Search

Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to All Canadian Carriers

Ottawa, 5 April 2023

Reference(s): 8000-C12-201909780

BY EMAIL

To: All Canadian Carriers

Subject: Interim Service Outage Reporting Information Confidentiality Process

This is further to the Commission staff letter dated 22 February 2023 regarding the process for filing notification of major service outages within two (2) hours of when the carrier becomes aware of such an outage and filing a comprehensive report within fourteen (14) days following the outage as directed on an interim basis by the Commission in Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2023-39 (NoC 2023-39).

In the 22 February 2023 letter, Commission staff provided the Service Outage Reporting Form (the Form) for initial notification within two hours of a major service outage and a dedicated email address to be used by Canadian carriers for filing the Form for initial reporting and the post outage report that will be filed within fourteen (14) days. Commission staff also invited Canadian carriers and other interested parties to comment on the confidentiality of the following information to be included in the Form:

Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), Bell Canada (Bell), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), Bragg Communications Inc. (Eastlink), TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS), Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC), TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TekSavvy), Québecor Média (Québecor) and Mr. Marc Nanni filed comments and Bell, Rogers, Sasktel, Québecor , CNOC, Mr. Marc Nanni and Eastlink filed reply comments.

1. Confidentiality of information in the Service Outage Reporting Form and proposed changes to the form.

None of the parties that filed comments objected to public disclosure of the information identified in Commission staff’s letter; however, some parties argued that none of the information should be publicly disclosed until the outage has concluded.

TekSavvy submitted that the abridged version should be expanded to include “outage description” and "Other service providers affected,” with the latter category including only the names of affiliates, subsidiaries, flanker brands in the abridged version, and a confirmation as to whether other service providers are affected.

Certain parties in reply comments submitted that information as to “Other service providers affected” may not be available, but if available would be confidential. Bell and Eastlink disagreed with TekSavvy’s proposals to expand the abridged form to add fields requiring outage notifications containing descriptions and other service providers affected on grounds that this data will be provided in the post outage report.

TELUS proposed that both the confidential and abridged forms include a drop down box for the “type of major service outage” according to the Commission’s interim definition.

Among other concerns, Mr. Nanni submitted that the carriers have not justified why the remaining categories of information in the service outage form ought to remain in confidence. Mr. Nanni submitted that the proposed abridged form is insufficient for members of the public to assess the quality and reliability of telecommunications networks of different service providers, including various 9-1-1 systems, and to compare systems in different areas of Canada. Specifically, Mr. Nanni submitted that other than the name of the carrier’s contact person, the remaining information should not be retained in confidence and should be disclosed publicly.

Bell submitted that the process set out in the letter raised procedural fairness issues. Bell expressed concerns about the short timeframes for comment on the confidentiality issue, and the fact that the letter seeking comment on disclosure of carrier information was directed only to Canadian carriers.

Bell and Québecor  stated that only the abridged version should be required to be filed for the two (2) hour notification requirement. Bell suggested that the remaining items in the confidential version should be included only in the post outage report.

CNOC and Mr. Nanni submitted in their reply comments that the submissions by Bell, Eastlink, Rogers, SaskTel and Québecor  commented on issues that were beyond the limited scope of the current process, which related only to the information to be included in the publicly available service outage form. CNOC stated that these intervenors should be required to resubmit these submissions as part of their interventions in the NoC 2023-39 proceeding, the correct forum for substantive comments with respect to the service outage reporting requirement.

Commission staff comments

With regard to the concerns raised by Bell, Commission staff notes that the purpose of its 22 February 2023 letter was (i) to provide Canadian carriers with the administrative form (the Service Outage Reporting Form) for the interim notification of major service outages; (ii) to provide a new dedicated email address that should be used for filing that Service Outage Reporting Form and the post outage report; and (iii) to invite comments on whether certain information in the Form can be designated confidential, and if so, whether it should be disclosed in the public interest. These are matters that are typically dealt with by Commission staff for the sake of administrative expediency. Consistent with existing practice, should any party wish to obtain a Commission ruling on matters of confidentiality they may file an application for such relief.

It is also noted that it was not necessary to resolve the issue of whether certain information could be made available publicly prior to the date by which Canadian carriers are required to comply with the service outage notification. Nevertheless, short time frames were imposed so that the issue could be resolved as soon as possible. Furthermore, as expected, the issue as to confidentiality of the information in question is not a controversial one.

As indicated above, all of the parties agreed that the information proposed by Commission staff to be included in the abridged document, identified in the 22 February 2023 letter for comment, is not of a confidential nature and could be made available to the public. In fact, as many parties noted, some carriers already post such information on their own websites in the context of service outages. This information provides the public with the basic information they require to inform themselves about a major service outage. The parties’ objections related instead to the timing of the public disclosure of such information.

In light of all of the above, the process established is appropriate in the circumstances.

Based on the record, staff concludes that the following information is not of a confidential nature, as set out in section 39(1) of the Telecommunications Act, and as such is to be included in the abridged version of the Service Outage Reporting Form:

With respect to the suggestions by TekSavvy and TELUS for additional information to be included in the Form, staff considers that the existing categories are sufficient for the purpose of the interim notification requirement including to identify the cause that triggered the service outage reporting.

With regard to Mr. Nanni’s submissions that all of the information other than the contact name should be put on the public record in order to provide consumers with information about the reliability of telecommunications networks and to allow consumers to make more informed choices about telecommunications service providers, Commission staff notes that this letter deals only with information to be made public for the purpose of the interim initial notification requirement within two (2) hours of a major service outage. The purpose of the abridged Service Outage Reporting Form is to provide on an urgent basis basic information about the general scope and impact of a major service outage. A more comprehensive report is then required fourteen (14) days after the outage. The determination as to what information should be included in the public version of the interim comprehensive post-outage report is not within the scope of the present process.

2. Posting of major service outage information on the Commissions website

While all parties agreed on the public nature of the information in question, some parties argued that the information should not be published until after the conclusion of the outage. Rogers submitted that publication should be delayed to avoid any risk of outdated information being posted on the Commission website. Québecor  submitted that the effort involved is only justified if the Commission publishes the information within 30 minutes on the website.

Bell submitted that the proposal to set up a dedicated webpage for the publicly available information was problematic for a number of reasons and proposed that the Commission should simply advise consumers to seek out the information on their carrier’s website.

Sasktel stated that providing additional notifications at this time through the Commission website, which may not be updated in real time, will not provide consumers with any further information than is already being provided by carriers through their standard channels.

Commissions staff comments

Commission staff notes that abridged versions of documents must be filed with the Commission in compliance with the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure. A dedicated webpage on the Commission’s website will present key information concerning major service outages in Canada in a brief, standardized manner. The web link to the carriers’ web and social media pages, where more detailed and updated information concerning the outage could be found, will also be included in this abridged version to enable quick access to the carriers’ information regarding outages.

Such a dedicated webpage on Commission’s website has, however, yet to be developed, and will take some time before it become fully operational. Accordingly, for the time being, the abridged version of the forms will only be posted as a GCKey submission on the Commission’s website, similar to any other abridged document.

3. Process to submit the service outage reporting form and updates

Manyparties objected to the requirement to file the outage forms both by email and GCKey and submitted that email should suffice. Certain parties submitted that carrier technical staff i.e. network technicians may not have access to a GCKey account to notify of a major service outage. Some parties suggested that a GCKey submission could be filed by regulatory staff during regular business hours.

Québecor requested that only the abridged version of the report be required to be filed as the confidential version is too detailed and cumbersome.

Rogers stated that outside business hours only the confidential version should be filed and only by email or that a web-based form be developed that can easily be filled out by technical staff. Rogers also submitted that the updated forms should be resubmitted every hour only if new material information is available at that time.

Teksavvy noted that while it may be difficult to provide all of the information requested by the Commission within two (2) hours of when the carrier becomes aware of any major service outage, the fact that the carrier must update and change the information negates that concern.

Québecor, in its reply comments, stated that they do not agree with Bell's position on notifying the Commission of a major service disruption, as they do not believe it would be appropriate to require notification only during normal business hours. However, Québecor  reiterated its suggestion that the Commission acknowledge receipt of all outage notices and publish them in real time.

Commission staff comments

Commission staff notes that given the practical difficulties identified by parties, the process for Canadian carriers to file a notification of a major service outage that has occurred outside regular business hours can be further improved. The process to submit the Service Outage Reporting Forms for the interim service outage notification requirement will be as follows:

Carriers are expected to update and resubmit the Service Outage Form during the service outage, following the same process as set out above, as new and material information becomes available.

4. Imposition of the interim service outage reporting requirement

Most parties submitted that it was premature to impose interim notification and reporting requirements, prior to the resolution of the NoC 2023-39 process and a Commission decision as to the need for and the scope of the requirements, including clarification of a number of terms that trigger the requirement.

Some parties submitted that the Canadian Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (CSTAC) notification process is sufficient pending the outcome of the NoC 2023-39 process, and others noted the existing notification practices of carriers on their own websites.

TELUS submitted that the interim reporting requirement should be limited to carriers providing external notifications on their own website and maintaining their current practices.

Some parties argued that the notification requirement should not apply outside regular business hours.

Several parties submitted that the notification and reporting requirements should apply to all telecommunications service providers and not only Canadian carriers.

Bell raised procedural fairness and other legal concerns related to the imposition of the interim reporting requirement.  

Commission staff comments

Commission staff notes that it cannot address the suggestions to delay the implementation of the interim notification and reporting requirements given that they were imposed by the Commission in NoC 2023-23. Likewise, whether the interim requirements should be limited to regular business hours and whether they should apply to all telecommunications service providers are issues that Commission staff cannot address as they propose a modification to the Commission’s determinations in NoC 2023-23.

Accordingly, the interim notification and reporting requirements were effective as of 8 March 2023 and continue to be in force unless and until the Commission determines otherwise.

5. Definitions of a major service outage:

Many parties submitted that definitional terms for “major service outage” require further clarification and that reporting prior to such clarification would result in inconsistent outage notifications and reports amongst carriers, would cause confusion for consumers, and would diminish the value of the reporting overall.

Commission staff comments

Commission staff notes that in NoC 2023-39, the Commission defined a major service outage for the purpose of implementing the interim notification and reporting requirements as an outage affecting: more than 100,000 subscribers or a material proportion of the carrier’s subscribers for more than one hour; subscribers that are in geographic areas served by only the affected carrier; critical infrastructure; major transport facilities or a 9-1-1 network.

In NoC 2023-39, the Commission invited comment on a detailed series of questions in order to develop a record upon which to determine the appropriate definitions for a major service outage, including a specific definition for a major 9-1-1 network outage, for the purpose of the final notification and reporting requirements.

For the purpose of the interim requirements, pending the outcome of the process referenced above, Canadian carriers are expected to apply the definition of a major service outage set out in NoC 2023-39 with the best of their judgment, and in line with the objective of ensuring that the Commission and the public have information that they need about major service outages in Canada.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Leila Wright
Executive Director, Telecommunications Sector

cc:  Noah Moser, CRTC, noah.moser@crtc.gc.ca
Michel Murray, CRTC, michel.murray@crtc.gc.ca
Geoff White, CNOC, geoff.white@cnoc.ca
John Lawford, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, jlawford@piac.ca  
Marc Nanni, mn_crtc@proton.me

Date modified: