Search

Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List

Ottawa, 31 January 2024

Our reference: 1011-NOC2023-0056

By EMAIL

Distribution List

Subject: Review of wholesale high-speed access service framework, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2023-56 – Further Requests for Information

Attached to this letter is an appendix with further requests for information (RFIs) issued within the context of the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2023-56. All parties to the proceeding are encouraged to respond the set of questions addressed to “all parties”. For all other questions, recipients are to respond to the questions that are addressed to them. Responses are to be filed with the Commission and served on the persons included in the distribution list below and must be received, not merely sent, no later than 16 February 2024.

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, persons may designate certain information as confidential. A person designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation on 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 person 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.

Parties and interested persons may request the public disclosure of information that has been designated confidential in responses to the attached RFIs, setting out in each case the reasons for disclosure. These disclosure requests must be filed with the Commission and served on the entities to whom they are addressed by 23 February 2024. Responses to those disclosure requests may then be filed with the Commission no later than 4 March 2024.

Commission staff considers that there remains a strong public interest in ensuring that a timely decision is rendered in this proceeding. As a result, parties are advised that procedural requests that would delay the conduct of the proceeding will be reviewed closely.

Sincerely, 

Original signed by

Philippe Kent 
Director, Telecommunications Services Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c. Marianne Blais, CRTC,  marianne.blais@crtc.gc.ca
Greg Lang, CRTC, greg.lang@crtc.gc.ca
Adam Mills, CRTC, adam.mills@crtc.gc.ca
Mahmoud Obeid, CRTC, mahmoud.obeid@crtc.gc.ca
Chris Roy, CRTC, christopher.roy@crtc.gc.ca

Attach (2) Distribution list and Appendix

Distribution List

Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca;
CNOC, regulatory@cnoc.ca;
Cogeco, telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com;
Eastlink, regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca;
RCCI, regulatory@rci.rogers.com;
SaskTel, document.control@sasktel.com;
Shaw, Regulatory@sjrb.ca;
TCI, regulatory.affairs@telus.com;
TekSavvy, regulatory@teksavvy.ca;
Videotron, regaffairs@quebecor.com;
Xplore, cindy.wallace@xplore.ca;
Airnet Wireless Inc., jeptha@airnet.ca;
Allo Telecom, sac@allotelecom.ca;
Ampush, julian.reiche@gmail.com;
André’s Electronics, andre@andres1.com;
Beanfield, todd@beanfield.com;
Bravo Telecom, legal@bravotelecom.com;
British Columbia Broadband Association (BCBA), regulatory@bcba.ca;
Build Nova Scotia, david.finlayson@novascotia.ca;
Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project (CAMP), keldon@antimonopoly.ca;
Canadian Telecommunications Association, esmith@canadatelecoms.ca;
Carry Telecom, frankw@carrytel.ca;
CEDEC, john.buck@cedec.ca;
CIK Telecom Inc, jordan.d@ciktel.com;
Cinéma Péninsule Ltd, 397martin@gmail.com;
City Wide Communications, david@yourcitywide.com;
Coextro, skhandor@coextro.com;
Community Fibre Company, ben@communityfibre.ca;
Competition Bureau, conor.parson@cb-bc.gc.ca; 
Competition Bureau, crtc2023-56@cb-bc.gc.ca;
CPC, campbell@campbellpatterson.com;
Cronomagic Canada Inc, bokhari@cronomagic.com;
Custom Communications, kelly.boyd@custom.ab.ca;
Devtel Communications Inc., devin@devtelcommunications.ca;
Eeyou Communications Network, trishtoso@gmail.com;
Execulink, yasmin.charania@execulinktelecom.ca;
Fédération des Coopératives de Câblodistribution et de télécommunication du Québéc (FCCTQ), fallaire@ressources.coop;
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, rrizzuto@fcm.ca;
Fibernetics Corporation, regulatory@fibernetics.ca;
First Mile Connectivity Consortium, info@firstmile.ca;
Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), ejohnson@fpac.ca;
Frontier Networks, cgooey@frontiernetworks.ca;
IGS Hawkesbury Inc., jbogue@hawkmail.ca;
Intelligence Papineau Inc, odenis@ipapineau.tech;
John Roman, johnphiliproman@gmail.com;
Leepfrog Telecom, gchriss@leepfrogtelecom.com;
Lime Telenet, Ryan@limetelenet.com;
Manitoba Coalition, cacmb@mts.net;
Manitoba Coalition, chkla@legalaid.mb.ca;
Manitoba Coalition, kadil@legalaid.mb.ca;
Marc Nanni, mn_crtc@proton.me;
Mazagan Telecom, mazagantelecom@gmail.com;
Michel Mersereau, m.mersereau@utoronto.ca;
National Capital FreeNet, execdir@ncf.ca;
Netrevolution inc., drouleau@gtvr.com;
OpenMedia, erin@openmedia.org;
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, jlawford@piac.ca;
Secure by Design, kirk@secure-by-design.com;
Securenet, sergef@securenet.net;
SkyChoice Communications, serge@skychoice.ca;
Spectrum Telecom Group Ltd., ghatton@spectrumtelecom.ca;
Tbaytel, stephen.scofich@tbaytel.com;
Transat Telecom, aboulil@transattelecom.ca;
Truespeed Internet Services Inc., adam@truespeed.ca;
Vaxination Informatique, jfmezei@vaxination.ca;
Vaxxine Computer Systems Inc., president@vaxxine.com;
WaveDirect Telecommunications Limited, joanne@wavedirect.org;

Appendix 1 – Telecom Notice of Consultation 2023-56 - Requests for Information #3
All Parties:

  1. The Essentiality Test established in Telecom Regulatory Policy (TRP) 2015-326 was guided by the 2006 Policy DirectionFootnote1, which required the Commission to consider the extent to which mandated wholesale services that are not essential should be phased out, with a view to promoting investment in competing network facilities. Recently, the 2023 Policy DirectionFootnote2 noted that the Commission should consider how its decisions can encourage all forms of competition, how it should strive to reduce barriers to market entry and expansion by smaller players, and to maintain a regulatory framework for the provision of wholesale Internet services, among other objectives and considerations.
    1. Should the Commission continue to use the Essentiality Test to determine if wholesale services, and specifically wholesale high-speed access services, should be mandated? To what extent is it desirable or even appropriate to rely on a facilities-focused essentiality test in light of the 2023 Policy Direction?
    2. Explain whether and how the existing components of the Essentiality Test (the input component, the competition component, and the duplicability component) should be modified to better account for the objectives and considerations in the 2023 Policy Direction.  
  2. In TRP 2015-326, the Commission determined that aggregated wholesale HSA services, which include a transport component that the Commission found to be generally duplicable, would no longer be mandated. They would instead be gradually replaced by disaggregated high-speed access (HSA) services, which does not include the transport component. Since that time, changes have occurred in the retail marketplace. Namely, many of the largest wholesale-based ISPs that existed in 2015 have been purchased by incumbent carriers, with little significant new market entry. Furthermore, in Telecom Decision 2023-53, the Commission concluded that disaggregated HSA services have not fulfilled their mandate to support a more competitive Internet services market and therefore require reconsideration.
    1. Provide your views as to whether and how the duplicability of transport services should inform the essentiality of wholesale HSA services.
    2. Provide your views as to whether the essentiality of aggregated HSA services is directly linked to both the availability and the adoption of disaggregated HSA services.
    3. Given the Commission’s conclusions on disaggregated HSA services in Telecom Decision 2023-53, provide your views on whether aggregated HSA services should be mandated to increase the addressable market made available through wholesale HSA services, thereby better disciplining retail market power and guarding against violations of subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.
    4. Provide your views on whether a mandated aggregated HSA service can or should co-exist alongside a mandated disaggregated HSA service. In the event that the Commission mandated both an aggregated and a disaggregated HSA service pursuant to this review, provide your views on:
      1. When, if ever, it would be appropriate for the Commission to phase out a mandating requirement for either one of the identified services;
      2. The basis upon which that service should no longer be mandated;
      3. The timelines and other operational considerations associated with any phase-out period for the service.
  3. In TRP 2015-326, the Commission determined that it would apply the policy considerations of public good, interconnection, and innovation and investment to inform, support, or reverse a decision to mandate the provision of a wholesale service, independent of whether the service in question meets the Essentiality Test.
    1. In light of the 2023 Policy Direction, should the Commission consider proposals to adopt new, or modify existing, policy considerations? Why or why not? In your response, provide and explain any other proposals you may have to adjust the existing policy considerations or to add new policy considerations.
    2. In its intervention, the Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC) proposed to introduce a new competition policy consideration, which would ask whether mandating a particular wholesale service will “(i) encourage all forms of competition, (ii) reduce the market power of telecommunications service providers, (iii) promote competition in all regions of Canada, including rural areas, remote areas and Indigenous communities, and (iv) reduce barriers to entry into the market and to competition for telecommunications service providers that are new, regional or smaller than the incumbent national service providers.” Provide your views on each element of this proposal.
    3. In its intervention, CNOC also proposed amendments to the innovation and investment policy consideration, which would ask whether “mandating or not mandating the facility or wholesale service could affect the level of innovation in telecommunications services, including new technologies and differentiated service offerings, and the level of investment in research and development and in other intangible assets that support the offer and provision of telecommunications services”. Provide your views on this proposal.
  4. Explain how your proposed modifications in response to questions (1), (2), and (3) above support your position on whether or not the Commission should mandate wholesale access to fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) on an aggregated basis.  
  5. In its proposed policy consideration, CNOC referred to providers that are “new”, “regional”, and “smaller than the incumbent national providers”. Some parties also proposed that a mandated aggregated HSA service over FTTP should only be accessible to “small” and “regional” competitors. Should the Commission consider the proposed limitation and/or the new policy consideration, how should it define “small” and/or “regional” competitors? Who should it consider as the “incumbent national providers”?

Bell, Cogeco, Eastlink, Rogers, SaskTel, TELUS, Videotron:

  1. Provide any and all investment planning scenarios you have run or commissioned that consider the impact of an aggregated FTTP service that is mandated across Canada and: (a) available to all providers; (b) not available to large incumbents; and (c) only available to wholesale-based providers. Provide your supporting rationale and a detailed explanation of those impacts, including a list of any communities where your network investments would be negatively impacted, a timeline of those impacts, and records such as profit projections and board resolutions with associated timelines.
  2. Provide any assessments or analysis you have conducted on the potential impact of an incumbent using wholesale services to provide retail Internet services in your incumbent serving territories.

Bell:

  1. Provide any internal market research or other analysis related to different consumer preferences for retail Internet services in the various provinces across Canada, or across a broader geographic area such as Western, Central, and Eastern Canada.
  2. Provide business records that set out historic and projected number of copper access lines that are/will be decommissioned per month, and a list of areas where you have/plan to decommission those copper access lines, for the years 2018 through 2026.
    1. How does the company define “decommissioning”?
    2. When you “decommission” a copper access line, does that line remain available for wholesale access? If so, in what practical way does it remain “available” to wholesale-based providers – how do they know that it remains available (i.e., does it remain available in your ordering portal), and how can they order service using that line?

CNOC:

  1. Confirm whether your proposal to exclude incumbent carriers from having mandated access to wholesale HSA services that are made available to others would also prohibit out-of-territory incumbents from entering a market through off-tariff agreements (OTAs). On what basis would the Commission reverse its forbearance findings with respect to OTAs in this scenario?

Cogeco:

  1. Confirm whether your proposal to prohibit the big three incumbents from purchasing mandated wholesale HSA services from "smaller” or “regional” providers would also prohibit out-of-territory incumbents from entering those markets through off-tariff agreements. If so, explain on what basis the Commission should reverse its forbearance findings with respect to off-tariff arrangements (OTAs) in this scenario.
  2. Under what conditions do you overbuild your HFC infrastructure with FTTP? In those situations, does the HFC infrastructure remain available for wholesale services? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide:
    1. The number of homes where you have or plan to overbuild HFC with FTTP;
    2. The number of homes for which the HFC network will be decommissioned once that FTTP is operational.
  3. Under what conditions, if any, do you deploy new HFC infrastructure instead of or in addition to FTTP? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide the number of homes where you have deployed or plan to deploy new HFC infrastructure. 

Eastlink:

  1. Confirm whether your proposal to prohibit the big three incumbents from purchasing mandated wholesale HSA services from "smaller” or “regional” providers would also prohibit out-of-territory incumbents from entering those markets through off-tariff agreements. If so, explain on what basis the Commission should reverse its forbearance findings with respect to off-tariff arrangements (OTAs) in this scenario.
  2. Under what conditions do you overbuild your HFC infrastructure with FTTP? In those situations, does the HFC infrastructure remain available for wholesale services? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide:
    1. The number of homes where you have overbuilt or plan to overbuild HFC with FTTP;
    2. The number of homes for which the HFC network will be decommissioned once that FTTP is operational.
  3. Under what conditions, if any, do you deploy new HFC infrastructure instead of or in addition to FTTP? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide the number of homes where you have deployed or plan to deploy new HFC infrastructure. 

Rogers:

  1. Provide any internal market research or other analysis related to different consumer preferences for retail Internet services in the various provinces across Canada, or across a broader geographic area such as Western, Central, and Eastern Canada.
  2. Provide business records that set out historic and projected number of coaxial access lines that are/will be decommissioned per month, and a list of areas where you have/plan to decommission those copper access lines, for the years 2018 through 2026.
    1. How does the company define “decommissioning”?
    2. When you “decommission” a copper access line, does that line remain available for wholesale access? If so, in what practical way does it remain “available” to wholesale-based providers – how do they know that it remains available (i.e., does it remain available in your ordering portal), and how can they order service using that line?
  3. Under what conditions do you overbuild your HFC infrastructure with FTTP? In those situations, does the HFC infrastructure remain available for wholesale services? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide:
    1. The number of homes where you have overbuilt or plan to overbuild HFC with FTTP;
    2. The number of homes for which the HFC network will be decommissioned once that FTTP is operational.
  4. Under what conditions, if any, do you deploy new HFC infrastructure instead of or in addition to FTTP? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide the number of homes where you have deployed or plan to deploy new HFC infrastructure. 

SaskTel

  1. Some facilities-based providers state that they will reduce their network investments if access to FTTP facilities over aggregated I services is mandated. Provide any analysis you have undertaken or commissioned relating to how your FTTP deployment plans might change if aggregated access to your FTTP network were mandated. Include the company’s supporting rationale and a detailed explanation of the impacts of such a service. Provide copies of all company records presented, or otherwise informing any presentation, to senior executives and/or board members where potential ramifications resulting from a mandate to provide wholesale access to your company’s FTTP access facilities were discussed as well as any relevant board resolutions.
  2. Provide any assessments or analysis you have conducted on the potential impact of an incumbent using wholesale services to provide retail Internet services in Saskatchewan.
  3. You argue that the wholesale framework should apply to all significant facilities-based providers. Which facilities-based carriers do you consider to be “significant” for the purposes of your proposal?
  4. Provide business records that set out historic and projected number of copper access lines that are/will be decommissioned per month, and a list of areas where you have/plan to decommission those copper access lines, for the years 2018 through 2026.
    1. How does the company define “decommissioning”?
    2. When you “decommission” a copper access line, does that line remain available for wholesale access? If so, in what practical way does it remain “available” to wholesale-based providers – how do they know that it remains available (i.e., does it remain available in your ordering portal), and how can they order service using that line?

TekSavvy, Beanfield Technologies, CIK Telecom, City Wide Communications, Coextro, Community Fibre Company, Execulink, Frontier Networks, IGS Hawkesbury, National Capital Freenet, and other smaller ISPs:

  1. How much of your current business is focused on serving rural, remote, and Indigenous communities? Provide the total number of subscribers, per year from 2018 through 2025, that you serve or expect to serve in each community located outside of census metropolitan areas (CMAs) (i.e., subscriber count by community).
  2. What are your plans for each of the communities that you identified in question (1) should the Commission (a) not mandate access to incumbents’ FTTP on an aggregated basis; (b) mandate access to incumbents’ FTTP on an aggregated basis?
  3. In November 2023, the Commission granted temporary and expedited access to Bell Canada’s and Telus’ FTTP networks on an aggregated basis in Ontario and Quebec within a six-month timeframe. Provide detailed information on your latest plans, including records such as profit projections and board resolutions with associated timelines, for whether and how you intend to use:
    1. The temporary service;
    2. A similar service should the Commission mandate access to incumbents’ FTTP on an aggregated basis across the country.

TELUS:

  1. Under your current investment plans, to what extent and under what timelines are you planning to build FTTP in rural, remote, and Indigenous communities that are not served by cable? For the years 2024 through 2026, provide the names of the communities; the number of households to which fibre access would be extended; the intended timeline for the various projects; the value of the anticipated investments; which of the projects are dependent, for completion, on third-party subsidies; and the amount of those subsidies on a community-by-community basis.
  2. In November 2023, the Commission granted temporary and expedited access to Telus’ FTTP networks on an aggregated basis in Quebec within a six-month timeframe. Provide any analysis as to how an aggregated FTTP service mandated on a going forward basis may affect your fibre deployments in Western Canada, including your supporting rationale. Provide copies of all company records presented, or otherwise informing any presentation, to senior executives and/or board members where potential ramifications resulting from an ongoing mandate to provide wholesale access to your company’s FTTP access facilities were discussed as well as any relevant board resolutions.
  3. Provide any internal market research or other analysis related to different consumer preferences for retail Internet services in the various provinces across Canada, or across a broader geographic area such as Western, Central, and Eastern Canada.
  4. Provide business records that set out historic and projected number of copper access lines that are/will be decommissioned per month, and a list of areas where you have/plan to decommission those copper access lines, for the years 2018 through 2026.
    1. How does the company define “decommissioning”?
    2. When you “decommission” a copper access line, does that line remain available for wholesale access? If so, in what practical way does it remain “available” to wholesale-based providers – how do they know that it remains available (i.e., does it remain available in your ordering portal), and how can they order service using that line?

Videotron:

  1. In November 2023, the Commission granted temporary and expedited access to Bell Canada’s and Telus’ FTTP networks on an aggregated basis in Ontario and Quebec within a six-month timeframe. Provide detailed information on your latest plans, including records such as profit projections and board resolutions with associated timelines, for whether or how you intend to use:
    1. The temporary service;
    2. A similar service should the Commission mandate access to incumbents’ FTTP on an aggregated basis across the country.
  2. Under what conditions do you overbuild your HFC infrastructure with FTTP? In those situations, does the HFC infrastructure remain available for wholesale services? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide:
    1. The number of homes where you have overbuilt or plan to overbuild HFC with FTTP;
    2. The number of homes for which the HFC network will be decommissioned once that FTTP is operational.
  3. Under what conditions, if any, do you deploy new HFC infrastructure instead of or in addition to FTTP? For the years 2018 through 2026, broken down by province by year, provide the number of homes where you have deployed or plan to deploy new HFC infrastructure. 

Xplore:

  1. Provide detailed information on your FTTP investment history and forecasts from 2018 through 2026. Include the number of households passed by your FTTP facilities, actual and planned capital expenditures, and a breakdown of your sources of public funding. Provide all of the above information broken down by province.
Date modified: