Search

Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution list

Ottawa, 25 August 2023

Our reference: 1011-NOC2022-0147

BY E-MAIL

Distribution list

RE:      Telecommunications in the Far North, Phase II, Notice of Consultation CRTC 2022-147, Requests for information – 25 August 2023

This letter sets out questions (also called requests for information or RFIs) related to the proceeding initiated by Telecommunications in the Far North, Phase II, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2022-147 (the Phase II Notice).

There are questions for all parties to the proceeding in this letter, as well as certain entities who are not parties to the proceeding. Providing a response is not mandatory for everyone, as set out in further detail below. All parties will have the opportunity to provide comments on the responses to these questions when parties submit final submissions. Note that the CRTC has not yet set a date for parties to submit final submissions.

Each question in the appendices indicates a list of respondents. The following parties are requested to respond to every specific question that is directed to them, including questions that are directed to all parties.

The following entities are not parties. They are requested to respond only to questions directed specifically to them.

For all other parties, your response to any question directed at you or at all parties would be greatly appreciated, but is not required.

Responses to the questions in this letter are due by 6 October 2023.

If you anticipate being unable to respond by the deadline, advise us by 8 September 2023.

Context

These RFIs will allow the Commission to develop the record in relation to comments it received during the hearing held from 17 April to 21 April, 2023, update certain information, and address any other gaps in the record collected to date.

The questions are organized by appendices, as follows:

Appendix 1 sets out questions on the affordability of telecommunications services. There are questions for all parties in this appendix. There are also questions for the following non-parties:

Appendix 2 sets out questions on advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. There are questions for all parties in this appendix.

Appendix 3 sets out questions on the reliability and quality of telecommunications services. There are questions for all parties in this appendix. There are also questions for the following non-parties:

Appendix 4 sets out questions on competition and wholesale services. There are questions for all parties in this appendix. There are also questions for the following non-parties:

Appendix 5 sets out questions on telecommunications services provided in Atlin, B.C. There are questions for the following parties:

Filing Instructions

In your responses:

Confidential information

As set out in section 39 of the Telecommunications Act and in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, parties may designate certain information as confidential.

A party designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation of why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

Furthermore, a party designating information as confidential must either file an abridged version of the document omitting only the information designated as confidential or provide reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed.

Accessible formats for people with disabilities

The CRTC requires regulated entities and encourages all parties to file submissions in accessible formats (for example, text-based file formats that enable text to be enlarged or modified, or read by screen readers) for this proceeding.

To provide assistance in this regard, the CRTC has posted on its website guidelines for preparing documents in accessible formats.

In the event where submitted documents have not been filed in accessible formats, parties may contact the Public Hearings group to request that CRTC staff obtain those documents in accessible formats from the party who originally submitted the documents in question in an inaccessible format.

A copy of this letter will be placed on the public record of this proceeding.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Lisanne Legros
Director, Telecommunications Networks Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Nicolas Gatto, CRTC, nicolas.gatto@crtc.gc.ca
Celia Millay, CRTC, celia.millay@crtc.gc.ca
Iva Jurisic, CRTC, iva.jurisic@crtc.gc.ca
Simon Wozny, CRTC, simon.wozny@crtc.gc.ca
Filsan Gure, CRTC, filsan.gure@crtc.gc.ca
Rebecca Hume, CRTC, rebecca.hume@crtc.gc.ca
Karen Soriano Ley, CRTC, karen.sorianoley@crtc.gc.ca
Sarah McMaster, CRTC, sarah.mcmaster@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (5)

Distribution List:

Canadian Internet Registration Authority: Georgia.Evans@cira.ca
Competitive Network Operators of Canada: regulatory@cnoc.ca; regulatory@tacitlaw.com
Council of Yukon First Nations: Peter.Turner@cyfn.net
Daniel Sokolov: daniel@falco.ca
Dominion Gold Resources: dean@dominiongold.ca
Eeyou Communications Network and James Bay Cree Communications Society:
c.melancon@eeyou.ca
First Mile Connectivity Consortium: info@firstmile.ca
First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun: lisa@badenhorst.ca; adrienne.hill@nndfn.com
G & V Global Developments: gvdevnt@gmail.com
Galaxy Broadband Communications, Inc.: lindsay@galaxybroadband.ca rick@galaxybroadband.ca
Government of the Northwest Territories: telecom_reg@gov.nt.ca
Government of Yukon: sean.mcleish@yukon.ca
Hamlet of Resolute Bay: cedo@resolute.ca
Inuknet: jfbouchard@qcorp.ca ; lindsay@galaxybroadband.ca ; rick@galaxybroadband.ca
Iristel Inc.: regulatory@iristel.com; regulatory@tacitlaw.com
IRP Consulting: tosh@irpotential.com
Kluane First Nation: lisa@badenhorst.ca
Kwanlin Dün First Nation: David.Burke@kdfn.net
Lorraine Rousseau: RousseLo@psac-afpc.com
National Indigenous Economic Development Board: daniel.hughes@sac-isc.gc.ca
New North Networks:  tom@newnorth.ca
Northern Rockies Electric: schildknechtm@hotmail.com
Northern Rockies Regional Municipality: lthompson@northernrockies.ca , rblain@northernrockies.ca
Northwestel Inc.: regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca ; forward to Yukon First Nations Telco LP
Nukik Corporation: aaudouin@nukik.ca
OneWeb Technologies Inc.: joe.uglialoro@onewebtechnologies.net
Panarctic Communications Inc.: jfbouchard@qcorp.ca
Public Interest Advocacy Centre: jlawford@piac.ca
Rob Hopkins: media@openbroadcaster.com
Shadhäla Äshèyi yè Kwädän (Champagne and Aishihik First Nations): tbuzzell@cafn.ca
SpaceX Canada Corp.: cassandra.heyne@spacex.com
SSi Canada: regulatory@ssicanada.com
Taku River Tlingit First Nation: capital@gov.trtfn.com
cherish.clarke@digitalenginetech.com
TELUS Communications Inc.: regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in Government: aaron.woroniuk@trondek.ca
Xplore Inc.: kelly.michalak@xplore.ca
Yukon First Nations Telco LP
Yukon Utilities Consumers' Group: rrondeau@northwestel.net

Appendix 1: Questions on the affordability of telecommunications services

Subsidy of retail Internet services

  1. Many parties submitted that the CRTC should introduce a new subsidy to make Internet services in the Far North more affordable and proposed a wide range of models to achieve this objective. Many parties agreed that a subsidy should be available to all Internet service providers (ISPs) operating in the Far North and that it should be available in both terrestrially served and satellite-dependent communities. Some parties cautioned against complex subsidy models that may be administratively burdensome and time-consuming to implement and noted that models based on uniform discounts for all customers might be a more efficient way to provide relief for residents of the Far North (Several parties highlighted FCC’s Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program as examples.). The following questions explore the uniform discount subsidy model in greater detail. In providing your responses, consider that such a model would have the following characteristics:
    • The subsidy would not be based on ISPs’ costs of providing the service, but would instead offer a uniform discount on retail Internet services.
    • The discount would be available to all customers in the Far North (i.e., it would not require means testing), and all ISPs operating in the Far North would be eligible to receive the subsidy.
    • The discount would be applied directly to customers’ bills, regardless of their choice of provider.
    • The amount of subsidy given to each ISP would be equal to the discounts provided.
    • The subsidy would be funded by TSPs, or groups of related TSPs, that have $10 million or more in annual Canadian telecommunications revenues that contribute to the National Contribution Fund (NCF). A third party would operate the fund at arm’s length from the CRTC (The NCF contribution (money) is collected by means of a revenue-percent charge that is applied to the contribution-eligible revenues of a TSP. Certain revenues (e.g., from retail Internet and texting services) and other amounts (e.g., intercarrier payments) are currently excluded from the calculation of a TSP’s contribution).
    • The total annual costs of the subsidy would depend on the uniform discount rate as well as the total number of discounts offered by all participating providers in the Far North. For instance, based on the latest census data (Figures are based on Statistics Canada’s household data from the 2021 census. According to the census, there are 42,310 private households in the three territories.), if every household were to take advantage of the discount, monthly discounts of $25, $50, or $100 per household would require roughly $12,690,000, $25,390,000, or $50,770,000 in annual fund contributions, respectively. If the eligible recipients include small businesses in the three territories (Figures are based on Statistics Canada’s Key Small Business Statistics 2022: there are 3,901 small businesses (1-99 employees) in the territories. ), the annual contribution requirement for each discount tier would be roughly $1,170,000, $2,340,000, and $4,680,000, respectively, increasing the total annual contribution requirement to roughly $13,860,000, $27,730,000, and $55,450,000, respectively (Note that that these examples are for illustrative purposes only. They exclude households and small businesses in northern BC and Alberta and do not take into account households or small businesses that do not subscribe to Internet services or those that may have multiple subscriptions. They also only show the total subsidy requirement for the discount rate on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and not for any ancillary costs to ISPs).
    1. If the CRTC were to introduce a subsidy based on the uniform discount model to make Internet services more affordable for all customers in the Far North, how should the amount of the discount be determined and what would be the optimal amount of the discount that each customer receives? Provide supporting rationale for your response.
    2. Should a subsidy be available for any retail Internet service or should it be restricted to services that, for instance, are delivered over certain types of infrastructure, offer certain speeds or data allowances, or have other characteristics? Provide supporting rationale for your response.
    3. The CRTC regulates the rates of Northwestel’s terrestrial retail Internet services pursuant to section 25 of the Telecommunications Act. However, it does not regulate the rates of Northwestel’s satellite Internet services or the rates of services provided by any other ISP operating in the Far North. International examples, like the FCC’s Lifeline or the Affordable Connectivity Program suggest that, where services are not rate regulated, there is a level of risk with gaming of subsidy programs. For instance, ISPs might inflate the prices of plans or force customers to subscribe to higher tier plans to receive the discount, provide false or inaccurate information to the CRTC regarding number of discounts offered, or otherwise not pass the full benefits of the subsidy on to their subscribers. Comment on measures that could be taken to minimize gaming and ensure that ISPs effectively demonstrate that they have passed on the full benefits of the discount to their customers?
    4. In order to implement a uniform discount subsidy model, ISPs may be required to comply with certain administrative requirements to receive a subsidy, notably submitting information to the CRTC on a regular basis and modifying billing systems to ensure that the subsidy amount is indicated on customers’ bills, among others. Comment on the potential administrative costs (types of costs as well as magnitude) that you might incur as a result of the introduction of a uniform discount subsidy in the Far North.
    5. Introducing a subsidy to reduce retail rates in the Far North may increase the demand for Internet services. This may result in increase in Internet subscribers, or more customers subscribing to higher tier plans. This may in turn contribute to network congestion or service degradation, particularly in satellite-dependent communities, where network quality and capacity is more limited. Considering the subsidy characteristics set out above, comment on the extent to which introduction of a subsidy might impact demand for Internet services, as well as the impact on quality of ISPs’ networks.   

Respondents: All parties

Subsidy and eligible providers

  1. If the CRTC were to introduce a new subsidy to make retail Internet services in the Far North more affordable, which ISPs should be eligible to receive a subsidy? For instance, should eligibility exclude international ISPs (i.e., those that are not incorporated in Canada), or should any provider offering retail Internet services in the Far North (such as Starlink) be eligible?

Respondents: All parties

Connecting Families

  1. During the public hearing, Northwestel indicated that it will be joining the Connecting Families initiative of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). On 21 July 2023 Northwestel submitted its proposed tariff changes to the CRTC to introduce Connecting Families internet packages. In the tariff filing, Northwestel indicated that the planned implementation date would be 24 October 2023 to ensure packages are available when ISED sends the first round of notices to eligible customers. Provide the following information regarding Northwestel’s progress with respect to joining the Connecting Families initiative:
    1. A copy of Northwestel’s agreement with ISED with respect to the Connecting Families initiative as well as a summary of all relevant information, including but not limited to package specifications, terms and conditions, duration of agreement, maximum number of eligible customers, eligibility criteria, etc.
    2. Northwestel indicated that its Connecting Families 1.0, which would offer 15/1 Mbps, 300 GB usage, and $1.00/GB overage charge at $10/month (subject to CRTC approval),    will be available in DSL-served communities served by digital subscriber line (DSL), while its Connecting Families 2.0 package, which would offer 50/10 Mbps, 400 GB usage, and $1.00/GB overage charge at $20/month (subject to CRTC approval), will only be available in communities served by cable or by fibre to the premises (FTTP). Indicate the number and percentage of Northwestel’s retail Internet customers that will be (or that are expected to be) eligible for its a) Connecting Families 1.0 and b) Connecting Families 2.0 packages.

Respondents: Northwestel

Overage fees and bill/data management

  1. Provide the following information with respect to overage fees paid by Northwestel’s retail Internet customers:
    1. Provide the number and percentage of terrestrial and satellite retail customers who paid overage fees in each of the years 2021, 2022, and 2023.
    2. Provide the available trend data for overage fees charged to (a) terrestrial, and (b) satellite retail customers in 2023 (starting with December 2022 up to the most recent data available). Explain, with supporting rationale, whether you consider that the overage fees charged to customers in 2022 has decreased, remained the same, or increased.
    3. For 2022 only, provide the total number and percentage of retail customers who paid overage fees in 2022 by province/territory.
    4. For 2022 only, and for customers who paid overage fees, provide an annual average of the overage fees paid by (a) terrestrial customers and (b) satellite customers.
    5. Provide the amount that Northwestel earned in overage fees from (a) terrestrial and (b) satellite retail customers in each of the years 2021, 2022, and 2023.
    6. For 2022 only, provide the total number and percentage of retail customers who purchased additional usage blocks in 2022 by province/territory.
    7. For 2022 only, provide the amount that Northwestel has collected from fees for additional usage blocks.

Respondents: Northwestel

  1. The Internet Code requires service providers, including Northwestel, to comply with a number of requirements with respect to bill management, including notification of usage limits; data monitoring tools; and notification tools that provide information on data usage associated with common online activities and alternative plans that may better suit consumers’ needs, while ensuring that policies and written contracts are clear and easy to understand, especially with regard to data limits and overage charges. Certain parties (more precisely, the First Mile Connectivity Consortium [FMCC], the Government of the Northwest Territories [GNWT], the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality [NRRM] and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, [PIAC]) proposed that the CRTC should require service providers to do more to ensure consumers are better able to manage, track, control, and generally be informed about overage fees. Examples include providing better data management tools, allowing customers to carry forward unused data into subsequent billing periods, or allowing customers to suspend overage fees by their own choice. Although changes to the Internet Code are outside the scope of this proceeding, the CRTC could impose new obligations related to these issues in this proceeding.
    1. In your view, is there a need for the CRTC to introduce additional measures to address bill shock that go beyond the provisions set out in the Internet Code?
    2. Comment on the extent to which it would be feasible for ISPs operating in the Far North to operationalize any of the above noted measures.

Respondents: All ISPs & ISP co-ops (Northwestel, SSi, Telus, Iristel, Eeyou Communications Network and James Bay Cree Communications Society, Competitive Network Operators of Canada, First Mile Connectivity Consortium)

  1. During the public hearing, FMCC noted that Internet users in the Far North face challenges in managing and monitoring their data usage, adding that it is incumbent upon customers to use complicated online tools to do so. FMCC stated:
    • I would just say that, from the perspective of consumers or end users, there’s a lot of complexity in trying to sort through the types of service that they could use, how to manage their bandwidth in a way that is not going to go over overage rates, so it’s incumbent on them to visit a website and try to figure out what their usage would be using a calculator that’s online in terms of the type of uses that they use the internet for and so on in order to predict how much data that they may use in a specific month and then manage their usage in a way that wouldn’t exceed their data cap. So I would say there’s a high level of complexity already that’s placed on the end user or consumer.
    • During the hearing, Northwestel indicated that many customers on capped plans are offered an email notification system to warn customers who are nearing or have exceeded their monthly data allowance. For those not subscribed to the notification system, Northwestel indicated they notify customers by telephone. Northwestel stated:
    • For people who are on DSL or our fibre or cable capped plans, we take our internet code of conduct obligations very seriously. When you call in to subscribe to a capped plan, our procedures are very clear. Our CSRs will work with you to explain the notification process and enrol you in notifications. Again, very few customers are not enrolled in notifications. For those that aren't, we monitor their usage and make telephone calls to them to let them know that they should be watching their internet, that they are at risk of an overage.  
    • In light of the above, provide the following clarifications:
      1. Provide the total number and percentage of all customers currently subscribed to a capped plan (most recent data available) who:
        • Are subscribed to an email notification system.
        • Are not subscribed to an email notification system.
      2. Do all customers on capped plans who are not subscribed to notifications automatically receive telephone calls when faced with a risk of overages? At what percentage(s) of data used do customers receive a notification?
      3. Provide screenshots of Northwestel’s Usage Report Tool that shows an example of a customer’s usage and indicate whether customers’ use of this tool counts toward their data usage?
        • If yes, how much data is required for a typical customer to use the Usage Report Tool?
        • If yes, does Northwestel offer any low-bandwidth usage monitoring solutions?

Respondents: Northwestel

Northwestel’s price cap baskets

  1. In a Part 1 application submitted by Northwestel in December 2021, Northwestel requested that the basket-level constraint for the Residential Internet Services sub-basket be suspended, such that any rate decrease within the basket does not create available headroom for a rate increase to another service. Subsequently, in an intervention submitted by Northwestel on October 6, 2022, as part of this proceeding (paragraphs 239 – 251), Northwestel proposed modifications to its retail Internet services, such that Northwestel would be permitted to make certain rate increases at sub-basket levels for residential and business Internet services. However, in its further comments submitted on February 10, 2023 (paragraphs 96 – 98), Northwestel indicated that it was no longer seeking this outcome, given that, in Decision 2022-343 issued on December 20, 2022, the Commission allowed Northwestel some flexibility with respect to price reductions for certain services in order to enable Northwestel to compete with Starlink. While Northwestel recognized this additional flexibility, Northwestel nonetheless requested that the price floor test be eliminated for all retail residential terrestrial Internet services. In paragraph 98 of its further comments Northwestel stated:
    “Given the permanent pricing flexibility provided for in Decision 2022-343, in addition to the additional flexibility we proposed in our Intervention and that we discuss in section 7.2.1 above, we are no longer seeking the ability to increase retail residential Internet rates.  As such, the basket constraint for our residential Internet services is suspended, and rate decreases will not generate any headroom to permit us to increase the prices for any other residential Internet service.”
    1. Confirm whether Northwestel’s decision to no longer seek the ability to increase retail residential Internet rates is contingent on the Commission accepting the additional flexibility requested by Northwestel in section 7.2.1. of its further comments.
    2. Does Northwestel continue to seek the ability to increase rates to Business Internet services at the rate element constraint of 10% per year, including exogenous adjustments (while not permitting for any rate increases at the weighted average price level across all the services in the basket)?
    3. Further to the above, provide a summary of Northwestel’s updated proposals with respect to its capped Internet services, including any associated conditions and rationales.

Respondents: Northwestel

New service provider in Nunavut

  1. A recent news release, entitled Panartctic Communications and Galaxy Broadband Communications Form New Arctic Telecom Company, which was  issued by Inuknet indicated that Inuknet’s initial service rollout will cover all 25 communities in Nunavut by the end of 2023, that it will be the fastest available Internet in the North and that service plans will not include fees for data overages.
    1. Provide additional detail with respect to Inuknet’s intended service offerings:
      • Will Internet services only be available to business and enterprise customers?
      • Does Inuknet currently offer or will Inuknet offer services to small businesses operating in the Far North?
    2. Does Inuknet have plans to offer retail satellite Internet services in the Far North to households? If so:
      • Provide details with respect to the types of plans that would be offered (speeds, data allowances, rates, overage fees, etc.)
      • Outline Inuknet’s plan for Internet traffic management, if any, to ensure speed and quality of service.

Respondents: Panarctic Communications Inc. and/or Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc. [for clarification: Panarctic and Galaxy may provide a joint response but both companies are not required to respond.]

Appendix 2: Questions on advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

  1. Question 25 of the Telecom Notice of Consultation 2022-147 asked if the Commission should “impose any requirements or expectations on service providers relating to meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities when providing (or planning to provide) telecommunications services to Indigenous communities in the Far North” (emphasis added). While parties on the record have identified the need for more engagement, do you agree that these are circumstances (i.e. when providing or planning to provide telecommunications services) under which TSPs in the Far North should be expected or required to engage with Indigenous communities and governments? Are there additional circumstances under which TSPs in the Far North should be expected or required to engage with Indigenous communities and governments? If yes, provide supporting rationale.

Respondents: All parties

  1. Comment on the possibility that the CRTC require TSPs in the Far North to submit annual reports to the CRTC on their activities in support of reconciliation, including engagement with Indigenous communities and governments as well as economic reconciliation, and that these reports be made available to the public.
    1. Comment on the possibility that the CRTC require TSPs in the Far North to submit reports providing a summary of their reconciliation activities?
    2. Comment on the possibility that the CRTC require that these reports be submitted annually.
    3. Comment on the possibility that the CRTC require TSPs in the Far North to report on the following elements of their engagement activities:
      • transcripts
      • agendas (see PIAC intervention, para.168, 170; FMCC further comments, para.44; CAFN hearing, para.2216)
      • meeting attendance (see CAFN hearing, para.2216; FMCC further comments, para19.)
      • meeting minutes (including consent, agreement, dissent, and outcomes) (see PIAC intervention, para.168, 70.; FMCC further comments, para.44; CAFN hearing, para.2216; FMCC hearing, para.578.)
      • the views of those consulted (see GNWT intervention, para.186.)
    4. Comment on the possibility that the CRTC require TSPs in the Far North to validate the contents of the reports with relevant Indigenous parties. Should the Commission require that TSPs obtain approval of the contents of the reports from Indigenous parties before the reports are submitted to the CRTC?

Respondents: Northwestel, SSi, Iristel

  1. How can the CRTC ensure that Indigenous parties are provided with the opportunity to validate the information included in TSPs’ reports on reconciliation activities? Should the Commission require that TSPs obtain approval of the contents of the reports from Indigenous parties before the reports are submitted to the CRTC?

Respondents: Council of Yukon First Nations, Eeyou Communications Network and James Bay Cree Communications Society, FMCC, First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun, Inuknet, IRP Consulting, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dün First Nation, National Indigenous Economic Development Board, Nukik Corporation, Panarctic Communications Inc., Shadhäla Äshèyi yè Kwädän (Champagne and Aishihik First Nations), Taku River Tlingit First Nation, Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in Government

Appendix 3: Questions on the reliability and quality of telecommunications services

Definition of an outage

  1. Based on Northwestel’s previous responses to requests for information from Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this proceeding (see Northwestel(CRTC)27Nov20-1.2 TNC 2020-367; Northwestel(CRTC)25Mar21-3 TNC 2020-367; Northwestel(CRTC)25Mar21-5 TNC 2020-367; Northwestel(CRTC)25Mar21-6 TNC 2020-367; Northwestel(CRTC)15Jun22-6.2 TNC 2022-147), clarify Northwestel’s outage criteria and definition(s). Define the following terms and provide examples.
    1. Outages
    2. Planned outages
    3. Network outages
    4. Service outages
    5. Community outages
    6. Power outages

Respondents: Northwestel

Refunds for outages

  1. Outages for Internet services and restoration of these services in the Far North are impacted by many unique factors, including severe weather, lack of redundancy, and terrain and facility accessibility, among other things. Many parties to the proceeding highlighted the high frequency of Internet outages in the Far North, and the impact of these outages.
    • Several parties noted that customers must request a refund or that it is at the discretion of a TSP in the Far North to provide a refund when an Internet outage occurs. Based on these circumstances, many parties supported imposing a requirement on TSPs in the Far North to provide automatic refunds or bill credits for Internet outages.
    • If such a requirement were imposed by the Commission, address the following with respect to how it should be implemented by the Commission:
      1. Who should be subject to the requirement of automatic refunds or bill credits (e.g. Northwestel only, all TSPs in the Far North, terrestrial providers only, both terrestrial and satellite providers, etc.)?
      2. What conditions/circumstances would require a refund or bill credits to a customer? What should be the limits on refunds or bill credits?
        1. Should the refund apply to all Internet outages or outages under specific conditions? If refunds or bill credits should be under specific conditions, comment on the following:
          • Should the Commission establish a minimum duration and/or number of customers impacted by an Internet outage before requiring a refund or bill credits?
          • Should TSPs be required to provide refunds or bill credits for outages outside of their control, for example, customer-caused outages and/or outages caused by third parties (e.g. due to a power outage)?
          • Should TSPs be required to provide refunds or bill credits for scheduled outages if the TSPs have given advance notice?
        2. Should the automatic refund or bill credits apply to both business and residential internet services?
      3. How should refunds or bill credits be calculated? How should bundled services be accounted for in this calculation?
      4. What should be the format of the refunds or bill credits?
      5. What is the timeframe in which TSPs should be required to provide customers with a refund or bill credits after an Internet outage?
      6. How should customers be notified of the refund or bill credits, and what information should be included in these communications?
      7. How should TSPs communicate the new requirement to their customers?

Respondents: All parties

  1. Under a scenario in which the Commission were to impose a requirement that TSPs operating in the Far North provide automatic refunds or bill credits to customers affected by an Internet outage, provide the following information:
    1. Is it feasible to detect and measure outages for the purpose of providing refunds? Do satellite services pose unique challenges in this regard?
    2. Provide your views on what activities (for example, possible changes to business processes, billings or other operational support systems) would be required to implement automatic refunds or bill credits, including associated timelines and estimates of costs for implementation. 
    3. Are there any technical or operational barriers to providing automatic refunds or bill credits?

Respondents: Eeyou Communications Network and James Bay Cree Communications Society, First Mile Connectivity Consortium, Galaxy Broadband Communications, Inc., Iristel Inc., Northwestel, SSi Canada, Xplore Inc.

  1. During the public hearing, SSi Canada (SSi) stated: “You know, just recently because of the extended solar eclipse, because of the health of the satellite, we are willingly refunding a quarter of a million dollars to our customers. And that’s not anything that we’re forced to do or obligated to do.” Provide the following information:
    1. SSi's approach to calculating a refund;
    2. Whether the refund was a full or partial refund for the length of service lost; if a partial refund was provided, the proportion relative to the total length of service lost;
    3. The format or manner in which the refund was distributed to customers;
    4. The timeframe in which customers received the refund; and,
    5. How SSi communicated the refund to customers.
    6. Was this refund a one-time initiative in response to unique circumstances, or does SSI have a broader policy and procedure for applying refunds for outages? If so, share a copy of that policy.

Respondents: SSi Canada

Monitoring and reporting

  1. The Commission has established an interim measure that requires carriers to report a major service outage to the Commission within two hours of when the carrier becomes aware of such an outage and to file a follow-up report with the Commission. Final reporting requirements will be determined in the context of Development of a regulatory framework to improve network reliability and resiliency – Mandatory notification and reporting about major telecommunications service outages, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2023-39, 22 February 2023.
    • If the Commission were to also require TSPs in the Far North to monitor other Internet (non-major Internet outages) and submit periodic reports to the Commission, comment on the following:
      1. In Telecom Notice of Consultation 2023-39, paragraph 22, for the purpose of the interim measure, a major service outage is defined as “as any outage affecting (i) more than 100,000 subscribers or a material portion of the carrier’s subscribers for more than one hour, (ii) subscribers that are in a geographic area served only by the affected carrier, (iii) critical infrastructure, (iv) major transport facilities, or (v) a 9-1-1 network.”
        • Recognizing that not all Internet outages will fall under the definition of a major service outage and the high frequency of outages in the Far North, provide comment on the conditions and circumstances of outages that should be considered for non-major outages (including the minimum duration and customers impacted). 
      2. Should TSPs in the Far North be required to monitor and report all other Internet (non-major Internet outages), in addition to major Internet outages, which are being addressed in Telecom Notice of Consultation 2023-39?
      3. Should outage reporting be on a case-by-case basis or a cumulative report of non-major internet outages over a period of time (e.g. outages in the last four months, last six months, or for all outages in a calendar year)?
        • What is the frequency at which TSPs should submit their reports to the Commission?
      4. Comment on potentially requiring the following specific information to be monitored by TSPs and submitted in the periodic reports to the Commission:
        • Number of outages
        • Number of customers impacted
        • Location(s) of the outage
        • Causes of the outage
        • Outage start time
        • Duration of outage
        • Services impacted
        • Steps taken to resolve the outage
        • Plans put in place to prevent similar outages in the future
        • Information communicated to customers regarding the Internet outage
        • Updates on investments and ongoing projects aimed to reduce the frequency and length of outages

Respondents: All parties

  1. The Commission has established an interim measure that requires carriers to report a major service outage to the Commission within two hours of when the carrier becomes aware of such an outage and to file a follow-up report with the Commission. Final reporting requirements will be determined in the context of Development of a regulatory framework to improve network reliability and resiliency – Mandatory notification and reporting about major telecommunications service outages, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2023-39, 22 February 2023.
    • If the Commission were to also require TSPs in the Far North to monitor other Internet outages (non-major Internet outages) and submit periodic reports to the Commission, comment on the following:
      1. What impact might ongoing collection of data and periodic reporting on non-major Internet outages have on operations and services?
      2. Are there any technical or operational barriers in regard to ongoing monitoring and reporting on non-major Internet outages?
      3. Provide your views on what activities (for example, possible changes to business processes or other operational support systems) would be required for ongoing monitoring and reporting of non-major Internet outages, including associated timelines and estimates of costs for implementation.
      4. Should a monitoring and reporting requirement be applied symmetrically between terrestrial and satellite TSPs? In your view, is it feasible for satellite TSPs to be subject to the same requirement(s) as terrestrial TSPs?

Respondents: Eeyou Communications Network and James Bay Cree Communications Society, First Mile Connectivity Consortium, Galaxy Broadband Communications, Inc., Iristel Inc., Northwestel, SSi Canada, Xplore Inc.

Outage communication

  1. During the public hearing (see Hearing Transcript, April 21, 2023, page 725, paragraph 3841), Northwestel stated “Well, we have a living distribution list for outages. So one of the things that occurs, you know, in, for example, consultations if there are additional people who need to be on the notification list, we include them so that the next time there is an outage, they will receive notification as they wish.” Provide the following information:
    1. What type of customers are part of the distribution list (retail customers, business customers, wholesale customers, etc.)?
    2. What is the process for customers to join the distribution list?
    3. How does Northwestel promote the distribution list to its customers?
    4. How (by what means) and when (duration after start of outage) are customers that are on the list notified about outages compared to customers not on the list?

Respondents: Northwestel

  1. On 9 May 2023, Northwestel submitted guidelines and timelines for informing and liaising with customers about outages as part of an undertaking. Provide the following information:
    1. Not including information filed under confidence, does Northwestel share these guidelines and timelines with customers?
    2. Regarding planned outages, Northwestel (see Northwestel(CRTC)21Apr23-2 TNC 2022-147, Northwestel Response to the Undertakings, 9 May 2023, page 2 of 5, abridged version) submitted that “where appropriate, we also communicate with the public, including by posting timelines on our website on a page dedicated to service notifications, over social media, or by email directly to impacted customers. When determining if customer communication is necessary, we consider contextual factors such as the expected duration, time of day, and anticipated severity of customer impact.”
      • How far in advance is a notice given to customers for planned outages?
      • In what circumstances would customer communication for planned outages not be necessary?
      • Are the notifications for Internet outages sent only to account holders or to all users of the service?
    3. Provide detailed information including screenshots regarding what information is available on Northwestel’s dedicated webpage for outages, including before a planned outage and during an Internet outage.
    4. In the event of an Internet outage, how does Northwestel notify and communicate with customers who do not have Internet service?
    5. In an undertaking filed to the Commission on 9 May 2023, Northwestel provided the internal criteria and timelines for establishing a major outage communication (see Northwestel(CRTC)21Apr23-2 TNC 2022-147, Northwestel, Response to the Undertakings, 9 May 2023page 4-5 of 5, abridged version).  Provide information on the internal timelines for communication of outages that do not meet the internal criteria of a major outage.
    6. Is information on the cause of Internet outages disclosed to affected customers? If not, discuss with supporting rationale/evidence, why the cause of an Internet outage should not be shared with affected customers.
    7. Provide information on whether Northwestel has an Internet outage map which provides real-time updates available for customers. If not, explain why it does not do so for greater customer transparency. Does Northwestel face any technical or operational barriers in producing an Internet outage map with real-time updates that is available to consumers? What modifications, if any, would Northwestel need to make to business processes or other operational support systems? If possible, provide an estimate of the costs to make any necessary changes and associated timelines.

Respondents: Northwestel

Appendix 4: Questions on competition and wholesale services

Proposed new policy considerations

  1. Several parties suggested that the Commission should add a new policy consideration to the Wholesale Analysis it applies in the Far North. Note that the updated Wholesale Analysis would not only be applied in this proceeding, but in any circumstances where the Commission is considering whether it is appropriate to mandate wholesale services in the Far North.
    • The policy considerations that have been proposed are as follows:
      1. In Intervention of the Council of Yukon First Nations (Page 23, Question 28, Subsection d) Council of Yukon First Nations (YFN) submitted that as part of the Wholesale Analysis, “YFN citizens face a number of additional challenges that make the need for affordable and reliable telecommunications even more acute. YFN citizens reside disproportionately in Yukon Communities outside of Whitehorse, making the need for both telecommunications service deliver, as well as affordable pricing, even more critical. Ironically, telecommunications service packages prices are highest, and performance and reliability are worst where they are most acutely needed.”, an appropriate new policy consideration could be that: The urgent need for affordable and reliable telecommunications services in rural and remote communities of the Far North, including Indigenous communities.
      2. In the Government of the Northwest Territories Intervention (Page 49, Paragraph 209) the Government of Northwest Territories submitted that as part of the Wholesale Analysis, an appropriate policy consideration could be that facilities build-out in the Far North has been based on subsidy and deployment obligations, not facilities competition, illustrating the degree to which the prospect for competitive entry through redundant access telecommunications infrastructure is weaker in the Far North.
      3. In First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun Intervention (Page 23, Paragraph 135) First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun submitted that as part of the Wholesale Analysis, an appropriate policy consideration could be to recognize obligations to Indigenous peoples, including economic reconciliation. In Champagne and Aishihik First Nations Intervention (Page 5, Paragraph 14, Subsection xiii) Champagne and Aishihik First Nations submitted that as part of the Wholesale Analysis, an appropriate policy consideration could be to consider what wholesale services are required to further the objective of reconciliation with First Nations people, consistent with the honour of the Crown. In Telus Further Comments (Page 13, Paragraph 25) it indicated that it supports a new policy consideration aimed at meeting the needs of Indigenous Peoples. Some of the needs noted by Telus include Indigenous ownership, operation and maintenance of telecommunications infrastructure; economic reconciliation; Indigenous connectivity; self-determination; and economic empowerment of Indigenous communities. To resume, Reconciliation, the honour of the Crown, and obligations to Indigenous peoples would be a policy consideration.
      4. As mentioned above, economic reconciliation.
      5. As mentioned in point iii., the distinct needs of Indigenous peoples in the Far North, and as mentioned in Daniel Sokolov Intervention (Page 13, Paragraph 83)National sovereignty in the Far North.
      6. The rate regulation of downstream retail services that would be enabled by mandated upstream wholesale services (see Intervention of Northwestel, Inc., Page 139, Paragraph 467.
        • For each of the proposed policy considerations enumerated above:
        1. Should the proposed new policy consideration be added to the Wholesale Analysis? Why or why not? Be sure to comment on how the proposed new policy consideration relates to the policy objectives enumerated in section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, and why this is something in particular that the Commission should focus on when making decisions regarding wholesale services in the Far North.
        2. How does the proposed new policy consideration relate to whether the Commission should mandate a wholesale HSA service in this proceeding?

Respondents: All parties

Impact of changes to wholesale HSA framework in the south

  1. On 8 March 2023, the Commission published three decisions and one notice of consultation (TD 2023-53, TD 2023-54, TD 2023-55, TNOC 2023-56) related to the Commission’s wholesale HSA service framework outside of the Far North, and launched a new proceeding to review that framework.
    1. Comment on whether and how the Commission’s determinations and views in these decisions impact your views regarding wholesale HSA services in the Far North.

Respondents: All parties

Wholesale HSA services in rural and remote communities

  1. In 2019, the Competition Bureau published a report, Delivering Choice: A Study of Competition in Canada’s Broadband Industry, Competition Bureau Canada, 2019 (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada) regarding a year-long market study it undertook to evaluate the state of competition in Canada’s broadband industry. In its report, it stated that:

Respondents: All parties

Essentiality Test – Impact of low earth orbit (LEO) satellite Internet providers

  1. To satisfy the Essentiality Test, the Commission must find that i) there will be sufficient demand for the service; and that ii) not mandating a wholesale HSA service in the Far North is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the retail Internet market (see paras. 38, 41 of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2015-326). However:

Respondents: Northwestel, First Mile Connectivity Consortium, Eeyou Communications Network and James Bay Cree Communications Society, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Telus, SSi, Daniel Sokolov, Competitive Network Operators of Canada, Council of Yukon First Nations, Government of Northwest Territories, Iristel

Implementation of a wholesale HSA service in the Far North

  1. Many parties submitted that a new wholesale HSA service should be mandated in every community served by terrestrial transport infrastructure.
    • Northwestel submitted that there would be many negative consequences of introducing a wholesale HSA service, including its direct costs of implementation, impact on its IT resources, impact on FTTP expansion to areas without a positive business case, reduction of its workforce, and loss of Northwestel’s revenues and corresponding capital investments.
      1. Comment on whether limiting the geographic scope of a mandated wholesale HSA service to certain regions (for example, areas with a higher population density such as Whitehorse and Yellowknife) could address or mitigate any of the potential negative consequences that have been raised on the record with respect to mandating a wholesale HSA service. If so, in what regions should wholesale HSA be mandated and why?
      2. Comment on whether implementing a wholesale HSA service incrementally would address or mitigate any of the potential negative consequences noted above or that have otherwise been raised on the record. For example, Northwestel could be required to make the service available in a given community upon an appropriate request or commitment by a future wholesale customer. If so, in what way should wholesale HSA be implemented incrementally and why?

Respondents: Northwestel

Wholesale HSA service and copper facilities

  1. Several parties, including SSi, Competitive Network Operators of Canada, Council of Yukon First Nations, Daniel Sokolov, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, commented that Northwestel should be required to provide a wholesale HSA service over all its terrestrial telecommunications infrastructure platforms, including DSL over copper access facilities.
    1. Is there likely to be any demand for an HSA service over copper facilities?
    2. For TSPs and organizations that represent TSPs: List what communities specifically you would be interested in entering and serving over copper facilities, and why.
    3. Comment on any aspect of the Essentiality Test or policy considerations, including proposed new policy considerations as enumerated in question 20 above, where there are particular circumstances relevant to mandating the service over copper access infrastructure. For example:
      • Does Northwestel have upstream market power? How comparable might wholesale LEO satellite services be with a wholesale HSA service over copper access facilities?
      • Will competition in a corresponding downstream retail market be substantially lessened or prevented if the service is not introduced over copper access facilities?
      • Is copper access infrastructure easier to duplicate than newer telecommunications access infrastructure?
    4. For Northwestel only: Discuss Northwestel’s plans for its copper access facilities and how they may be relevant to the Commission’s decision regarding whether to mandate a wholesale HSA service over them. Does Northwestel have plans to continue to deploy and maintain copper access facilities, where, and for how long?
    5. For Northwestel only: List all communities that satisfy the following 3 conditions: i) Northwestel currently provides services via terrestrial transport and copper access facilities; ii) Northwestel does not own or operate cable or FTTP access facilities; iii) Northwestel has no immediate plans to build cable or FTTP access facilities (also note any non-immediate, contingent, or other potential future plans by community).

Respondents: All parties

Impact of wholesale HSA on FTTP expansion

  1. Northwestel submitted in its intervention (page 140, paragraph 469) that if it were required to introduce a wholesale HSA service, it could delay or eliminate plans for “FTTP in-fill expansion to any area that does not have a positive business case. This could include rural Yukon subdivisions, farms, and remote community camps outside of the primary FTTP footprint or households in the Northwest Territories that did not have a hexagon awarded as part of the BBF program;”. Address the following:
    1. How many projects as referenced above (without a positive business case, without funding from the BBF program) have already been undertaken by Northwestel? Provide information regarding each project including when it was started, when it was completed, the business case, and which households were served with enough specificity so that these details can be verified.
    2. How many further projects as referenced above have been identified by Northwestel, and for which communities? How many households would be served? Discuss the business case for these projects and what plans, if any, Northwestel has to complete these projects. Will Northwestel commit to completing any projects if wholesale HSA is not mandated?

Respondents: Northwestel

Impact of wholesale HSA on CRTC Broadband Fund projects

  1. In its intervention of October 6, 2022 (page 145, paragraph 489), Northwestel submitted that if a wholesale HSA service were introduced in the Far North it would have to re-evaluate whether to proceed with its Broadband Fund projects for the deployment of fibre in many communities across the Yukon and Northwest Territories. In addition to the introduction of a wholesale HSA service in those communities, Northwestel listed several other factors that may result in a significantly diminished return on investment in relation to those projects than what was originally projected at the time that the projects were approved. However, these projects are largely scheduled to be completed by the end of 2023.
    • How many of the projects that Northwestel was referring to have already been completed, or are on track to be completed by the end of 2023? Which projects will be outstanding by the end of 2023?

Respondents: Northwestel

Impact of lost revenues on capital investments

  1. In its intervention dated October 6, 2022 (page 139, paragraph 469), Northwestel submitted that the introduction of a wholesale HSA service would reduce capital expenditures due to a corresponding drop in revenue and provided an estimate of the reduction.
    • On 22 November 2022, an RFI was issued to Northwestel requesting supporting information, assumptions, and/or methodology used to estimate the decrease in revenue and corresponding reduction in capital expenditures indicated by Northwestel, as a result of the introduction of a wholesale HSA service.
    • In its response, Northwestel indicated that it relied on the case where Videotron entered Cablevision du Nord de Quebec’s territory through TPIA to make an assumption as to the market share it could lose. However, it did not provide a fulsome explanation of how it arrived at its estimate.
      1. Provide a full explanation, including all assumptions, figures, and a step-by-step mathematical breakdown, to show how Northwestel arrived at its estimate.

Respondents: Northwestel

Northwestel’s costs to implement a wholesale HSA service

  1. In response to RFIs issued 22 November 2022, Northwestel updated and explained their estimate with respect to the costs of implementation of mandating a new wholesale HSA service over cable and FTTP access facilities.
    1. Update that estimate and explanation to also include the cost of implementing a new wholesale HSA service over copper access facilities.
    2. Northwestel indicated that its estimate did not include the recurring costs associated with running the service after launch or the incremental costs that would be incurred to accommodate demand growth over time. Estimate (with an explanation as to the methodology and all assumptions used) these costs over the first 5 years of running the service. Provide separate estimates for the service over each kind of access infrastructure (FTTP, cable, copper).

Respondents: Northwestel

Subsidizing the costs of implementing a wholesale HSA service

  1. At the hearing on April 21, 2023 (see transcript, page 802, paragraph 4270), Northwestel submitted that a terrestrial wholesale HSA service in its operating territory would only serve 30,000 homes, and therefore it is challenging to recover the costs of implementation for that service.
    • Provide the following information:
      1. Provide the estimated monthly and annual demand of wholesale customers expected to be served by a terrestrial wholesale HSA service in the Northwestel operating territory for each year for the first 5 years that the service would be available.
      2. Justify and provide additional details, along with any relevant calculations and assumptions, regarding the challenges faced by Northwestel to recover the costs of a potential terrestrial wholesale HSA service in the Northwestel operating territory.

Respondents: Northwestel

Projected rates and margins for a wholesale HSA service

  1. Recognizing that the form of a potential mandated wholesale HSA service has not yet been defined, configurations have yet to be developed or proposed, and that it is premature to prepare cost studies for the service:
    1. What costing analysis can Northwestel provide at this stage as an indication of what retail margins might be available to wholesale customers in the Far North? Where are Northwestel’s retail margins the highest, where are they the lowest, and how might this relate to the potential margins of wholesale HSA customers in the Far North?

Respondents: Northwestel

Essentiality Test – Substitutability of LEO satellite Internet services

  1. At the hearing on April 21, 2023 (see transcript, page 712, paragraph 3777), Northwestel submitted that it has taken competitive steps in response to the introduction of LEO satellite service providers in the Far North, and that Northwestel has seen an impact on its subscribers and revenues with respect to its retail terrestrial Internet services. With respect to Northwestel’s retail terrestrial Internet services:
    1. For Northwestel only: Provide a timeline of all competitive steps taken by Northwestel in response to the introduction of LEO satellite services providers.
    2. For Northwestel only: Provide a detailed accounting of lost revenues and customers attributable to the entry of existing LEO satellite Internet services in the Far North, broken down by community and type of service. Explain and justify why you attribute these losses to LEO satellite service providers. Have any customers lost to a LEO satellite Internet service provider returned to Northwestel? If so, how many, in which communities, when, and why?
    3. According to the Competition Bureau, services generally substitutable where a provider can sustain a small but significant and non-transitory increase in price with respect to one service, without causing buyers to switch to the other service in sufficient quantities as to render the price increase unprofitable. In most cases, the Bureau considers a five percent price increase to be significant and a one-year period to be non-transitory. Market characteristics may support using a different price increase or time period. (See Part 4 of the Competition Bureau Guidelines entitled Merger Enforcement Guidelines) Are existing LEO satellite Internet services in the Far North substitutable with Northwestel’s terrestrial Internet services? Does it depend on the geographic region and/or the underlying access technology? Justify your answer with regard to Competition Bureau Guidelines above.
    4. Even if LEO satellite services are not considered substitutes for Northwestel’s terrestrial Internet services, discuss whether they have any other impact on the terrestrial Internet market, or on competition in this market.
    5. Discuss what evidence exists with respect to likely future developments for LEO satellite services in the Far North, and how that might impact your answers to c. and d.

Respondents: Northwestel, FMCC, Eeyou Communications Network and James Bay Cree Communications Society, PIAC, Telus, SSi, Daniel Sokolov, Competitive Network Operators of Canada, Council of Yukon First Nations, Government of Northwest Territories, Iristel

Investments by competitors

  1. In its intervention (page 3, paragraph 13), Competitive Network Operators of Canada submitted on the record that wholesale competition in the Far North could lead to wholesale customers investing in their own networks. Competitive Network Operators of Canada also submitted that the transport and access components of Northwestel’s network are not duplicable (see intervention, page 5, paragraph 21). Clarify the noted possible inconsistency and discuss, specifically, the investments Competitive Network Operators of Canada anticipates would be made by wholesale-based competitors in their own networks, if a wholesale HSA service were mandated.

Respondents: Competitive Network Operators of Canada

Entrance of new competitors in the Far North

  1. In this proceeding, Competitive Network Operators of Canada has not indicated whether any of its members would enter the market in the Far North if a wholesale HSA service were mandated at just and reasonable rates.
    1. Indicate whether any Competitive Network Operators of Canada members have expressed an interest in providing telecommunications services in the Far North, were wholesale HSA service available.
    2. List any Competitive Network Operators of Canada members who have expressed such an interest.

Respondents: Competitive Network Operators of Canada

LEO satellite internet services

  1. Address the following questions with respect to LEO satellite Internet services you provide in the Far North.
    1. Describe any retail LEO satellite Internet services that you currently provide, or have plans to provide:
      • What price would a retail customer need to pay to access the service (or what will they need to pay)? Include all retail fees, including start-up fees, the price of any equipment they are required to purchase or rent, and monthly fees. Are any changes to these rates planned for the future? If so, what changes and when?
      • In which communities in the Far North do you provide retail services (or where will you provide them)?
      • What quality of service (expected latency, download speed, upload speed) can your customers expect?
      • If a customer stops subscribing to your service, then decides to subscribe again, do they need to pay new start-up fees, or incur any other fees?
      • Have you provided promotional pricing to your retail customers since introducing these services, and do you have plans to provide promotional pricing in the future? If yes, explain.
      • Do you rely on any wholesale services to provide your retail service? If yes, list those services, who you obtain them from, and provide any related wholesale agreements.
    2. How many customers do you have for each of your retail Internet services, broken down by province or territory in the Far North (BC, YU, NT, NU). With respect to BC, include only the region that is considered part of the Far North.
    3. How much revenue have you obtained in the most recent fiscal for each of your retail services, broken down by province or territory in the Far North (BC, YU, NT, NU). With respect to BC, include only the region that is considered part of the Far North.
    4. How much LEO satellite capacity do you have to provide these services?
    5. How many retail customers can you currently provide with LEO satellite services, and at what expected quality of service (expected latency, download speed, upload speed)? How do these parameters vary based on the number of end-users accessing your service at a given time? How do these parameters vary based on region in the Far North, if at all?
    6. There are reports (see for example: Starlink delivers fast internet, some outages, in Nunavut | Nunatsiaq News; Starlink stands up to cold but service, speeds vary, users say | Nunatsiaq News) from customers of LEO Internet services in the Far North of frequent, daily outages. On average, how many outages, of what duration, can customers of your service expect per day? Per month? Discuss the causes of this issue, whether you have plans to improve it, to what extent you expect this to improve, and the timeframe.  How does anything discussed in relation to this question regarding outages vary based on region in the Far North, if at all?
    7. Do you provide wholesale services anywhere in Canada (including outside of the Far North)?
      • If yes, indicate what services you provide, to whom, and provide a copy of all service agreements you have with each of your wholesale customers in Canada (including outside of the Far North). Do you have specific criteria for who you would consider as a wholesale customer? Would you be prepared to offer similar wholesale arrangements in the Far North?
      • If no, are you open to providing wholesale services in the Far North, and what arrangements might you be able to provide to prospective wholesale customers?
    8. How many retail customers are served by your wholesale customers, broken down by province or territory in the Far North (BC, YU, NT, NU). With respect to BC, include only the region that is considered part of the Far North. If you do not know, provide an estimate. Explain how you arrived at your estimate, including any assumptions and figures relied upon.
    9. If you provide both retail and wholesale services, do you allocate a certain amount of your capacity for retail versus wholesale customers, and if so, why? How much capacity do you allocate for retail? How much capacity do you allocate for wholesale? How do you decide how much capacity to allocate to your retail versus wholesale customers?
    10. If you provide retail and wholesale services, how many end-users could your wholesale customers serve, at what quality of service (expected latency, download speed, upload speed, expected number and duration of outages per day and per month), and discuss whether and how this is different from the services you provide to your retail customers?
    11. Do you have plans to make more capacity available for your retail customers, wholesale customers, or both? If so, what are they? How will these plans impact the quality of service (expected latency, download speed, upload speed, outages) that your retail and wholesale customers can expect in the future?

Respondents: SpaceX Canada Corp., OneWeb Technologies Inc., Xplore Inc., Galaxy Broadband Communications, Inc., Inuknet, Panarctic Communications Inc.

Wholesale access to telecom facilities and Indigenous ownership of telecom facilities

  1. Some Indigenous organizations (First Mile Connectivity Consortium, Council of Yukon First Nations, and First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun) have endorsed the 2021 Indigenous Connectivity Summit (ICS) Policy Recommendations, and have also submitted that the CRTC should mandate a wholesale HSA service.
    • The ICS recommendations support empowering Indigenous communities to own and maintain their own infrastructure. They do not mention wholesale access to infrastructure. A wholesale HSA service could reduce or possibly eliminate the need for new service providers to build their own access infrastructure, since it would allow them to use Northwestel’s access infrastructure at wholesale rates.
    • National Indigenous Economic Development Board submitted its National Indigenous Economic Strategy on the record of this proceeding, and proposed that the Commission should both allow Indigenous providers to utilize existing telecommunications infrastructure, and support Indigenous ownership of infrastructure.
      1. Comment on the relationship between mandated wholesale access and empowering Indigenous communities, or Indigenous-owned entities, to own and maintain their own telecommunications infrastructure.
      2. In your view, is it preferable for Indigenous communities to own their own access infrastructure, be able to use Northwestel’s access infrastructure at wholesale rates, or both? Why?
      3. In your view, does mandating a wholesale HSA service promote Indigenous ownership of infrastructure? How?

Respondents: Council of Yukon First Nations, First Mile Connectivity Consortium, First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun, Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in Government, Taku River Tlingit First Nation, Kluane First Nation, Kwanlin Dün First Nation, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, National Indigenous Economic Development Board

Wholesale Connect: Impact of changes on competitor services and business

  1. For each of the changes proposed to Wholesale Connect: (1) Increasing the maximum transmission unit from 1,500 bytes to at least 9,000 bytes; (2) Making more than one point of presence per community per wholesale customer available; (3) Making 10 Gigabits per second Ethernet ports available in network breakout point communities; (4) Making more than one network breakout point on a redundant path available; (5) Providing Ethernet and wavelength-based transport services; (6) Offering Wholesale Connect as a Layer 2 network solution, instead of as a Layer 3 solution; (7) Changing the Class of Service and Service Level Agreement provisions in the Wholesale Connect tariff; (8) Changing the competitor quality of service regime applicable to Wholesale Connect, as set out in Review of the competitor quality of service regime, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2018-123; and (9) Providing the option to purchase dedicated bandwidth as part of the Wholesale Connect service, on the record, explain with supporting rationale:
    1. How might the offerings, coverage, and networks of competitors be improved or affected in the next 3 to 5 years if each of the proposed changes are approved? Answer this question independent of any considerations with respect to the rates for the service.
      • Will they help competitors provide better services and how?
      • Will they increase competitors’ subscribers and market share, and how?
      • Quantify the impact in terms of technical impact (for example, higher transmission efficiency, improved quality of service), projected subscribers and revenues.
    2. Now discuss each change in relation to the cost to implement it, and the possible impact on Wholesale Connect rates.
      • How does each change impact competitors’ business operations if these changes result in higher Wholesale Connect rates? Lower rates?
      • If the impact on rates results in a substantially higher rate, should the Commission still require this change to the service? Why or why not?

Respondents: SSi, Iristel, Competitive Network Operators of Canada, Northwestel

Wholesale Connect: Ranking priorities

  1. Several proposed changes (see Hearing Transcript, April 18, 2023, page 254, paragraph 1286) to Wholesale Connect have been made on the record of this proceeding. Rank, in order of priority, which changes are most important to you, and explain your ranking.

Respondents: Government of Northwest Territories, SSi, Iristel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Competitive Network Operators of Canada

Wholesale Connect: Costs of implementation and impact on rates

  1. Several proposed changes (see Hearing Transcript, April 18, 2023, page 254, paragraph 1286) to Wholesale Connect have been made on the record of this proceeding.
    1. Explain the cost feasibility of each proposed change, and the potential impact to Wholesale Connect rates.
    2. Rank each proposed change in order of its likely impact on Wholesale Connect rates. Which would likely impact rates the least? Which would likely impact rates the most?
    3. If the changes were only offered in certain communities served by Wholesale Connect where competitors are interested in offering services, could this mitigate the associated costs of making the change, and therefore the impact on rates? Explain your answer.

Respondents: Northwestel

Wholesale Connect: Should the maximum transmission unit be increased from 1,500 bytes to at least 9,000 bytes?

  1. Northwestel submitted that implementing jumbo frames will require multiple changes in the network and will impact other customers. Quantify these changes and impacts. In particular:
    1. What changes would be required and what would be the potential cost?
    2. What would be the service downtime required to implement these changes?
  1. Northwestel submitted that from an operations point of view, offering jumbo frames for Wholesale Connect service is not sustainable if there are mix IP edge links with different MTU sizes. Elaborate further with a network diagram and indicate the equipment that may not handle this mixed configuration. 

Respondents: Northwestel

  1. Iristel submitted that the non-availability of jumbo frames technically limits them in offering advanced transport services to their customers. Provide more detail regarding what services specifically Iristel is referring to, how the non-availability of jumbo frames technically limits the offering of these services, current and future demand for these services, and if these services can be offered using alternative methods?

Respondents: Iristel

Wholesale Connect: Should 10 Gigabits per second Ethernet ports be available in network breakout point communities?

  1. In regard to the availability of higher capacity Ethernet ports in network breakout point communities, respond to the questions below. Respond to question 37 in relation to this change both separately for both 2 Gbps ports (via Link Aggregation Control Protocol) and 10 Gbps ports.
    1. In which communities do competitors need 2 Gbps or 10 Gbps Ethernet ports? Project the requirement separately for now up to one year, for the next 3-5 years, and indicate the communities accordingly.
    2. Discuss what limitations a 1 Gbps, 2 Gbps, and 10 Gbps port imposes on competitors in offering services, in transmission capacity, service quality, retail customer experience, and any other metric you consider relevant.
    3. Should Northwestel upgrade its backhaul capacity from 10 Gbps to 100 Gbps and why? If yes, then which communities should be prioritized for this upgrade?

Respondents: SSi Canada, Iristel

  1. Regarding the availability of higher capacity Ethernet ports in network breakout point communities, respond to the following:
    1. Discuss whether competitors’ needs are exceeding 1 Gbps ports, and what indicators Northwestel would use to assess this? If yes, in which communities?
    2. Does Northwestel foresee competitors requiring 10 Gbps ports within the next year? In the next five years? Explain your answer.
    3. Northwestel has submitted that they will need to rebuild the network infrastructure (between High Level and Hay River, and then from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson) to upgrade its backhaul to 100 Gbps. Provide details on why these specific sections need to be rebuilt and details of the network components that need to be upgraded in this regard.
    4. In general, does Northwestel plan to upgrade its backhaul capacity in the next 5 years? If yes, provide details regarding the planned upgrades (including why, how, where, and when it will be upgraded). If no, explain why it will not be upgrading its backhaul capacity. 
    5. Regarding offering 2 Gbps connections using Link Aggregation Control Protocol by aggregating two 1 Gigabit per second Ethernet ports, do the network devices used to offer Wholesale Connect service currently support link aggregation control protocol for port aggregation purposes and are the required ports readily available?  If not then provide details as to which network equipment will need to be upgraded and why, and the approximate time and cost required for this upgrade.

Respondents: Northwestel

Wholesale Connect: Should more than one network breakout point on a redundant path be provided, or could a back-up power supply improve resiliency?

  1. Identify the community or communities where Northwest should provide an additional breakout point on the redundant path and what benefits it will bring to the competitors for having an additional breakout point on a redundant path at that location?
    1. Do SSI and Iristel have an uninterrupted or back-up power supply for their customer premises equipment and other equipment necessary for Wholesale Connect service?
  2. Iristel proposed that greater redundancy for Wholesale Connect could be achieved by ensuring that customer premises equipment deployed by Northwestel have an uninterrupted or back-up power supply. Paragraph 3(d) of the Wholesale Connect tariff establishes that the customer is responsible for providing a suitable uninterrupted power supply for customer premises equipment past the demarcation point.
    1. Clarify for which equipment Northwestel should provide an uninterrupted power supply, and discuss this in relation to the Points of Presence that are the responsibility of wholesale customers. Answer question 37 in relation to what change you propose, if any, with respect to the provision of an uninterrupted power supply for customer premises equipment.

Respondents: SSi Canada, Iristel

  1. Does Northwestel have an uninterrupted or back-up power supply for the customer premises equipment owned by Northwestel and at the central office?

Respondents: Northwestel

  1. Discuss Iristel’s proposal that customer premises equipment deployed by Northwestel should have a back-up power supply. Is Northwestel already taking steps in this regard and what are they? What could it do to provide greater certainty as to an uninterrupted power supply? Discuss anything the Commission should take into account when deciding whether to require Northwestel to take further steps in this regard.

Respondents: Northwestel

Wholesale Connect: Should Ethernet and wavelength-based transport services be provided?

  1. Does Northwestel’s network have any technical limitations with respect to offering a transport service based on an Ethernet layer 2 and a wavelength service? If yes, provide details regarding all necessary upgrades and potential costs.

Respondents: Northwestel

  1. What changes to competitor networks and equipment will be required to take advantage of Wavelength and Ethernet transport services if offered? What will be the potential cost of those changes?

Respondents: SSi Canada, Iristel

Should Wholesale Connect be offered as a Layer 2 network solution (instead of Layer 3)?

  1. If Northwestel is required to change Wholesale Connect Service from layer 3 to layer 2 service, then would Northwestel need to make changes to its network? If yes discuss what changes, and provide the potential associated cost for each change, and the time required for these changes.

Respondents: Northwestel

Should the Wholesale Connect quality of service framework be changed?

  1. Iristel submitted in its intervention (page 17, paragraph 55) that “At the moment, Northwestel measures its compliance with the Service Level Agreement based on periodical ping plots, with the result being averaged over a month. However, Iristel uses much more precise measurement tools for monitoring the performance of Wholesale Connect that rely on packet counting on the sender side combined with a feedback report from the receiving end. When comparing Northwestel’s less precise methodology with Iristel’s methodology, Iristel has observed that Northwestel’s methodology will often result in Northwestel finding itself in compliance with the Service Level Agreement whereas Iristel’s methodology shows that it is not. Iristel therefore requests that Northwestel be required to update the methodology that it uses to measure its compliance with the Service Level Agreement to the more precise methodology described by Iristel”, and indicated that Northwestel had not met the standards in the service level agreement set out in the Wholesale Connect tariff. Share these reports and explain how you support your claim.

Respondents: Iristel

  1. SSi submitted in its intervention (page 27, paragraph 98) that “As noted above in response to question 37, the existing CQoS regime applicable to Northwestel’s Wholesale Connect service does not provide the wholesale client/competitor with any effective way to seek redress from Northwestel for service outages that are the fault of the ILEC. In fact, since the current reporting requirements do not obligate Northwestel to provide an explanation for any service outage, they have little utility beyond permitting the client/competitor to correlate its own records of outages with those of the ILEC. To provide appropriate incentives to the ILEC, any CQoS regime must include actual performance standards and meaningful penalties payable in the event the ILEC fails to meet those standards.” Northwestel submitted that it is premature and unnecessary to implement a competitor QofS regime for Wholesale Connect service, especially in light of the rebates such customers already receive under the tariffed Service Level Agreement rules.
    • Provide more detail as to how you believe the QofS regime should be improved, and how it is not currently addressed by the SLA provisions in the Wholesale Connect tariff. How should Northwestel be required to measure their compliance with SLA provisions? What performance standards should Northwestel be held to, and why? Should they be imposed in a QofS framework, or the SLA, and why?

Respondents: SSi Canada, Iristel

Wholesale Connect: Class of Service and Service Level Agreement

  1. Iristel has raised issues with the Class of Service and Service Level Agreement provisions of the Wholesale Connect tariff. Iristel submitted in its intervention (page 18, paragraph 36) “Pursuant to Northwestel’s Access Services Tariff, Wholesale Connect customers must first subscribe to “Basic CoS” bandwidth. Basic CoS bandwidth is not dedicated bandwidth and, as set out in Northwestel’s Service Level Agreement, has no quality of service targets for packet loss, latency, or jitter. Northwestel’s Service Level Agreement states that all that Northwestel is required to do with Basic CoS bandwidth is to ensure that it is technically available 99.9% of the time even if the packet loss, latency, and jitter makes the Basic CoS bandwidth unusable by competitors for the provision of telecommunications services. Northwestel does permit Wholesale Connect customers to designate up to 40% of the Basic CoS bandwidth already purchased per site as “Medium”, “High”, or “Highest” CoS bandwidth.  “Medium”, “High”, and “Highest” CoS bandwidth is subject to progressively increasing Service Level Agreement targets for packet loss, latency, and jitter. Iristel is required to purchase this additional, higher quality, bandwidth on Wholesale Connect to ensure sufficient quality of service to provide real-time telecommunications services such as voice communications. For example, if Iristel needs 10 Mbps of bandwidth for voice traffic, it must in fact purchase 25 Mbps of Basic CoS bandwidth and then pay additional fees to have 10 Mbps of that bandwidth classified as “Medium”, “High”, or “Highest” CoS bandwidth in order to provide real-time telecommunications services.” As a result, at least 60% of the Class of Service bandwidth purchased by competitors is unusable for the provision of telecom services. Iristel proposed that the CRTC require Northwestel to allow competitors to purchase only the bandwidth that they require.
    1. Why is the CoS provision in the Wholesale Connect tariff organized in a way that requires wholesale customers to purchase bandwidth with no SLA obligations if they want to purchase bandwidth with greater SLA obligations? Discuss all relevant considerations, including any applicable network limitations and potential costs that may be related to updating the tariff so that wholesale customers can purchase only the particular CoS bandwidth and corresponding SLA obligations that they are interested in using.
    2. Estimate and explain the potential impact on Northwestel’s costs, particularly, describe how the costs were estimated e.g. SME or through costing of various components, of providing the service, and on the Wholesale Connect rates, if the SLA targets for packet loss, latency, and jitter that are currently applicable to Medium CoS were also made applicable to the Basic CoS.

Respondents: Northwestel

  1. At paragraph 519 of its intervention, Northwestel states that “Currently, the CoS options available on Wholesale Connect service (labelled "medium", "high" and "highest") are identical to those offered to retail customers of our Layer 3 retail product, V-Connect Service (labelled "enhanced", "premium", and "platinum").  Both V-Connect Service and Wholesale Connect Service allow the customer to allocate up to 40% of their bandwidth, in 1 Mbps increments, to these enhanced CoS.  Further, the terms and credits applicable to the SLA is identical for both V-Connect and Wholesale Connect Service.  The current CoS and SLA match what we provide at retail, and we should not be required to provide competitors with a higher grade of service than what is available to our retail customers, nor do we believe can we be required to under subsection 27(2) of the Act.  For these reasons, we do not believe that any changes are required to the CoS options or the SLA offered for Wholesale Connect Service.” Northwestel submits that it should not be required to provide competitors with a higher grade of service than what is available to its retail customers, and that it cannot be required to do so under subsection 27(2) of the Act.
    • Address the following:
      1. Even though the CoS and SLA provisions in the V-Connect and Wholesale Connect tariffs match, are there additional barriers that Northwestel’s wholesale customers face so that they cannot avail themselves of those provisions in the same way that Northwestel’s retail customers accessing V-Connect can?
      2. Northwestel only: Would section 27(2) be satisfied if Northwestel were also required to make any changes to its Wholesale Connect service CoS and SLA provisions to its V-Connect service?
      3. Northwestel only: What considerations should the Commission take into account in determining whether to require these changes to both services, with the goal of addressing the needs of Wholesale Connect subscribers?

Respondents: SSi Canada, Iristel, Northwestel

Wholesale Connect: Dedicated bandwidth

  1. Iristel submitted in the Phase I on its intervention (page 20, paragraph 41) that “Iristel therefore requests that the Commission direct Northwestel to allow competitors to purchase only the bandwidth that they actually require and that competitors be permitted to purchase dedicated bandwidth on Wholesale Connect that is not affected by the traffic of Northwestel’s other customers.”
    • Northwestel submitted in its intervention (page 155, paragraph 520) that “The Commission has also asked if “dedicated” bandwidth should be offered as part of Wholesale Connect Service.  We note that Wholesale Connect is an IP service, and the CoS options provide “dedicated” bandwidth within the context of a switched packet service; that is, that portion of the circuit is dedicated while the rest of the network optimizes traffic.” Northwestel further submitted:

      While it may be technically possible that we could provision 100% [Class of Service] at medium/high/highest [Class of Service], providing a "dedicated-like" level of service, this is significantly more than what we offer at the retail level. Such an offering would take time and would certainly come with an associated cost. Customers seeking a truly dedicated service are likely to be looking for a digital private line service, which is a dedicated point-to-point service, in lieu of a switched packet service like Wholesale Connect.

      1. To Northwestel: Quantify in terms of network upgrades, cost, and any other relevant criteria, what would be required to introduce a truly dedicated service.
      2. To everyone listed: Respond to Northwestel’s position as cited above and explain your position. Is a “dedicated-like” level of service sufficient, and what parameters would it need to have to meet your needs?

Respondents: Iristel, SSi Canada, Competitive Network Operators of Canada, Government of Northwest Territories, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Northwestel

Wholesale Connect in High Level, Atlin, and Fort St. John

  1. Northwestel currently owns terrestrial telecommunications infrastructure in: High Level, Alberta; Atlin, B.C.; and Fort St. John, B.C. However, Wholesale Connect service is not available in these communities.
    1. Does Northwestel have any plans to provide Wholesale Connect in these communities?
    2. Comment on the possibility that the Commission require that Wholesale Connect service be provided in these communities.

Respondents: Northwestel

Subsidizing competition in the Far North

  1. Several parties have submitted that the Commission should subsidize competition or wholesale services in the Far North. Footnote1 This could mean that the Commission collects money through the National Contribution Fund, and gives it to Northwestel’s wholesale customers in an amount commensurate with the difference between Northwestel’s rates and acceptable rates for wholesale customers. Or, the Commission could provide funds to Northwestel to allow them to provide wholesale rates that are acceptable to its wholesale customers.
    1. Should the Commission subsidize competition in the Far North? Why? If so, clarify how such a subsidy would support continuing access by Canadians to basic telecommunications services under s. 46.5(1) of the Act. Discuss whether and why it matters that the Commission also sets retail rates for Northwestel’s terrestrial Internet services.
    2. If the Commission subsidizes competition, how should it do so, and why? Should it:
      • Subsidize wholesale rates or any other cost in relation to Wholesale Connect?
      • Subsidize wholesale rates or any other cost in relation to a new Wholesale HSA service?
      • Fund the costs of implementation of new or improved wholesale services?
      • Subsidize competition in some other way?
      • How should the Commission decide how much subsidy is appropriate?
    3. Whether or not you indicated that rates for Wholesale Connect should be subsidized, propose a subsidy model in relation to Wholesale Connect. Answering as specifically as possible, be sure to address:
      • What types of applicants, providing which kinds of services, should be eligible?
      • Should any other conditions be placed on the type or quality of services to be provided?
      • What geographic areas should be eligible?
      • Should applicants be required to demonstrate that their proposed project will improve competition and is not financially viable without funding?
      • Should demonstration of applicant investment be an eligibility criterion?
      • How should the appropriate amount of subsidy be measured?
      • What costs should be eligible, and which should be ineligible?
      • Should pricing and affordability be eligibility criteria?
      • Should community consultations be an eligibility criterion?
    4. For each potential subsidy discussed in your response to b), propose a subsidy model, addressing at least each of the factors enumerated in c).

Respondents: All parties

Impact of subsidized competition on the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link

  1. It is Commission staff’s understanding that the Government of Northwest Territories owns telecommunications transport infrastructure called the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link (MVFL), which is operated by Northern Lights GP, a partnership that includes Northwestel, and which provides wholesale transport services at subsidized rates set by the Government of Northwest Territories in certain communities. The Government of Northwest Territories has proposed that the CRTC should subsidize telecommunications services at the wholesale level. Further information is required regarding how the Government of Northwest Territories has sought to subsidize competition in the Far North, and to understand how the Commission’s decisions could complement the MVFL project.
    • On November 30, 2021, the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment of the 19th Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly published a report regarding the MVFL and its own project aimed at subsidizing competition through investment in infrastructure (beginning at page 11).
    • Address the following:
      1. What are the MVFL project’s goals with respect to improving competition in the Far North?
      2. How does the MVFL achieve these goals? For example, discuss how it attracts service providers to enter the market.
      3. How much did the MVFL project cost?
      4. Do the MVFL’s annual revenues currently exceed annual operating expenses? What is the difference? Do these include debt servicing payments?
      5. How does the Government of Northwest Territories determine what wholesale rates are appropriate to charge its wholesale customers? Be as specific as possible, and be sure to address the following:
        • Are the wholesale rates set at a level that allows the Government of Northwest Territories to recover its operating expenses and the cost of building the MVFL? If not, why not, and how did the Government of Northwest Territories determine to what extent they should be lower than the level required for cost recovery?
        • Explain the subsidy model employed by the MVFL. Does the level of subsidy vary depending on the type of service or any other factor? Are the wholesale rates subsidized in any way other than potentially setting rates at a level lower than would be required for the Government of Northwest Territories to recover its costs of building and operating the MVFL?
      6. Has the MVFL improved competition in the Far North? How?
      7. What plans does the Government of Northwest Territories have for the future to help support the MVFL project?
      8. How can the Commission support and complement the MVFL project?

Respondents: Government of Northwest Territories

Shared Pathways

  1. In May 2022, Northwestel announced that it had sold its Yukon FTTH assets to Yukon First Nations Telco LP, a group of 13 Yukon First Nation development corrpoations. This project has been named the Shared Pathways network.
    1. Provide a copy of all agreements made in relation to this transaction on the record.
    2. What rights does Northwestel retain, under any relevant agreements, to use, control, operate, maintain, upgrade, benefit from, or make decisions with respect to, the relevant infrastructure? List all that apply.
    3. What rights does Yukon First Nations Telco LP have under the relevant agreements to use, control, operate, maintain, upgrade, benefit from, or make decisions with respect to, the relevant infrastructure? List all that apply.
    4. Provide a copy of the partnership agreement or other association agreements that set out the legal structure of Yukon First Nations Telco LP.
    5. Is Yukon First Nations Telco LP a for-profit entity? If so, how are the profits distributed?
    6. Answering as specifically as possible, how does the Shared Pathways agreement benefit First Nations communities?

Respondents: Northwestel, Yukon First Nations Telco LP

Shared Pathways and wholesale HSA service

  1. In May 2022, Northwestel announced that it had sold its Yukon FTTH assets to Yukon First Nations Telco LP, a group of 13 Yukon First Nation development corporations. This project has been named the Shared Pathways network.
    • On the record of this proceeding, comments have generally not distinguished between the facilities that are owned by Northwestel, versus the facilities that are owned by Yukon First Nations Telco LP, but that Northwestel continues to operate and maintain.
    • Clarify whether any positions you have taken or comments you have made on the record of this proceeding need to be revised in light of this distinction. In particular:
    1. Should any element of the Wholesale Analysis (Essentiality test and policy considerations) take this distinction into account, and if so, how?
    2. Should any new wholesale obligations, such as changes to Wholesale Connect or the introduction of a wholesale HSA service, still apply over the Shared Pathways network?
    3. For Northwestel and Yukon First Nations Telco LP only: Would either party seek to terminate the Shared Pathways agreement if wholesale obligations, or any other regulatory obligations, were imposed over the relevant infrastructure in this proceeding by the Commission?
    4. Are there any other consequences of this transaction with respect to this proceeding that the Commission should consider?

Respondents: All parties

Market share for terrestrial retail Internet market

  1. Update your response to the following questions in the RFI issued by staff on 15 June 2022:
    1. For Northwestel: Appendix 2, question 6.3. Provide actual numbers of subscribers and revenues for 2022, updated projections for 2023 and 2024, and current subscribers.
    2. For SSi Canada and Iristel: Appendix 3, question 10.2. Provide actual numbers of subscribers for 2022, updated projections for 2023 and 2024, and current subscribers.

Respondents: Iristel, Northwestel, SSi Canada

Northwestel’s Internet revenues

  1. For each of the years 2018 to 2022 as well as forecasts for each of the years 2023 and 2024, provide your total broadband wireline retail internet revenues, expenses, and subscribers by access technology (FTTP, cable, copper); by retail category (residential, business); and by community (Yellowknife, Whitehorse, all other communities).

Northwestel’s support of Indigenous ownership of telecom facilities

  1. At the public hearing (see Hearing Transcript, Day 5, April 21st, Northwestel, Page 785, Paragraph 4173), Northwestel stated that if an Indigenous ISP wanted to start up, the first thing Northwestel would do is sit down and see how it can meet their needs. Provide the following information:
    1. Has any Indigenous person or Indigenous-owned entity ever approached Northwestel with the goal of starting or developing their own Internet service provider business? List all that apply, what was discussed, and what the outcome was.
    2. If an Indigenous person or Indigenous-owned entity wanted to approach Northwestel with the goal of starting or developing their own Internet service provider business, or developing a partnership with Northwestel:
      • Who should they contact?
      • What support would you anticipate being able to provide, if any?
      • What would you anticipate requiring of them before providing support?
      • What role does wholesale access to Northwestel’s infrastructure play in the kind of support Northwestel could provide?

Respondents: Northwestel

Appendix 5: Questions on telecommunications services provided in Atlin, B.C.

  1. At the public hearing, with respect to the transfer of incumbency between Northwestel and Telus with respect to Atlin, Telus stated that “… I think the most I would suggest is that the Commission can monitor things, and we would be happy to work with Bell in some kind of modality, Bell and Northwestel, on some modality of updating you, because I think that's important” (see 20 April 2023 Transcript para. 2708). Telus had also indicated that a road map could be provided to the CRTC that would identify progress of the transfer of incumbency, with respect to Atlin, to Northwestel. This progress would be compared to the roadmap itself.
    1. For Northwestel and Telus: Provide any such road map, identifying where issues have or are expected to arise (and associated solutions, if applicable), and benchmark the progress of the transfer of incumbency in relation to this road map.
    2. For Northwestel and Telus: Comment on the Commission requiring you to submit ongoing progress reports with respect to the aforementioned road map that detail the transfer of incumbency to the Commission.
    3. For Taku River Tlingit First Nation: Should the Commission require progress reports to be submitted by Northwestel and Telus on this topic, would Taku River Tlingit First Nation consider contributing or developing its own report to describe its experiences engaging with Northwestel and Telus? Describe if there may be a different, preferred method of communicating this information to the Commission.
  2. On 20 April 2023 and on 21 April 2023, Telus and Northwestel (the parties) separately announced that an agreement in principle had been reached to transfer incumbency, with respect to Atlin, from Telus to Northwestel.
    1. Provide a copy of the agreement referenced at the hearing, if available. Provide any other agreements that may exist between Northwestel and Telus to provide telecommunications services to Atlin. This should include, but is not limited to, the pricing of services and any associated performance specifications for services provided that may impact such prices.
    2. Identify any previously planned or forecasted network upgrades (for each of the years between 2018 to 2022, with forecasts for 2023, 2024, and 2025) to improve services within the area. Include corresponding timelines and describe the steps each party has, intends to, or is taking to continue or accelerate this process to bring improved services to Atlin.
    3. Describe how any network upgrades identified above relate to the provisioning of services to the community. This should include but is not limited to; high-speed Internet access, including over fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) technology; emergency services access (including Basic 9-1-1 and Next Generation 9-1-1 services); 9-8-8 service; and accessibility options such as video relay services. If these services are not being considered at this time, explain why.

Respondents: Northwestel, Telus

  1. On 5 May 2023, Taku River Tlingit First Nation filed an undertaking with the CRTC. Taku River Tlingit First Nation identified Northwestel and Telus within these undertakings and provided a number of questions for these parties. Northwestel and Telus are encouraged to provide responses to Taku River Tlingit First Nation directly.
    1. Confirm whether a response has been provided to Taku River Tlingit First Nation to the questions addressed to your company.
    2. If one has not been provided, by what date will responses be provided to Taku River Tlingit First Nation?

Respondents: Northwestel, Telus

Date modified: