Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Mr. Dennis Béland (Québecor Média.)

Ottawa, 13 July 2017

Our reference:  1011-NOC2017-0092

BY EMAIL

Mr. Dennis Béland
Vice-president, Regulatory affaires
Québecor Média.
612, rue St-Jacques, 15e étage
Montréal, Québec  H3C 4M8
dennis.beland@quebecor.com

Re: Phase out of the local service subsidy regime, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2017 92Footnote1 – Request for information

Dear Mr. Béland:

Pursuant to paragraph 31 of Telecom Notice of Consultation 2017-92, attached is a request for information from the Commission.

Responses to these requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by 10 August2017. The responses must be received, not merely sent, by that date.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

John Macri
Director, Policy Framework
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Christine Brock, CRTC, (819) 997-4557, christine.brock@crtc.gc.ca

attach (1)

Request for information  addressed to Québecor Média (Vidéotron)

  1. Provide your views on each of the following separate scenarios for implementation and include a proposed timeline, noting important milestones and key considerations.
    1. Allow the local service subsidy to be phased out “organically” as customers move to other services, and technology and coverage improve.Footnote2
    2. Phase out of the local service subsidy over the first five years of contributions to the broadband funding mechanism.
    3. For network access service still receiving subsidy:
      1. Eliminate subsidy immediately where broadband Internet access service at speeds of at least 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload is currently available;
      2. Establish a phase out plan and cut-off date for the removal of subsidy where it is determined that there is reliable broadband Internet access service; and
      3. Establish a phase out plan and cut-off date for the removal of subsidy where it is determined that broadband Internet access service is either unreliable or non-existent.
  2. In its intervention, Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) stated that “situations have arisen where [incentives for ILECs to apply for local forbearance] are absent.” In their interventions, both Shaw and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. proposed different approaches that the Commission could use to examine, on an ongoing basis, key information on the high cost serving area exchanges that remain subsidy-eligible to determine which of these exchanges may qualify for forbearance.

Should the Commission implement a process to collect information and assess whether an exchange qualifies for forbearance? If so, explain how the process or mechanism would be implemented.

Date modified: