating until the decommissioning of the existing legacy 9-1-1 networks. 
1. Describe what specific funding model you contemplate for the operation of the national ESInet(s) proposed by your company;
2. Clarify whether the industry manager/consortium would establish the amount of funds needed from the TSPs and, if yes, whether and what role the Commission would have with respect to determining the overall amounts required, the allocation of responsibility for funding amongst members and the collection of monies from members, including the jurisdictional basis for such role;
3. If NG9-1-1 funding is to be sourced from TSPs, describe an example or examples of mechanisms or approaches that could be retained by the industry manager/consortium to determine the amount of money to be collected from the TSPs (e.g. which entities would need to contribute to the funding of NG9-1-1 and on what basis);
4. Clarify whether the industry manager/consortium would be responsible for disbursing funds to the national ESInet operator(s) for purposes of operating the ESInet(s) and, if yes:

1. provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the industry manager/consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of operating the ESInet(s);
2. whether and what role the Commission would have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight;
3. what enforcement mechanisms would be available to the industry manager/consortium and to the Commission to ensure that funds were spent for the purposes for which they were disbursed;

5. Clarify whether the industry manager/consortium would be responsible for disbursing funds to the ESInet operator(s) for the purpose of building out or upgrading the ESInet(s) and, if yes:

1. provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the industry manager/consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of building out or upgrading the ESInet(s);
2. whether and what role the Commission would have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight;
3. what enforcement mechanisms would be available to the industry manager/consortium and to the Commission to ensure that funds were spent for the purposes for which they were disbursed.

4. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(h) you submit that the ESInet operator(s) contemplated in your proposal would not qualify as telecommunications common carriers under the Telecommunications Act.  In support of this position, you reference the definition of “exempt transmission apparatus” found in that Act.  Elaborate on this answer by identifying the specific network components that would be owned or operated by the ESInet operator(s) and how each of these qualify as exempt transmission apparatus for the purposes of the Act.
5. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(e) you indicate that  the points of interconnection and the technical specifications for interconnection by TSPs and Regional ESInet(s) to the national ESInet(s) contemplated under your proposal would be established by your proposed industry manager/consortium.  In this response, you indicate that this proposed industry manager/consortium could set a standard interconnection agreement for interconnection to the national ESInet(s) that could be approved by the Commission.

   In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(h) you submit that the ESInet operator(s) contemplated in your proposal would not qualify as telecommunications common carriers under the Telecommunications Act.

   In light of your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(h), please explain the jurisdictional basis for the Commission approving a standard interconnection agreement governing:

   1. Interconnection between your proposed regional ESInet(s) and your proposed national ESInet;
   2. Interconnection between the carriers providing the originating networks and your proposed national ESInet.
6. Explain whether the Commission could require the national ESInet operator(s) to upgrade or modify facilities and to build out infrastructure necessary to provide end users with access to NG9-1-1 services.  To the extent that your answer to this question relies on section 42 of the Telecommunications Act, explain what underlying power the exercise of which by the Commission would provide for recourse to section 42. In answering this question, account for your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(h) wherein you submit that the ESInet operator(s) contemplated in your proposal would not qualify as telecommunications common carriers under the Telecommunications Act.
7. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(j) you indicate that you anticipate the need for various conditions of service to be imposed relating to the routing of 9-1-1 communications over ESInets.  Having regard to your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(h) wherein you submit that the ESInet operator(s) contemplated in your proposal would not qualify as telecommunications common carriers under the Telecommunications Act:
   1. Is it your understanding that the Commission would not have the authority to impose conditions of service on the ESInet operator(s) and, if yes, explain why this should not be viewed as a concern from the perspective of the administration of the Telecommunications Act and the implementation of the Canadian telecommunications policy;
   2. How would conditions of service relating to the routing of 9-1-1 communications over the ESInet(s) be enforced (i.e. who would ensure enforcement and what mechanisms would be available to address non-compliance)?
8. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-3, you indicate that membership in your proposed industry manager/consortium for NG9-1-1 should be mandatory for all TSPs interconnecting with the NG9-1-1 network.
   1. Provide a detailed explanation of the jurisdictional basis for mandating both the creation of and participation in your proposed industry manager/consortium.  In answering this question, cite all relevant statutory provisions of the Telecommunications Act and explain how these provision confer upon the Commission the authority to implement the company’s proposal;
   2. What legal mechanisms are available to the Commission to require the consortium to accept a TSP as a member?
9. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(k) you indicate that your proposed industry manager/consortium would complete the bidding process for the national ESInet operator(s) setting out, amongst other matters, the terms of service and relevant technical specifications.  You also indicate that CISC would continue to play an integral role in determining many of the technical specifications for routing traffic, call details and interconnection specifications.

   Clarify whether the Commission would have a role in establishing or otherwise approving terms of service and technical specifications relevant to the operation of the national ESInet(s) contemplated under your proposal. If such a role is contemplated, describe this role and provide the jurisdictional basis for your described role. In answering this question, address the impact on the Commission’s jurisdiction resulting from an ESInet operator not qualifying as a telecommunications common carrier for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act, as contemplated in your answer Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-10(h)

10. In your response Shaw(CRTC)22Jul16-12 you indicate that your proposed industry manager/consortium could undertake an RFP process to select a national ESInet operator(s) including the hosting of a National Location Verification Database (NLVD).
1. Clarify whether, under your proposal, the operator of the NLVD would necessarily be an ESInet operator?
2. Who would oversee the operation of the database operator?
3. What ability, if any, would the Commission have to ensure that various obligations (e.g. privacy) are imposed on the database operator?
4. What, if any, enforcement mechanisms would be available to the Commission to ensure that any obligations relating to the database operator are complied with and that any transgressions are quickly rectified?

Requests for Information addressed to WIND Mobile Corp.

1. In your intervention and responses to requests for information issued on 22 July 2016, you propose the creation of an industry consortium that would be responsible for building/procuring the ESInet(s) and administering them.

   Explain, with supporting rationale, how your proposal is consistent with the Telecommunications Act, including the requirement that, subject to the Commission’s exercise of its powers under section 34 of that Act, no Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission.

   In answering this question, explain, with supporting rationale, whether your company’s proposal entails the delegation of powers or oversight authority whether specifically authorized in the Act or not, and, if yes, why such delegation is lawful and appropriate. If not, explain the legal basis for the industry consortium and the powers proposed to be given to it.

2. In your response WIND Mobile (CRTC)22July16-9 you indicate that the creation of your proposed NG9-1-1 consortium should  entail placing shareholders into classes and that each class be entitled to vote for representatives on a board of management. This board would subsequently secure the necessary resources to develop a request for proposal (RFP) and eventually oversee the operation of the ESInet(s). You further indicate that the Commission would need to approve the consortium shareholder agreement, approve the RFP before release, approve recommended vendors as put forward by the consortium, and any final agreement with the ESInet provider(s).

   What is the jurisdictional basis for the Commission’s role in overseeing this process and approving these documents?

3. In your response WIND Mobile (CRTC)22July16-9, you indicate that membership in your proposed consortium for NG9-1-1 should be mandatory for all TSPs and PSAPs interconnecting with the NG9-1-1 network.

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the jurisdictional basis for mandating both the creation of and participation in your proposed consortium.  In answering this question, cite all relevant statutory provisions of the Telecommunications Act and explain how these provision confer upon the Commission the authority to implement the company’s proposal;
2. What legal mechanisms are available to the Commission to require the consortium to accept a TSP or a PSAP as a member?

4. In your response WIND Mobile (CRTC)22July16-4 you indicate that interconnection of PSAPs to the NG9-1-1 network(s) should continue to be funded through carrier charges in a manner similar to that in place today, but payable to the administrator of the ESInet. 
1. Describe what specific funding model you contemplate for the operation of the national ESInet(s) proposed by your company.
2. Clarify whether the consortium would establish the amount of funds needed from the TSPs and, if yes, whether and what role the Commission would have with respect to determining the overall amounts required, the allocation of responsibility for funding amongst members and the collection of monies from members;
3. If NG9-1-1 funding is to be sourced from TSPs, describe an example or examples of mechanisms or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine the amount of money to be collected from the TSPs (e.g. which entities would need to contribute to the funding of NG9-1-1 and on what basis);
4. Clarify whether the consortium would be responsible for disbursing funds to the national ESInet operator(s) for purposes of operating the ESInet(s) and, if yes:

1. provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of operating the ESInet(s);
2. whether and what role the Commission would have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight;
3. what enforcement mechanisms would be available to the consortium and to the Commission to ensure that funds were spent for the purposes for which they were disbursed;

5. Clarify whether the consortium would be responsible for disbursing funds to the ESInet operator(s) for the purpose of building out or upgrading the ESInet(s) and, if yes:

1. provide a detailed example or examples of methods or approaches that could be retained by the consortium to determine how funds are allocated for the purposes of building out or upgrading the ESInet(s);
2. whether and what role the Commission would have in overseeing such disbursements, including the jurisdictional basis for such oversight;
3. what enforcement mechanisms would be available to the consortium and to the Commission to ensure that funds were spent for the purposes for which they were disbursed.

5. In your response WIND Mobile (CRTC)22July16-9  you submit that the NG9-1-1 network operator contemplated in your proposal need not be a considered telecommunications common carrier (TCC) under the Telecommunications Act since requiring the operator to be a telecommunications carrier would unnecessarily limit the potential operators.

   In its response Shaw(CRTC)22July2016-10(h), Shaw submits that the national ESInet operator(s) contemplated under its proposal would not qualify as a TCC for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act. In its response Rogers(CRTC)22Jul16-11(f), Rogers indicates that the single NG9-1-1 network operator should be considered a TCC for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act.

   Elaborate on your position to the effect that the NG9-1-1 network operator contemplated in your proposal need not be a TCC, as defined under the Act. In your answer, identify all specific network components that would be owned or operated by the NG9-1-1 network operator and how each of these meet or do not meet the definition of exempt transmission apparatus for the purposes of the Act.

6. In your response WIND Mobile (CRTC)22July16-9 you indicate that all TSPs would have to connect to the ESInet(s) through a new contract developed by the consortium and approved by the Commission. You also indicate in WIND Mobile (CRTC)22July16-9 that the NG9-1-1 network operator contemplated in your proposal need not be considered a telecommunications common carrier under the Telecommunications Act.

   In light of your responses above, please explain the jurisdictional basis for the Commission approving interconnection agreements governing interconnection between the carriers providing the originating networks and your proposed ESInet(s).

7. In your response WIND Mobile (CRTC)22July16-9(b)(ix)  you indicate that the ESInet operator(s) would have to establish new interconnections with every next generation PSAP. 
1. Explain whether and how the PSAPs could be mandated or otherwise compelled to connect with the NG9-1-1 network.
2. To the extent that there is no statutory basis for compelling PSAPs to connect to the network operated by the NG9-1-1 network operator retained by your proposed national consortium, explain how such an outcome would nonetheless arise having regard to the relationships already established between the PSAPs and the ILECs currently operating 9-1-1 networks.
3. Explain how this approach would be more efficient than one which relies on existing interconnections.

8. Explain whether the Commission could require the ESInet operator(s) contemplated by your proposal to upgrade or modify facilities and to build out infrastructure necessary to provide end users with access to NG9-1-1 services.  To the extent that your answer to this question relies on section 42 of the Telecommunications Act, explain what underlying power the exercise of which by the Commission would provide for recourse to section 42. In answering this question, account for your response to WIND Mobile (CRTC) 22July16-9 wherein you submit that the NG9-1-1 network operator contemplated in your proposal need not be considered a telecommunications common carrier under the Telecommunications Act.

Date modified:

2016-07-22