Search

Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List

Ottawa, 10 December 2024

Reference: 8662-C6-202405753

BY EMAIL

Distribution List

Subject: Consolidated Part I Application Review and Vary Telecom Regulatory Policy 2024- 180, Competition in Canada’s Internet service markets – Requests for Information

Attached to this letter is an appendix with requests for information (RFIs) issued within the context of the consolidated process to consider three applications to review and vary Telecom Regulatory Policy 2024-180 (TRP 2024-180), as set out in a Secretary General letter dated 25 November 2024.  In addition to these, a limited number of additional RFIs will be issued in a separate staff letter that is to be issued shortly.

Responses to the RFIs, as set out in the appendix, must be filed with the Commission and served on the persons included in the distribution list accompanying this letter. These responses must be received by the Commission, not merely sent, no later than 7 January 2025.

All parties that participated in the proceeding that led to TRP 2024-180 and that are not specifically identified as respondents to the RFIs are to respond to the questions addressed to “all parties”. For all other questions, recipients are to respond to the questions that are addressed to them.

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 14 January 2025. Responses to requests for public disclosure must be filed with the Commission and served to the requesting parties by 17 January 2025.

Sincerely, 

Original signed by

Doug Heath 
Director General, Telecommunications Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Adam Mills, CRTC, adam.mills@crtc.gc.ca
Greg Lang, CRTC, greg.lang@crtc.gc.ca
Dan Mackwood, CRTC, daniel.mackwood@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, regulatory@execulinktelecom.ca;
Fédération des Coopératives de Câblodistribution et de télécommunication du Québec (FCCTQ), fallaire@ressources.coop;
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, rrizzuto@fcm.ca;
Fibernetics Corporation, regulatory@fibernetics.ca;
First Mile Connectivity Consortium, info@firstmile.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, info@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, regulatory@wavedirect.org

Appendix – Consolidated Part 1 Applications to Review and Vary TRP 2024-180 – Requests for Information #1

All Parties

  1. Provide your views on whether denying mandated wholesale access to all incumbentsFootnote1 would benefit Canadian consumers. Would denying incumbents this access result in sufficient competitive discipline and downward pressure on retail Internet service prices?
  2. Provide your views, along with supporting rationale, as to how a policy that would prevent incumbents from using mandated access to aggregated HSA services outside of each company’s traditional wireline serving territory (out-of-territory) would impact:
    1. Incumbents’ ability to make investments inside their traditional wireline serving territory (in-territory).
    2. Incumbents’ ability to make investments out-of-territory.
    3. Smaller providers’ ability to make investments.
  3. With regard to your response to question 2, explain, with supporting rationale, whether the other limitations set out in TRP 2024-180 would still be required in the event that the Commission decides to deny incumbents mandated access to aggregated HSA services both in-territory and out-of-territory.
  4. In their applications to review and vary TRP 2024-180, several applicants made reference to the term “regional Internet service provider”. Provide your definition of this term.
  5. Provide your views on whether eligibility to use mandated aggregated HSA services should be limited to companies under a certain size.
    1. As a metric to determine size threshold, provide your views on if the Commission should use:
      1. Telecommunications operating revenues. Is yes, at which number?
      2. Number of telecommunications retail customers served. If yes, at which number?
      3. Number of retail Internet subscribers served. If yes, at which number?  
  6. Assume the Commission were to adopt Rogers’ proposal to extend the five-year head start exemption to include hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC) technology that has been transitioned to Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) 4.0 after 13 August 2024:
    1. Is there a way of implementing this while still allowing wholesale customers to ascertain which portions of existing networks would be available to them?
    2. How would this impact Internet service providers’ (ISP) ability to market to new retail subscribers on Rogers’ network?

Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Cogeco, Eastlink, Rogers,Footnote2 SaskTel, TELUS, Videotron

  1. In the event that the Commission upholds its decision to provide Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates, with access to mandated aggregated HSA services when operating out-of-territory, and assuming, for the purposes of this request, that the final fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) rates are similar to the current interim rates (approved in Telecom Order 2024-261):
    1. Provide your forecasted net new and total number of end users served by means of your company’s aggregated HSA services, by province, and by speed tier,Footnote3 for each of the next 24 months.
    2. Identify and justify the net new and total number of end users that you forecast would be subscribers of an out of territory incumbent or one of its affiliates, broken down by incumbent and affiliate.
  2. In the event that the Commission prohibits Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates from accessing mandated and tariffed aggregated HSA services when operating out-of-territory, and assuming, for the purposes of this request, that the final FTTP rates are similar to the current interim rates (approved in Telecom Order 2024-261):
    1. Provide your forecasted net new and total number of end users served by means of your company’s aggregated HSA services, by province, and by speed tier,Footnote4 for each of the next 24 months.
    2. Identify and justify the net new and total number of end users that you forecast would be subscribers of an out of territory incumbent or one of its affiliates, broken down by incumbent and affiliate.
  3. If you used out-of-territory aggregated HSA services at any point during 2024, provide the following:
    1. The number of monthly out-of-territory Internet subscribers served using mandated aggregated HSA services, by province, by incumbent wholesale provider, and by speed tier,Footnote5 for each month of service.
    2. The percentage of out-of-territory Internet subscribers that you served using mandated aggregated HSA services that bundled Internet service with other services, by province, for each month of service.
  4. Explain whether a decision to prohibit Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates from accessing out-of-territory aggregated HSA services would require you to file updated cost studies for aggregated FTTP services or fibre-to-the-node (FTTN)/ HFC services. If updated cost studies would be necessary, how are rates likely to be impacted?
  5. In the event that the Commission upholds its decision to allow Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates from accessing out-of-territory mandated aggregated HSA services, and assuming that the final FTTP rates are similar to the current interim rates (approved in Telecom Order 2024-261), would you plan to use aggregated HSA services to market out-of-territory services at any point in the next 24 months?
    1. Provide your estimated use of mandated aggregated HSA, by incumbent wholesale provider, by province, and by month, for each of the next 24 months.
    2. If you do plan to offer bundled services using out-of-territory aggregated HSA services, provide the following:
      1. The projected percentage of out-of-territory Internet subscribers that you would serve using mandated aggregated HSA services that you expect to bundle Internet service with other services, by province, for each of the forecast years 2025 to 2027.
      2. The anticipated monthly demand distribution of bundles of Internet services with one or more of mobile wireless, home phone, broadcasting distribution services, and home monitoring services, by province, for each of the forecast years 2025 to 2027.
    3. If you do not plan to offer bundled services by using out-of-territory aggregated HSA, explain why not.
  6. For each of the forecast years 2025 to 2027, provide an estimate of your total out-of-territory investment plans, by province, in telecommunications facilities to support the provision of retail Internet services, under:
    1. The existing wholesale HSA regime established in TRP 2024-180, in which you benefit from mandated access to tariffed aggregated wholesale HSA services to compete out of territory; and
    2. A revised wholesale HSA regime in which you do not benefit from mandated access to tariffed aggregated wholesale HSA services.
  7. Provide your projections on the impact that the following will have on your in-territory retail revenue each month, for the next 24 months:
    1. Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates benefit from mandated access to tariffed aggregated wholesale HSA services outside of each company’s traditional wireline serving territory; and
    2. Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates do not benefit from mandated access to tariffed aggregated wholesale HSA services.

Rogers

  1. For each of the forecast years 2025 to 2029, provide an estimate of your in-territory investment plans to support the transition to DOCSIS 4.0. Demonstrate how your investment plans would change if the five-year head start exemption period were to include HFC technology that has been transitioned to DOCSIS 4.0.
  2. If the Commission were to permit a five-year head start to support the transition to DOCSIS 4.0:
    1. How could this measure be implemented in an administratively feasible manner, given that the transition is upgrade-based and, as a result, it may be difficult for wholesale customers to ascertain which portions of existing networks would no longer be available to them?
    2. Should wholesale customers currently on DOCSIS 3.1 lose access once the upgrade is complete? Provide your projection of how many premises on your network over the next five years would be impacted if the Commission were to adopt your proposed head start exemption.
    3. If wholesale customers were going to lose access, how much notice should you be required to give them of an impending upgrade?
  3. If the Commission expanded the five-year head start exemption to accommodate future HFC DOCSIS investments, what impact, if any, would this change have on FTTN cost studies filed by the cable carriers under Telecom Notice of Consultation 2023-56?
  4. With specific reference to DOCSIS 4.0 upgrades to existing access infrastructure, comment on and justify, with supporting evidence, the need for investment incentives to protect such upgrades.
    1. In responding, ensure that you address this question both in relation to your overall network and in relation to a specific head-end in a densely populated area within your network.

Manitoba Coalition, OpenMedia, PIAC

  1. Explain whether, and how, benefits such as lower retail Internet prices could be delivered to Canadian consumers, if Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates are denied mandated access to wholesale HSA services out-of-territory, or any of the other proposed variances to TRP 2024-180.
  2. Since bundling services can often save consumers money, explain whether a decision to foreclose mandated access, by Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Rogers, TELUS, and their respective affiliates, to aggregated HSA service would result in a narrower set of service providers able to bundle mobile wireless services with retail Internet services in each province and, if yes, whether and how this would benefit consumers.

TekSavvy

  1. In your application, you indicated that the Commission should clarify that new FTTP builds within the incumbents’ existing FTTP territories should not be included in the five-year head start exemption period, as they do not require investment incentives.
    1. How would you define an incumbent’s “existing FTTP territory”?
    2. How can the Commission distinguish between new FTTP builds that should be subject to a head start rule and those that should not?
    3. Explain how the Commission could implement this proposed exception to the head start rule in an administratively feasible way.
Date modified: