Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Michel Messier (Cogeco Communications Inc.)

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Ottawa, 13 July 2017

Our reference: 1011-NOC2017-0092

BY EMAIL

Mr. Michel Messier
Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Telecommunications
Cogeco Communications Inc.
5 Ville Marie Place, Suite 1700
Montréal, Québec  H3B 0B3
telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com

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

Dear Mr. Messier:

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 Cogeco Communications 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 service (NAS) 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. stated that “situations have arisen where [incentives for incumbent local exchange carriers (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 (HCSA) 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.

  3. In response to the Commission’s requests for information dated 13 April 2017, Bell Canada et al.Footnote3 and Sogetel inc. provided maps or postal codes identifying exchanges that potentially could qualify for forbearance from the regulation of local exchange service. The company has been identified as a competitive independent facilities-based telecommunications service provider in one or more of these exchanges. Refer to responses to requests for information Bell ILECs (CRTC) 13Apr17-1 TNC2017-92, Attachment 2 and Sogetel (CRTC) 13Apr17-1 TNC2017-92.

    Confirm whether the company is a competitive independent facilities-based telecommunications service provider offering local exchange services in each exchange identified that potentially qualify for forbearance.

    For each of these exchanges:

    1. If the company is a fixed-line service provider:
      1. Provide the total NAS that the company is capable of serving using its own wireline facilities to provide local exchange services. If this information is not available, provide the total number of households capable of being served with local exchange services, based on the six-character postal code information or maps provided by the ILEC; and
      2. Indicate whether the company is capable of covering at least 75% of the exchange with local exchange service or provide an estimate of the percentage of the exchange that it is capable of serving.
    2. If the company is a wireless service provider, indicate whether the company’s wireless service is capable of covering at least 75% of the exchange or provide an estimate of the percentage of the exchange that it is capable of serving.
Date modified: