Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Christopher Hickey (Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.)

Ottawa, 13 July 2017

Our reference:  1011-NOC2017-0092

BY EMAIL

Mr. Christopher Hickey
Director, Industry Affairs
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.
107-85 Curlew Avenue
Toronto, Ontario  M3A 2P8
regulatory@cnoc.ca

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

Dear Mr. Hickey:

Pursuant to paragraph 31 of Telecom Notice of Consultation 2017-92, attached are requests for information from the Commission.

Responses to these requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by 10 August 2017. 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)


ATTACHMENT

Requests for information addressed to Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.

  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 services still receiving subsidy:
      1. Eliminate subsidy immediately where broadband Internet access service at speeds of at least 50 megabits per second (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: