Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List
Gatineau, 18 June 2025
References: 8622-F27-202405282
BY EMAIL
Distribution List
Subject: Fibernetics Corporation Part 1 Application for relief alleging undue preference by Rogers Communications Canada Inc. relating to their Southern Alberta Third Party Internet service — staff ruling on disclosure requests of certain information filed in confidence
This letter addresses requests for disclosure in the above-noted proceeding. It follows a staff letter, dated 8 May 2025, in which Rogers was invited to comment on requests for disclosure, and Rogers’ response, dated 13 May 2025.
The Commission received two requests for disclosure:
- TekSavvy requested the disclosure of redacted Points of Interconnection (POI) locations that were included in Rogers’ responses to request for information (RFI). For further information, see TekSavvy’s reply to RFI responses, dated 19 March 2025, paragraphs 3 to 7.
- Fibernetics requested that Rogers disclose, only to Fibernetics, the name of the other Third Party Internet Access Service (TPIA) customer that Rogers stated has completed a build to the TPIA POI. For further information, see Fibernetics’ reply to RFI responses, dated 19 March 2025, at “Rogers Answer 5”. Failing that, Fibernetics requested that the Commission determine and declare if the customer is affiliated with Rogers and/or has partial ownership/control by Rogers.
TekSavvy’s Request for Disclosure
Rogers submitted that general information about the region or city of Rogers’ POI locations is not confidential. However, it was of the view that providing specific address information regarding telecommunication facilities creates unnecessary risk that can lead to financial harm and does not serve the public interest. It noted that facilities have been vandalized across the country and such information could be leveraged by bad actors.
Fibernetics’ Request for Disclosure
Rogers submitted that the disclosure request should be denied. Rogers claimed that the names of parties it has commercial agreements with is commercially sensitive information and that it has non-disclosure agreements that apply to both parties.
Confidentiality Process
Pursuant to paragraph 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, 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. 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 request a binding Commission determination on the same confidentiality record.
Commission Staff Determination on TekSavvy’s Request for Disclosure
Commission staff considers that the disclosure of specific POI locations would provide the public with the exact locations of critical telecommunications infrastructure, which may increase the risk of threats to that infrastructure, resulting in material financial loss. Therefore, the POI locations fall within subparagraph 39(1)(c)(i) of the Act and can be deemed confidential.
However, Commission staff acknowledges it may be difficult for parties to differentiate whether the redacted POI locations in Rogers’ responses to RFIs are referring to Rogers’ head-end facility, its meet-me-point, or another location. As such, Commission staff considers it appropriate for Rogers to resubmit its responses to RFIs, clearly indicating which facility the redacted information is referencing without disclosing the specific location on the record.
Commission Staff Determination on Fibernetics’ Request for Disclosure
Commission staff does not consider that it would be in the public interest to require disclosure of information about the specific customer that has completed a build to Rogers’ TPIA POI. This information would typically be considered commercially confidential information that would fall under paragraph 39(1)(b) of the Act.
However, Commission staff considers that it would be in the public interest for Rogers to disclose whether the customer in question has an affiliation to Rogers, without disclosing the specific name of the customer. This will provide parties with information about the relationship Rogers has with the third party, without disclosing any sensitive or confidential information.
Disclosure
In light of the above, Rogers is to refile its responses to RFIs: (i) clearly indicating which facility the redacted information is referencing; and (ii) disclosing whether the customer that has completed a build to the TPIA POI has an affiliation to Rogers.
Rogers is to refile its responses to RFIs by 23 June 2025. Fibernetics, TekSavvy, and any other interested person will have until 27 June 2025 to comment on the refiled responses to RFIs. These comments must be limited to only the new information provided in the responses to RFIs.
Sincerely,
Original signed by Philippe Nadeau for
Suneil Kanjeekal
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
c.c.:
Jeremy Lendvay, CRTC, jeremy.lendvay@crtc.gc.ca
Allison McLean, CRTC, allison.mclean@crtc.gc.ca
Ethan Townsend, CRTC, ethan.townsend@crtc.gc.ca
Attachment – Distribution List
Distribution List
regulatory@rci.rogers.com
regulatory@corp.fibernetics.ca
regaffairs@quebecor.com
regulatory@cnoc.ca
akaplanmyrth@teksavvy.ca
frankw@carrytel.ca
- Date modified: