Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List
Gatineau, 6 May 2025
Reference: 1011-NOC2024-0318
Distribution list
Subject: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024-318 – Requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential
Dear recipients,
This letter addresses Commission staff’s request for the disclosure of certain information designated as confidential by Bell Canada (Bell), Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink), Cogeco Communications Inc., on behalf of its subsidiary Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Cogeco), TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS), and Xplore Inc. (Xplore) in interventions submitted to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024-318 (the Notice).
Commission staff has made determinations with respect to each of the information designated as confidential, which are considered in turn below.
Confidentiality Process
Pursuant to section 39(4)(a) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), the Commission may disclose information designated as confidential or require its disclosure if it determines, after considering any representations from interested persons, that disclosure is in the public interest.
To ensure confidentiality matters are dealt with expeditiously and Commission resources are expended efficiently, the Commission has adopted a two-step process. The first step is that Commission staff reviews the parties’ confidentiality submissions and issues a non-binding determination on what information should be refiled on the public record or remain confidential. Most disclosure requests are completed at this step.
If a party does not agree with Commission staff’s determination or a party that is requested to disclose information does not do so in accordance with Commission staff’s instructions, that party or any other interested person may engage the second step and request a binding Commission determination on the same confidentiality record. The Commission makes this determination through a Commission letter signed by the Secretary General. As with any Commission determination, such a determination is enforceable or reviewable pursuant to the Act.
Commission staff determinations
In Commission staff’s view, there is a significant argument for the disclosure of the information detailed below is in the public interest. Specifically, that the cost and impact of implementing the measures considered in the Notice, and the evaluation of speed testing methodologies are central questions examined in that Notice and are key to ensuring that any measure is imposed in an efficient manner.
General estimates of costs
Some parties filed general estimates of costs in confidence:
- Bell: the potential yearly cost of a mandated testing requirement; the historical cost of implementing the Internet Code; and the estimated cost to implement standardized Consumer Broadband Labels.
- Cogeco: the estimated implementation and ongoing costs of the measures considered in the Notice
- TELUS: the estimated implementation costs of the measures considered in the Notice and in the three concurrent consumer protection proceedings.Footnote1
Commission staff is of the view that this information may fall under s. 39 (1)(b) and (c)(ii) of the Act, but these parties did not provide a specific rationale for treating this information confidentially.
Commission staff is of the view that, with respect to general cost estimates of internal costs that do not allocate amounts to specific elements/functions, the risk of specific, direct harm to the company is very limited, as every service provider would have to bear costs to implement the changes.
Commission staff is further of the view that the general cost estimates do not provide material insights that could be used by competitors, and do not outweigh the public interest of disclosure of this information.
As such, Commission staff requests that the parties disclose this information on the public record by 13 May 2025.
Churn data
Cogeco designated their increase in churn from 2022 to 2024 as confidential, but did not provide a specific rationale for treating this information confidentially.
Commission staff notes that some publicly traded companies do report churn data in their earnings reports. However, Cogeco does not appear to do so, leading staff to be of the view that this information may fall under s. 39 (1) (b) of the Act, even if Cogeco did not provide a specific rationale for treating this information confidentially.
However, based on the incomplete rationale filed, it is not clear to Commission staff how the public interest of disclosing this information is outweighed by any specific, direct harm to the company particularly given that other providers make this information available publicly and that the specific information filed by Cogeco speaks to the variation in churn and not Cogeco’s actual churn rate, giving very limited insights into Cogeco’s operations.
As such, Commission staff requests that Cogeco disclose this information on the public record by 13 May 2025.
How Speed Testing and Performance Measurement are Conducted
Eastlink and Xplore both designated information on how they conduct speed testing and performance measurement as confidential. Neither party provided any specific rationale for treating this information confidentially.
Commission staff is of the view that this information may fall under s. 39 (1) (b) of the Act, even if Eastlink and Xplore did not provide a specific rationale for treating this information confidentially.
Commission staff notes that Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) disclosed where it measures and how on the public record of this proceeding.
Given that no provider-specific measurement data is provided, Commission staff is of the view that the public interest of disclosing this information outweighs any specific, direct harm to the company.
As such, Commission staff requests that Eastlink and Xplore disclose this information on the public record by 13 May 2025.
Frequency that Plans are Introduced or Changed
Cogeco designated information on how often it changes or introduces new plans annually as confidential without any specific rationale on the potential specific, direct harm to the company.
Commission staff is of the view that this information may fall under s. 39 (1) (b) and (c)(ii) of the Act, even if Cogeco did not provide a specific rationale for treating this information confidentially.
However, based on the incomplete rationale filed, it is not clear to Commission staff how the public interest of disclosing this information is outweighed by any specific, direct harm to the company.
As such, Commission staff requests that Cogeco disclose this information on the public record by 13 May 2025.
Explanation of the Scale and Complexity of Large-scale Technical Overhauls
TELUS filed in confidence an explanation of the scale and complexity these types of large-scale technical overhauls can imply. TELUS has not provided any rationale as to the risk of specific, direct harm to the company of disclosing this specific information.
Commission staff is of the view that this information may fall under s. 39 (1) (b) of the Act, even if TELUS did not provide a specific rationale for treating this information confidentially.
However, Commission staff is of the view that an explanation of the scale and complexity of similar large-scale technical overhauls is in the public interest and that specific, direct harms to the company does not outweigh the public interest.
As such, Commission staff requests that TELUS disclose this information on the public record by 13 May 2025.
A Quote from an External Contractor
Bell filed as confidential the name of an equipment vendor and the quote for equipment to measure broadband performance without any specific rationale on the potential specific, direct harm to the company.
Commission staff is satisfied that this information falls under s. 39 (1) (b) and (c)(iii) of the Act, even if Bell did not provide a specific rationale for treating this information confidentially and should be maintained as confidential as the public interest does not outweigh the specific, direct harm to the company.
However, Commission staff is of the view that estimated total cost should be disclosed as Bell has not made a case for how any specific, direct harm to the company outweighs the public interest of disclosing this information.
As such, Commission staff requests that Bell disclose the information related to the estimated total cost on the public record by 13 May 2025.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Nanao Kachi
Director, Social and Consumer Policy
Distribution list
Access Communications Co-operative: documents@myaccess.coop
Bell Canada: bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Bravo Telecom: legal@bravotelecom.com
Catherine Middleton: catherine.middleton@torontomu.ca
CCTS: regulatory@ccts-cprst.ca
CDGM: canadadeafgrassrootsmovement@gmail.com
Cheetah Networks: mccallen@cheetahnetworks.com
CIRA: georgia.evans@cira.ca
Cogeco: leonard.eichel@cogeco.com
Competition Bureau: benjamin.klass@cb-bc.gc.ca
CTA: esmith@canadatelecoms.ca
Dan Mazier: dan.mazier@parl.gc.ca
DHH Coalition: richmanelliott@gmail.com, myles.murphy@nf.sympatico.ca, dprong@deafontario.ca
DWCC: chair@deafwireless.ca
Eastlink: regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Fenwick McKelvey: fenwick.mckelvey@concordia.ca
Fibernetics Corporation: regulatory@fibernetics.ca
ITPA: jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca
The Manitoba Coalition: cacmb@mts.net, chkla@legalaid.mb.ca, kadil@legalaid.mb.ca
Marina Pavlovic: marina.pavlovic@uottawa.ca
OpenMedia and CIPPIC: matt.malone@uottawa.ca
Option consommateurs: aplourde@option-consommateurs.org
PIAC: gwhite@piac.ca
Québecor: peggy.tabet@quebecor.com
Rogers: regulatory@rci.rogers.com
Sam Hudson: samhudsonmusic3@gmail.com
Saskatchewan Telecommunications: document.control@sasktel.com
SSi Canada: regulatory@ssicanada.com
TekSavvy: regulatory@teksavvy.ca
TELUS: regulatory.affairs@telus.com, david.peaker@telus.com, molly.samuelson@telus.com, karen.cheung@telus.com
Union des consommateurs: jatack@uniondesconsommateurs.ca
Xplore: legal@xplore.ca
- Date modified: