Search

Telecom - Commission Letter adressed to the Distribution List

Ottawa, 16 December 2021

Our reference: 8740-S22-202104610, 8740-B38-202104628, 8740-B38-202104686, 8740-R28-202104636, 8740-T66-202104876, 8740-T66-202104884

BY EMAIL

To: Distribution List

Subject: Tariff Notice applications for wholesale MVNO access service and wholesale roaming service – requests for information

In July 2021, pursuant to the Commission’s determinations set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130, Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell Mobility), Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) (the tariff applicants) filed tariff notice applications for wholesale MVNO access services. At the same time, Bell Mobility, Rogers, and TELUS also filed updated tariffs for wholesale roaming services to account for mandated seamless roaming.

Several parties filed interventions in relation to these tariff notice applications, and on 7 October 2021 the tariff applicants filed reply comments.

Commission staff considers that additional information is required from the parties in order to obtain a full and complete record. Parties are to file responses to the requests for information found in the attachment to this letter no later than 27 January 2022.

Parties may designate information submitted as confidential and provide supporting rationale. Requests for disclosure of any information that has been designated as confidential in the responses to the requests for information may be filed and served on the relevant party or parties that designated the information as confidential by 7 February 2022.

Responses to these requests may be filed and served on the party or parties making the request by 17 February 2022.

Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act as well as sections 30 – 34 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure.

In evaluating a request, an assessment is first made as to whether the information falls into a category of information that can be designated as confidential pursuant to section 39 of the Act. An assessment is then made as to whether disclosure of particular information is in the public interest; regard is generally had to whether the disclosure would result in specific direct harm and whether that harm outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Harm may be more likely to outweigh the public interest where the information is more disaggregated or where the degree of competition is greater. Conversely, the public interest may be more likely to outweigh any harm where the information is more important to the ability of the Commission to obtain a full and complete record on which to make its decision.

Further information regarding the general procedures and the factors considered may be found in Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, 23 December 2010, as amended by Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961-1, 26 October 2012.

Determinations regarding any disclosure requests will be issued at a later date.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Philippe Kent
Director, Telecommunications Services Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: jeremy.lendvay@crtc.gc.ca
ethan.townsend@crtc.gc.ca
adam.mills@crtc.gc.ca

Attachments (2)  

Distribution List
telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com
Regulatory.Matters@corp.EastLink.ca
regulatory@iristel.com
jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca
kadil@legalaid.mb.ca
chkla@legalaid.mb.ca
regaffairs@quebecor.com
richard.biron@sogetel.com
scott.gibson@terrestar.ca
Xplornet.Legal@corp.xplornet.com
jfmezei@vaxination.ca
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Regulatory@rci.rogers.com
document.control@sasktel.com
regulatory.affairs@telus.com
regulatory@corp.fibernetics.ca

Section 1: Questions for All Parties (Bell Mobility, Cogeco, Eastlink, Iristel, ITPA, Manitoba Coalition, Rogers, SaskTel, Sogetel, TerreStar, TELUS, Vaxination Informatique, Videotron, Xplornet) End-user restrictions

101. The tariff applicants have included provisions in their proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs which limit wholesale customers to using wholesale MVNO access to offer service only to individuals and small businesses.

In the event the Commission were to approve such a restriction, what would be an appropriate definition for small business in this context and how would they be identified? For example, the Wireless Code defines “small business” as one whose average monthly telecommunications bill is under $2,500. Comment on whether the same definition would be appropriate in the wholesale MVNO access tariffs.

Restrictions on using wholesale MVNO access for wireline, fixed wireless and Wi-Fi

102. In its proposed wholesale MVNO access tariff TELUS has included provisions preventing the service from being used to “enable fixed wireless, wireline or Wi-Fi services.”

Comment on how wholesale MVNO access could be used to enable fixed wireless, wireline, or Wi-Fi services and discuss whether a restriction on such use would be appropriate. Would such a provision prevent a wholesale customer from off-loading wireless traffic to its wireline network using Wi-Fi facilities?

Forecasting

103. Bell Mobility and TELUS’ proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs include provisions that impose monetary penalties on wholesale customers if their traffic volumes deviate from their forecasts by a certain amount.

a. Comment on whether proposed monetary penalties constitute a rate requiring prior Commission approval and if so, how such penalties are just and reasonable.

b. Are there any alternative ways of encouraging and/or enforcing accurate traffic forecasting besides monetary penalties?

c. If the Commission were to approve some type of monetary penalty for inaccurate forecasting, and assuming the Commission found the amounts currently being proposed to be inappropriate or unjust and unreasonable, comment on what the appropriate variance thresholds and penalty amounts should be.

Section 2: Questions for Telecommunications Service Providers (Bell Mobility, Cogeco, Eastlink, Iristel, ITPA, Rogers, SaskTel, Sogetel, TerreStar, TELUS, Videotron, Xplornet)

Distinguishing between wholesale MVNO access and roaming access

201. Eastlink has stated that “any end-user who is incidentally roaming in the area should be treated the same as if they were in the MVNO Customer’s home network” and that “there is no reason to distinguish between an MVNO end-user and a non-MVNO end-user from the network perspective.” Similarly, Quebecor has stated that “MVNO access in a given geographic area includes incidental roaming access for non-MVNO end-users” and that “it is not at all clear that distinguishing between

a. Explain how, from a technical perspective, end-users of wholesale MVNO access and end-users who are incidentally roaming could be distinguished by the host carrier. Are there any technical constraints for either the host carrier or the wholesale customer and if so, how could these be overcome?

b. Discuss what the implications would be (financial, operational, technical, etc.) for i) the host carrier, (ii) the wholesale customer, and (iii) the end-user, of:

i. The host carrier distinguishing between end-users of wholesale MVNO access and end-users who are roaming; and
ii. `The host carrier treating all end-users of the wholesale customer (including those who reside outside the wholesale MVNO access footprint) as though they are using wholesale MVNO access.

c. Explain what would occur if an end-user of wholesale MVNO access were to leave the wholesale coverage area and travel to an area where the regional carrier has roaming coverage with the host carrier (i.e. both wholesale MVNO access and roaming are provided by the same national carrier). Would this end-user now be considered to be roaming and subject to the wholesale roaming rate?

d. Explain what would occur if an end-user of wholesale MVNO access were to leave the wholesale coverage area and travel to an area where the regional carrier has roaming coverage with a different national carrier than the MVNO host carrier (i.e. wholesale MVNO access and roaming are provided by different national carriers). In this scenario, how would the end-user be able to roam if the national wireless carriers’ incidental roaming agreements between each other are not included as part of wholesale MVNO access?

202. In its submissions, TELUS proposed a bright line test for determining when a wholesale customer is obtaining incidental roaming versus permanent roaming (wholesale MVNO access). Item 233.2 of TELUS’ proposed wholesale MVNO access tariff set out this test as follows: “‘Permanent Roaming’ is defined as a situation whereby a Roaming End Customer consumes more than fifty percent (50%) of their voice and/or data volumes, during three (3) consecutive calendar months on the Company’s VPMN, when measured against such Roaming Customer's aggregate voice and/or data usage on both the HPMN and the VPMN”.

a. Provide your views on the TELUS proposal.

b. Would it be possible to implement wholesale MVNO access as a permanent roaming service given that the Commission only mandated access to incumbent RANs and not their core networks?

c. Are there other tests or methods that could be used to differentiate between wholesale MVNO access and incidental roaming customers? If so, provide your proposals.

Traffic steering

203. Rogers proposed using distinct IMSI ranges to distinguish between MVNO end-users and incidental roaming end-users and stated that "IMSI numbers must be excluded by using ranges of at least 1,000,000."

In regards to this proposal, Eastlink stated that “as the MVNO customer expands their network, this may result in an MVNO customer requiring end-users to change SIM cards as they are migrated to the carrier’s home network, and only rely on the National Carriers for incidental roaming service.”

Similarly, Videotron stated that “such an approach would impose significant operational constraints and inefficiencies on competitors, requiring them, among other things, to swap out an end-user SIM card whenever an end-user moves from a home network service location to an MVNO service location.”

Provide your views on Rogers’ proposal and the concerns raised by Eastlink and Videotron.

Seamless roaming

204. Various proposals have been made regarding the exchange of network cell site information to maintain seamless roaming mappings between the host carrier and the wholesale customer:

In your view, what is the appropriate frequency for the exchange of network cell site information in order to update boundaries? Explain, with supporting rationale, how your preferred timeframe balances the operational cost to all parties and the network impairments to end-users.

Section 3: Questions for All Wireless Carriers (Bell Mobility, Eastlink, Iristel, Rogers, SaskTel, TELUS, Videotron, Xplornet)

301. Provide the following data:

a. For the years 2016 to 2021 shown annually for each year, the total number of calls on your mobile wireless network and the percentage of those calls that were 4G VoLTE calls.

b. Annual forecasts for the years 2022 to 2024 shown annually for each year, for the total number of calls on your mobile wireless network and the percentage of those calls that will be 4G VoLTE calls.

c. When do you plan to fully phase-out 3G voice calls in favour of 4G LTE and 5G VoNR voice calls, if at all?

Section 4: Questions for Competitors (Cogeco, Eastlink, Iristel, ITPA, Sogetel, TerreStar, Videotron, Xplornet)

Service description

401. Cogeco has proposed that the wholesale MVNO access tariffs include a service description that details the service specifications that the host carrier will be providing to their wholesale customers. Provide your views, with supporting rationale on the following:

a. Whether it is necessary to include a service description (in general, or as proposed by Cogeco) in the wholesale MVNO access tariffs? The response should take into account, as appropriate, the applicable regulatory regime.

b. Which aspects of the proposed service description should be included in the wholesale MVNO access tariffs?

c. Which aspects of the service description should not be included in the wholesale MVNO access tariffs?

d. Which aspects of the service description should be modified, and what are your proposed modifications?

Spectrum Eligibility

402. In their proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs, both Bell Mobility and TELUS include provisions requiring a wholesale customer to have a minimum of 20 MHz of spectrum in a tier 4 area in order to be eligible for the service. Their reasoning for including such provisions is explained in their 7 October 2021 reply comments, specifically at paragraphs 26 to 28 of TELUS’ reply comments and paragraph 24 of Bell Mobility’s reply comments.

a. Provide your views on the rationale put forward by Bell Mobility and TELUS on this matter.

b. Without a minimum spectrum requirement, comment on whether there would be a risk that at the end of the seven year phase-out period a wholesale MVNO customer could potentially not possess enough spectrum to be able to adequately serve its customer base once MVNO end-users are migrated onto its own network.

403. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130 the Commission determined that: “In order to be eligible to use the service, a wireless carrier must possess a spectrum licence at the tier 4 level or higher in a given tier 4 area.” In their proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs, the incumbents have included provisions restricting eligibility to regional carriers who are primary spectrum licence holders. Entities that hold subordinated spectrum would not be eligible for the service under the proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs. Their rationale for including these provisions is explained in their 7 October 2021 reply comments.

For example, at paragraph 49 of its reply comments, Rogers argued that “if any subordinate licence holder can apply for MVNO Access these licences can, and typically, do not conform to the Tier areas as defined by ISED. In fact, these subordinate licences can encompass non-continuous areas such as villages, towns, cities, roadways, mines and/or geographic coordinates. The verification of such subordinate licences would become a contentious issue since carriers may hold several subordinate licences in non-continuous geographic areas.”

TELUS argued at paragraph 21 of its reply that “a subordinate licensee, with no ISED condition of licence requirement to build, should not be eligible to obtain access to the mandated MVNO service because there is no obligation for such party to build a network.”

Provide your views on the rationale put forward by the incumbents on this matter.

404. In its 7 October 2021 reply, Rogers put forward a potential scenario in which both a primary licence holder and a subordinate licence holder of the same spectrum seek to use wholesale MVNO access. Discuss whether this situation would be problematic in any way and provide reasons as to why or why not.

405. If the Commission were to determine that subordinated licence holders are eligible to make use of mandated wholesale MVNO access, discuss whether this would this have any implications for companies that entered subordination agreements prior to the existence of mandated wholesale MVNO access.

406. At paragraph 29 of its reply comments TELUS argues that spectrum licences that are not in good standing for any reason should not qualify as eligible spectrum for the purpose of determining eligibility for wholesale MVNO access.

Provide your views on whether or not this proposed requirement is reasonable. If your position is that this is not a reasonable requirement, explain how a company with a spectrum license that is not in good standing could use that spectrum to offer retail services on its own network at the end of the seven year phase-out period.

407. At paragraph 32 of its reply comments, TELUS argues that encumbered spectrum should not be used to qualify for wholesale MVNO access because the holder cannot meet the Commission’s objective of being able to use such licence in order to build wireless networks in the relevant tier 4 area.

Provide your views on whether or not this proposed requirement is reasonable. If your position is that this is not a reasonable requirement, explain how a company with encumbered spectrum that is not available for commercial use could use that spectrum to offer retail services on its own network.

Device Restrictions

408. At paragraph 35 of its reply Rogers submitted:

“The general intent of these provisions is to address the use by MVNO Customers of devices that have a very distinct purpose from any of the devices offered by the MVNO Customer on its own PMN. If an MVNO Customer does not have a PMN then this provision becomes moot and MVNO Customers may introduce devices not envisioned by the policy. Without a PMN of their own to confirm the use case, such devices could wreak havoc on Rogers’ network. For example, the introduction of a wireless remote server that constantly backs up terabytes of data would needlessly congest the radio access network in the area. Since the MVNO Customer does not own or manage a PMN, the impact of such congestion would be of minor concern to them but would negatively impact numerous end-users on Rogers’ PMN.”

Given the aforementioned example, comment on whether there is merit in the testing and exclusion of complex devices.

Phase-out/wind down period

409. The national wireless carriers have included a number of provisions in their proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs related to a “wind down” period. Most intervenors opposed the inclusion of any such provisions.

If the Commission were to approve the inclusion a “wind down period” in some form, provide your views on what would be reasonable in terms of the length of any such period, and in terms of any provisions that would facilitate the transition away from wholesale MVNO access to a regional carrier’s own RAN.

Seamless roaming on legacy networks

410. Bell Mobility stated in its reply submission that its 3G equipment is at or near the end of its life cycle and that it would not be possible for it to make any changes or upgrades to such networks. Similarly Rogers also stated that it “does not support Seamless Roaming on these (2G and 3G) technologies”. TELUS argued that the Commission should disregard calls to force the provision of the wholesale roaming or the MVNO access service on 3G or obsolete technologies as doing so would contravene both the 2006 and 2019 Policy Directions.

a. Provide your views on whether it is technically and operationally possible to make changes or upgrades to 2G or 3G networks to support seamless roaming.

b. Comment on whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to impose regulatory obligations on legacy technologies that are near the end of their life cycles and what form those obligations should take. Explain your views on the benefits and costs of such regulatory measures.

c. Provide your view on whether and how such regulatory measures would be consistent with the 2006 and 2019 Policy Directions.

Seamless Roaming

411. At paragraph 106 of its 7 October 2021 reply comments, Rogers submitted that “Should the Commission disagree with Rogers’ proposal for CISC, then the next best option would be to include Bell’s section 18 wording in all Wholesale Wireless Roaming tariffs. Bell has taken a prescriptive route in defining seamless handoff in their tariff and without CISC this would be the next most effective way forward for implementation. Again, Rogers cautions that such an approach could require bespoke configurations for each wholesale wireless roaming customer, adding complexity and risking the April 2022 implementation date. Further, should the feasibility study of Seamless Roaming with certain Wholesale Roaming Customer determine it is not technically possible to implement, it can be expected that there will be disputes to be brought to the Commission.”

Provide your views on all three national wireless carriers adopting the wording from section 18 of Bell Mobility’s wholesale roaming tariff as an alternative to having CISC develop specific standards or guidelines for implementation.

412. In its initial 14 July 2021 wholesale MVNO access tariff application, Rogers submitted that “there only exists general standards and no specific industry guidelines for seamless roaming/handoff” and an industry working group should be established under CISC to address this topic.”

In its reply comments, TELUS agreed with Rogers and further argued at paragraph 115 that “The Commission should decline to mandate additional technical or operational requirements related to seamless handoff until parties can agree on a baseline approach to the seamless roaming solution.”
Provide your views on whether there is a need for CISC involvement to develop general standards and for parties to agree on a baseline approach to the seamless roaming solution prior to implementation.

Network sharing

413. Certain interveners such as Iristel, Sogetel and TerreStar have requested that the wholesale MVNO access tariffs include provisions requiring the host carrier to provide access to the RANs of its network sharing partners.

At paragraph 71 of its reply comments, TELUS indicates that wholesale MVNO access will be available only where it owns and operates its own RAN, and is not able to offer the service in areas where its network sharing partners own the RAN, and explains its reasoning as to why. Bell Mobility makes similar arguments beginning at paragraph 99 of its reply, stating “In particular, in areas where we own and operate a RAN, our proposed tariff applies. Similarly, in areas where TELUS or SaskTel owns and operates a RAN, their proposed tariff applies. There is no need whatsoever for a regional carrier operating as an MVNO to obtain access in those areas indirectly through us.”

a. Provide your views on the arguments put forward by Bell Mobility and TELUS in this regard.

b. If your position is that wholesale MVNO access should extend to network sharing agreements, explain how, from an operational, technical, and/or contractual perspective this could be accomplished.

c. Explain why a wireless carrier should be made to provide wholesale access in areas where it does not own or operate its own RAN, and how such a requirement would be consistent with the determinations set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130.

Limitations of liability

414. With respect to limitations of liability clauses included in the proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs (including Bell Mobility – item 101.20; TELUS - item 235.3 8. g.; Rogers - item 901 1.2; and Rogers - item 902 9.4), provide your views on whether the provisions proposed by the tariff applicants are appropriate, taking into account the applicable regulatory regime.

Section 5: Questions for Incumbent Carriers (Bell Mobility, Rogers, TELUS, SaskTel)
Service Description

501. Cogeco has proposed that the wholesale MVNO access tariffs include a service description that details the service specifications that the host carrier will be providing to their wholesale customers. If the Commission were to require a service description, provide your views, with supporting rationale on the following:

a. Which aspects of the proposed service description should be included in the wholesale MVNO access tariffs?

b. Which aspects of the service description should not be included in the wholesale MVNO access tariffs?

c. Which aspects of the service description should be modified, and what are your proposed modifications?

d. If not included in the wholesale MVNO access tariffs, will a service description be included in any other agreement or arrangement an MVNO customer must enter into in order to make use of the wholesale MVNO access tariff?

Device restrictions

502. A number of intervenors opposed wholesale MVNO access tariff items that restrict devices used by MVNO end-users. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130 the Commission directed the national wireless carriers to use their existing wholesale roaming service tariffs as the baseline for proposed terms and conditions for their wholesale MVNO access tariffs.

a. Explain why the wholesale MVNO access tariffs should differ from the existing wholesale roaming service tariff with respect to the ability to test and prohibit complex devices.

b. Explain why the wholesale MVNO access tariffs should differ from the existing wholesale roaming tariff with respect to the requirement that devices of the MNO customer work on the incumbent’s PMN.

503. At paragraph 49 of its intervention Sogetel submitted that “SaskTel and incumbent MNOs should not be permitted to reject the use of non PTCRB-approved devices by MVNOs on their network if the MNOs allow the use of such devices by their own retail subscribers.”

Comment on whether your wholesale MVNO access tariffs would permit such a situation to occur.

Network Sharing

504. Certain interveners such as Iristel, Sogetel and TerreStar have requested that the wholesale MVNO access tariffs include provisions requiring the host carrier to provide access to the RANs of its network sharing partners. Bell Mobility and TELUS have argued against such a requirement.

When in a network sharing arrangement, discuss whether it is technically and operationally possible for one sharing partner to provide third party access to a RAN owned and operated by the other sharing partner. Would this be tantamount to a scenario where a wireless carrier resells the RAN access that it purchases from a host carrier to an MVNO? Explain why or why not.

Transport from RAN sites

505. At paragraph 128 of its 7 September 2021 intervention, Sogetel indicated that it was not clear from certain of the tariff applicants’ proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs whether transport to and from individual RAN sites to a point of interconnection where traffic is handed off to the wholesale customer’s core network.

At paragraph 62 of its reply comments TELUS indicated that transport is not included as part of its wholesale MVNO access tariff.

Clarify whether your company’s proposed wholesale MVNO access tariff includes transport from individual RAN locations to a point of interconnection. If not, explain why not.

Limitations of liability

506. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130 the Commission directed the national wireless carriers to use their existing wholesale roaming service tariffs as the baseline for proposed terms and conditions for their wholesale MVNO access tariffs. In this regard, provide a justification for any provisions related to limitations of liability and/or indemnification that depart from the existing wholesale roaming service tariffs.

Fibernetics’ Part 1 Application

507. Provide your views on the arguments made by Fibernetics in its 9 November 2021 Part 1 application (which has since been placed on the record of these tariff proceedings) concerning the eligibility of TEL spectrum license holders in relation to wholesale MVNO access services.

Section 6: Questions for Bell Mobility and TELUS

Forecasting

601. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130 the Commission directed the national wireless carriers to use their existing wholesale roaming service tariffs as the baseline for proposed terms and conditions for their wholesale MVNO access tariffs.

In this regard, explain why your proposed wholesale MVNO access tariff differs from your wholesale roaming service tariff with respect to forecasting. For example, i) in the existing wholesale roaming service Bell Mobility has a “non-binding” forecast while TELUS includes a “best effort” forecast whereas the wholesale MVNO access tariffs include monetary penalties for inaccurate forecasting, and ii) Bell Mobility and TELUS’ proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs contain different forecast periods and forecast frequency than the existing wholesale roaming service tariff.

Phase-out

602. Bell Mobility and TELUS have included provisions in their proposed wholesale MVNO access tariffs which require wholesale customers to, at the end of the 7 year phase-out period, submit a list of end-users who were serviced using wholesale MVNO access.

Clarify what type of end-user information wholesale MVNO customers would be required to submit, and in what form. If the proposed provisions would require that the names and addresses of end-users be submitted, explain why this information is necessary and why the end-users’ IMSI numbers would not be sufficient for identification purposes.

Name and trademark of host network service provider

603. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130 the Commission directed the national wireless carriers to use their existing wholesale roaming service tariffs as the baseline for proposed terms and conditions for their wholesale MVNO access tariffs. Additionally, in Telecom Decision 2017-565, Wholesale mobile wireless roaming service tariffs – Final terms and conditions, the Commission directed Bell Mobility and Rogers i) to remove from their tariffs their proposed provisions regarding the use of trademarks and trade names; and ii) to include a new tariff provision that replicates the section 24 condition set out in paragraph 148 of the wholesale wireless framework.

Explain why your proposed wholesale MVNO access tariff differs from your wholesale roaming service tariff with respect to the use of name and trademarks.

Section 7: Questions for Bell Mobility

Name and trademark of host network service provider

701. Bell Mobility’s proposed wholesale MVNO access tariff includes provisions which prohibit wholesale customers from displaying the trade names or trademarks of Bell Mobility on the devices of its end-users. In response, several parties submitted that certain legacy devices cannot support masking.

Explain whether the Commission should exempt certain legacy devices from the aforementioned provision in view of any technical limitations of some legacy devices?

Limitations of liability

702. At paragraph 29 of its intervention to Bell Mobility’s wholesale MVNO access tariff, Xplornet submitted that “It is not reasonable for the MVNO customer to be required to indemnify Bell for circumstances where it has done nothing wrong. This indemnity should be limited to damages or claims relating to the MVNO customer’s willful misconduct or negligence.” Comment on Xplornet’s response and proposed revision, including draft language for a revised tariff provision that takes this revision into account, if at all.

Seamless roaming

703. In its initial 14 July 2021 wholesale MVNO access tariff application, Rogers submitted that “there only exists general standards and no specific industry guidelines for seamless roaming/handoff” and an industry working group should be established under CISC to address this topic.”

In its reply comments, TELUS agreed with Rogers and further argued at paragraph 115 that “The Commission should decline to mandate additional technical or operational requirements related to seamless handoff until parties can agree on a baseline approach to the seamless roaming solution.”
Provide your views on whether there is a need for CISC involvement to develop general standards and for parties to agree on a baseline approach to the seamless roaming solution prior to implementation.

Section 8: Questions for Cogeco, Sogetel, and TerreStar

Requirement to have a home network

801. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130, the Commission mandated the provision of a wholesale facilities based MVNO access service, and considered that service to be a full-MVNO model. In a full-MVNO model, mandated access only applies to the RAN of a host carrier, including spectrum, towers, and related facilities and equipment located at tower sites. The Commission stated that all other facilities and equipment required by an MVNO beyond the RAN would not be mandated, but would be supplied or otherwise obtained by the MVNO itself, including the core network, billing systems, customer care, and devices.

In light of the policy in which wholesale MVNO access is limited to the host carrier’s RAN, explain how a company that does not currently operate as a wireless carrier (and by extension does not have its own core network, MNC, roaming agreements, etc.) can make use of wholesale MVNO access to provide service to retail customers, even if it were to meet the spectrum eligibility requirements.

Section 9: Questions for Cogeco

Requirement to have a core network

901. At paragraph 28 of its 7 September 2021 intervention, Cogeco submitted that the requirement for a wholesale customer to have its own core network “excludes the possibility for an MVNO to acquire a mobile network core through other means, or to have some or all of its mobile network core provided as part of a PaaS (“Platform as a Service”) delivery model.”

Elaborate on Cogeco’s planned model for delivering mobile wireless services using a core network provided by a third party. Does Cogeco plan to build its own RAN facilities? If so, when, and does Cogeco plan to sell mobile wireless services directly to end users, or resell its wholesale access to an MVNO? Explain how this plan accords with the applicable regulatory regime.

Section 10: Questions for Sogetel

Requirement to have a core network

1001. At paragraph 129 of its 7 September 2021 intervention, regarding the requirement for a wholesale customer to have its own core network, Sogetel submitted “that the MVNO Access customer should be allowed to outsource its Core Network services to a third party or operate an instance of its Core in the Cloud.”

Elaborate on Sogetel’s planned model for delivering mobile wireless services using a core network provided by a third party. Does Sogetel plan to build its own RAN facilities? If so, when, and does Sogetel plan to sell mobile wireless services directly to end users, or resell its wholesale access to an MVNO? Explain how this plan accords with the applicable regulatory regime.

Section 11: Questions for Competitors and Fibernetics (Cogeco, Eastlink, Fibernetics, Iristel, ITPA, Sogetel, TerreStar, Videotron, Xplornet)
TEL Licenses

1101. Certain intervenors including Fibernetics, Iristel and Sogetel have suggested that companies that hold spectrum licences for TEL areas should be eligible for wholesale MVNO access, particularly where the TEL licence covers an area that is larger than a tier 4 area.

At paragraph 25 of its reply comments Bell Mobility indicates that “under its tariff and under the Commission's policy, the holder of an appropriate TEL license would only be eligible in tier 4 regions that are fully covered by the license; it would not be eligible in regions that are only partially covered by the license…This is a reasonable outcome, particularly given that the TEL licenses were generally given away rather than acquired and therefore the rationale for eligibility – that acquiring spectrum indicates a commitment to investment – does not apply. The Commission should not feel any obligation to grant a special exemption from the basic requirements for Iristel and other TEL license holders.”

At paragraph 26 of its reply comments, Bell Mobility proposes that “if, nevertheless, the Commission is considering creating a special exception for TEL license holders then their eligibility should be restricted to the geographic areas where they have both wireline telco footprint and wireless spectrum, in order to avoid regulatory gamesmanship and maximize the chances that they ultimately invest in their own networks.”

At paragraph 54 of its reply comments, in the context of TEL license areas, Rogers discusses the administrative burden “for Rogers to verify the subordinate licences and then aggregate them to some predefined notion by Iristel that the licences equal a tier 4 service area.”

At paragraph 329 of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130 in regards to using tier 4 areas to determine geographic eligibility, the Commission stated that it “considers that this approach has the advantages of administrative simplicity and objectivity, because it is a relatively straightforward matter for carriers to verify the possession of spectrum, which is publicly available information. There would also be no need for further processes to identify the presence and network boundaries of regional wireless carriers within tier 4 areas.”

  1. Discuss whether holders of TEL spectrum licenses should be considered eligible for wholesale MVNO access in those spectrum areas, having regard to the Commission’s findings with respect to the administrative simplicity and objectivity of using tier 4 areas.
  2. Comment on Bell Mobility’s proposal that the holder of an appropriate TEL licence should only be eligible in tier 4 regions that are fully covered by the license, and not be eligible in regions that are only partially covered by the licence.
  3. Comment on Bell Mobility’s proposal that eligibility for TEL licence holders should be restricted to the geographic areas where they have both wireline telco footprint and wireless spectrum.
Date modified: