Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to Rick Schleihauf (Fibernetics Corporation) and Howard Slawner (Rogers Communications Canada Inc.)

Gatineau, 31 October 2025

Reference: 8622-F27-202405282

BY E-MAIL

Rick Schleihauf
Vice-President – Regulatory Affairs and Carrier Relations
Fibernetics Corporation
96 Grand Avenue South, Suite 203
Cambridge, ON N1S 2L9
regulatory@corp.fibernetics.ca

Howard Slawner
Vice-President - Telecom
Rogers Communications Canada Inc.
1 Mount Pleasant Rd.
Toronto, ON M4Y 2Y5
regulatory@rci.rogers.com

Subject: Fibernetics Corporation – Request for relief regarding undue preference by Rogers Communications Canada Inc. relating to third-party Internet access interconnection between Fibernetics and Rogers.

On 7 October 2024, Fibernetics Corporation (Fibernetics) filed a Part 1 application concerning relief regarding alleged undue preference by Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) relating to their Southern Alberta third-party Internet access (TPIA) service. To clarify and develop the record of this proceeding, the parties identified in the appendix are to file responses to the questions set out in the attachment by 17 November 2025.

Responses are to be provided in a single document to facilitate accessibility and administrative processing. However, any information provided in spreadsheet format should be included as an appendix, in a single document, in MS Excel format.

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.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Suneil Kanjeekal
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications sector

c.c.:  Allison McLean, CRTC, 819-360-1591, Allison.McLean@crtc.gc.ca
Ethan Townsend, CRTC, 873-355-6698, Ethan.Townsend@crtc.gc.ca
CNOC, regulatory@cnoc.ca
Québecor Média, regaffairs@quebecor.com
TekSavvy Solutions Inc., regulatory@teksavvy.ca; akaplanmyrth@teksavvy.ca
Carry Telecom Inc., frankw@carrytel.ca

Attach (1) : Appendix

Requests for Information

Questions for Fibernetics

101. Fibernetics indicated that it intends to switch to a third-party backhaul provider. Provide the company name of the service provider.

102. Provide an overview of Fibernetics’ network in Calgary, including whether:

     1. Fibernetics’ network facility is a carrier hotel;
     2. Fibernetics has equipment at Roger’s head-end facility; and
     3. the third-party backhaul provider already has connectivity between Fibernetics’ network facility and Rogers’ head-end location.

103. Fibernetics indicated that it is not seeking a co-location agreement. If the Commission mandated that the third-party backhaul provider interconnect at Rogers’ head-end facility. Please indicate:

     1. whether Rogers should be permitted to recover any costs associated with redesigning its head-end facility or equipment used to accommodate interconnection; and
     2. if so, how those costs would be recovered, in the absence of such an agreement.

104. If interconnection were to be at the meet-me point, indicate the location from which the third-party will extend its backhaul to the meet-me point:

     1. Will it be from (i) a local point of presence, (ii) a central office, (iii) directly from the Fibernetics network facility, or (iv) another location?
     2. Provide the address of the location and distance to the meet-me point.

Questions for Rogers

201. Rogers indicated that it does not provide security escorts at its head-end facility.

     1. Indicate whether any of the equipment at the facility was installed or maintained by other companies and how those companies’ employees were escorted during such visits.
     2. If the Commission mandates interconnection at Rogers’ head-end facility, provide an overview of the procedures and costs associated with security escorts, and how often those escorts would be required.

202. Rogers indicated that the only third-party equipment or services that are situated at the head-end facility are used by Rogers itself for its own purposes, and as such, effectively constitutes part of Rogers’ network.

     1. Provide a description of those services and any associated equipment. Include information on which company installed and maintains the equipment.
     2. Describe how the third-party backhaul provider provides service to Rogers (e.g., through POI or co-location).

203. With respect to Rogers’ head-end facility, Rogers indicated that additional equipment would be required to modify the existing service to enable gigabit transport services and a technical design would be required to ensure that Rogers’ future growth requirements can be met if third-party co-located equipment is introduced into the facility. Provide a technical assessment of whether the facility can accommodate the equipment and future growth requirements, including:

     1. a detailed description of the facility and space limitations;
     2. a description of the technical limitations preventing gigabit transport services;
     3. a list of the equipment that would be required to enable TPIA at the head-end facility (including enabling gigabit transport) and details on whether any of the equipment would be duplicative of the equipment already installed at the meet-me point;
     4. a detailed description of the space requirements for the equipment and an assessment of whether the facility can accommodate it; and
     5. a cost estimate for purchasing/installing any necessary equipment.

204. With respect to Rogers’ meet-me point, provide the following information:

     1. a detailed description of the facility including whether the facility has power or environmental systems and whether those systems are required by TPIA customers. Please provide pictures of the interior and exterior of the facility;
     2. how TPIA customers access the facility to install and maintain their equipment including whether escorts are required;
     3. an overview of any analysis that Rogers undertook prior to selecting the Calgary meet-me point location including whether Rogers considered alternative meet-me point locations and proximity to potential TPIA customers;
     4. an estimate of the costs that Rogers incurred to install the meet-me point, including costs associated with building the facility, maintenance, and extending fibre to the facility;
     5. standards or guidelines that were used to design the facility; and
     6. the type of equipment that companies (e.g., backhaul providers or TPIA customers) would need to install at the meet-me point for TPIA.

Date modified:

2025-10-31