Telecom - Commission Letter addressed to the Distribution List
Ottawa, 19 August 2022
Our Reference: TEL 8020-1/22
BY EMAIL
Distribution List
RE: Wireless and roaming agreements for Wholesale Telecommunications Services – Request for Information
In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130, Review of mobile wireless services (“the Policy”), 15 April 2021, the Commission put in place measures to address its findings that national wireless carriers and SaskTel were exercising market power in the provision of retail mobile services. The Commission further indicated that Final Offer Arbitration (FOA) would be appropriate and available to stakeholders for certain bilateral disputes. In the specific case of wholesale Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO) services, the Commission chose to establish ex-ante terms and conditions for the service while leaving only rates to be commercially negotiated, with FOA as a backstop.
In order to gain a better insight into the wholesale wireless market and other similar markets prior to any FOAs, Commission is requiring, pursuant to section 37 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), that the service providers identified in the distribution list respond to the requests for information set out below. The Commission intends to use this information to inform upcoming FOAs related to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130. Please note that incumbent carriers and SaskTel are to respond only to questions set out in Appendix 1, while regional wireless carriers footnote1 are to respond only to questions set out in Appendix 2.
Responses to all but Appendix 1’s Question 5 and Appendix 2’s Question 4 of the request for information in the Appendices are to be filed with the Commission by 19 September 2022, responses to Appendix 1’s Question 5 and Appendix 2’s Question 4 are to be filed with the Commission by 3 October 2022. All responses are to be received, and not merely sent, by those dates. If an extension of time is deemed necessary, it is to be filed expeditiously and be properly substantiated. Any such request should be filed no later than 5 days from the issuance of this letter. Failure to file such a request in an expeditious manner may be a factor taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of the request.
As MVNO access to wireless services is time sensitive, the Commission intends to gather as much pertinent information as possible in preparation for any FOA related to commercially negotiated rates and intends to enforce its requests for information and timelines using regulatory measures. Failure to respond within the proscribed timelines could result in the issuance of administrative monetary penalties under section 72.001 of the Act. The Commission also notes that it may ask further questions, or ask for updated responses following the publication of the terms and conditions.
As set out in section 39 of the 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.
Please note that the information collected within this request process may be used, in an aggregated format, to form part of an FOA proceeding public record or decision. As such, and in addition to substantiating any general claims of confidentiality, persons responding to this request for information should also address the extent to which any information designated as confidential could be shared with parties to a given FOA proceeding and, if yes, under what terms. In addition, parties are encouraged to note what information could be publicly disclosed on an aggregate basis for use in FOA proceedings.
Any interested person wishing to contest a designation of confidentiality or, more generally, any submissions made as to the proper handling of information designated as confidential for the purposes of an FOA are to do so by no later than 10 days following the deadline for responses to question 5 of appendix 1 and question 4 of appendix 2, taking care to copy any relevant RFI respondent with its submissions. Persons targeted by any such contestation may reply by no later than 5 days after the deadline for filing of said contestations.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Lilia Trombetti for
Claude Doucet
Secretary General
c.c.: Philippe Nadeau, CRTC, 819‑664‑7849, philippe.nadeau@crtc.gc.ca
Attachments (2)
Distribution List
bell.regulatory@bell.ca;
regulatory.affairs@telus.com;
regulatory@rci.rogers.com;
document.control@sasktel.com
regaffairs@quebecor.com;
regulatory@iristel.com;
regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca;
regulatory.finance@sjrb.ca;
geoff@brooketel.coop;
sharon.bell@brucetelecom.com;
alex.shantz@cwct.ca;
roxanne.desroches@cochranetel.ca;
telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com;
jfredette@cooptel.coop;
neil@muskoka.com;
eric@ambra.co;
martha.facey@execulinktelecom.c;
kgugan@corp.fibernetics.ca;
regulatory@gosfieldtel.ca;
a.lawrence@hay.net;
regulatory@hurontel.on.ca;
clayton@mnsi.net;
lhallahan@mornington.ca;
clayton@mnsi.net;
stuwilson850@gmail.com;
steve@wtccommunications.ca;
don.falle@orionwireless.ca;
regulatory@quadro.net;
tjwbeach@ontarioeast.net;
reglementaire@sogetel.com;
regulatory@ssimicro.com;
stephen.scofich@tbaytel.com;
david.lewis@terrestar.ca;
earl@finishline.ca;
regulatory@tccmail.ca;
hal.hallsson@valleyfiber.ca;
mscott@vocom.com;
regulatory@wightman.ca;
accounting@wtccommunications.ca;
Appendix 1: Request for information - Incumbents (Bell Mobility / Bell Canada, TELUS Communications Inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications)
- Provide an executed copy of all of the following agreements, that are either current, or that have expired or have been terminated within the last year and have either not been renewed or are being renegotiated :
- Wholesale wireless and roaming agreements, including those with or between affiliates;
- International roaming agreements related to provision of service in Canada by any foreign Wireless provider from the United States, Mexico, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom;
- 24 current Enterprise agreements that include the provision of wireless phone services. The 24 agreements should include agreements for different service volumes and, where feasible, include 8 agreements serving each of (i) 1000 to 10,000 devices, (ii) over 10,000 but less than 50,000 devices and (iii) over 50,000 devices. If you do not have 24 such agreements, please submit all Enterprise agreements.
- Provide a table summarizing all of the agreements provided in response to question 1. Please include the following information: type of agreement, name of contracting parties, geographical area covered by the agreement, number of wireless phones serviced by the agreement, type of service(s), date of entry into effect along with the corresponding end date (if applicable), page numbers where to find rate cards for wireless or roaming services as well as page numbers for terms and conditions that apply to wireless and roaming services, and status (i.e. in effect/expired/terminated/currently negotiating, etc.). Please use the following format:
Table 1: Wireless Agreements Summary – Response to Q1 Type of agreement (wholesale wireless, local roaming, international roaming, enterprise contracts) Name of parties to the contract Coverage Area # of wireless phones served by the agreement Type of Service(s) (wireless data, texts or minutes, landline minutes, wireline data, etc.) Start and End Dates (if applicable) of Agreement Page # of Rate Card Page # of Terms and conditions Status (In Effect /Expired/Terminated/Currently Negotiating) - Please identify and rank the 10 agreements you believe are most comparable to wholesale MVNO access agreements with regional carriers for the purposes of FOA on rates with tariffed terms and conditions. The list should include agreements covering different volumes of service, such as 1 for each of the size categories requested in question #1 above. Where possible, this list should include at least 2 agreements from each service volume category identified in question 1. For each of the agreements, please explain why you deem it to be comparable and explain the reasoning behind the provided ranking.
- Are there agreements provided in response to question 1 that would not be comparable to wholesale MVNO access agreements for the purpose of an FOA on rates. Please explain why.
- Explain, with supporting rationale, the methodology, including costing analysis, used to establish the rates for wireless services agreements, including those with or between affiliates.
- Provide details, using the agreements identified in Question 3, on how the rates are established for bundled service contracts, as well as for individual service contracts as appropriate for each agreement. In the explanation, provide a service margin analysis, as well as a contract margin analysis, if applicable.
- If you submitted wholesale wireless agreements that allow for the reselling of wireless services in question 1, but have not identified them in question 3, please provide details for the wholesale wireless agreement with resellers you believe is most comparable to wholesale MVNO wireless agreements with regional carriers for the purposes of an FOA on rates, on how the rates are established for bundled service contracts, as well as for individual service contracts, as appropriate. In the explanation, provide a service margin analysis, as well as a contract margin analysis, if applicable, and explain what in the details provided, if anything, makes the agreement comparable or not comparable for the purpose of FOAs.
- For the purposes of an FOA related to MVNO rates, provide your views and comment on the appropriateness of relying on the aforementioned methodology explained in the responses above.
- The FOA exercise will require Commission to collect information about the submitted offers and the wireless market and evaluate the information based on pre-determined factors
footnote2
. The following factors are being considered for the assessment of offers within a Telecommunication FOA process (including MVNO access rates FOA’s), please provide your thoughts and comments on these factors:
Table 2: Objective Factors Data required Evaluation just and reasonable rates 7(b) Affordable and reliable wholesale service Rate structure - Are the rate structures and their justification reasonable (base price, volume discounts, bundling discounts, premiums for high speeds/Technology generation (5G vs. 4G), yearly price increases, etc.)?
- Is one rate structure more reasonable?
- Are the rates reasonable when compared to retail offerings in the market?
7(c) Enhances competitiveness of the telecom industry - Cost structure
- does the cost structure and margin analysis support the rates proposed?
7(g) Encourages innovation - Retail costs
- Retail rates
- Do proposed rates vs retail rates allow the competitor to effectively compete and innovate?
7(f) Increased reliance on market forces (market value) Historical rates (rates paid in previous agreement between the two parties) - How close are the offers to the previous agreement between the parties to the FOA?
- Are deviations sufficiently well justified?
Rates paid by other TSPs on Incumbent network - How close are proposed rates compared to what other Canadian service providers are paying for same or similar network access?
Rates paid by competitor for access to other networks - How close are proposed rates compared to those paid to access other similar networks?
Unjust preference and/or discrimination Rates paid by other TSPs and all other data identified above where possible undue advantage can be found - Does the proposed rate give an undue advantage or disadvantage to the competitor over other service providers or an undue advantage to the incumbent?
- Please provide your thoughts as to what information should be used by the Commission in the context of FOAs and what the appropriate factors would be to compare and evaluate the offers submitted in the course of an FOA on MVNO access rates, also comment on the weight each of these factors should hold in the decision and why.
- Would those factors, and your associated comments still be appropriate for FOAs that are not related to MVNO access rates?
Appendix 2: Request for information – Eligible regional wireless carriers (Bragg Communications/Eastlink/Amtelecom Limited Partnership/People’s Tel Limited Partnership, Brooke Telecom Co-Operative LTD, Bruce Telecom Ontario Inc., City West Cable and Telephone Corp., Cochrane Telecom Services, Cogeco, Cooptel Coop de Telecommunication, Core Broadband, Ecotel Inc., Execulink Telecom Inc., Fibernetics Corporation, Shaw Telecom Inc./Freedom Mobile Inc., Gosfield North Communications Co-Op Ltd, Hay Communications Co-Operative Ltd, Huron Telecommunications Co-Operative Ltd, Iristel Inc./Iris Technologies Inc., Lansdown Rural Telephone Co/Nexicom Inc., Mornington Communications Co-op Ltd, North Frontenac Telephone Co, North Renfrew Telephone Co Ltd, Orion Wireless Partnership (WCS), Quadro Communications Co-Operative Inc, Roxborough Telephone Co Ltd, Sogetel Inc./Sogetel Mobilité Inc., SSI Micro Ltd, TBayTel, Terrestar Solutions Inc., Thomas Communications Ltd, Tuckersmith Communications Co-Operative Ltd, Valley Fiber Ltd, Vidéotron ltée, Vocom International Telecommunication Inc., Wightman Telecom Ltd, WTC Communications)
- provide a table summarizing all of your wholesale wireless or roaming agreements that are either current, or that have expired or have been terminated within the last year and have either not been renewed or are being renegotiated as well as any other agreement you believe may be comparable to wholesale MVNO access agreements for the purposes of FOA on rates with tariffed terms and conditions. Please include the following information: type of agreement, name of contracting parties, geographical area covered by the agreement, number of wireless phones serviced by the agreement, type of service(s), date of entry into effect along with the corresponding end date (if applicable), page numbers where to find rate cards for wireless or roaming services as well as page numbers for terms and conditions that apply to wireless and roaming services, and status (i.e. in effect/expired/terminated/currently negotiating, etc.). Please use the following format:
Table 3: Wireless Agreements Summary Type of agreement (wholesale wireless, local roaming international roaming, enterprise contracts) Name of parties to the contract Coverage Area # of wireless phones served by the agreement Type of Service(s) (wireless data, texts or minutes, landline minutes, wireline data, etc.) Start and End Dates (if applicable) of Agreement Page # of Rate Card Page # of Terms and conditions Status (In Effect /Expired/Terminated/Currently Negotiating) - Please identify any comparable agreements you believe are most comparable to wholesale MVNO access agreements with regional carriers for the purposes of FOA on rates with tariffed terms and conditions. Please explain why
- Are there agreements identified in question 1 that would not be comparable to wholesale MVNO access agreements. Please explain why.
- Explain, with supporting rationale, the methodology the company used to assess feasibility and fairness of the rates for wireless services agreements identified in Question 2.
- Provide details, using examples from the agreements identified in Question 2, on how the rates were assessed for bundled service contracts, as well as for individual service contracts, as appropriate for each agreement. In the explanation, provide the margin analysis your company used to ensure profitability, if applicable.
- If wholesale wireless agreements that allow for the reselling of wireless services are included in your answer to question 1, but are not identified in question 2, please provide details for one wholesale wireless agreement, on how the rates were assessed for bundled service contracts, as well as for individual service contracts as appropriate. In the explanation, provide the margin analysis your company used to ensure profitability, if applicable.
- For the purposes of an FOA related to MVNO rates, provide your views and comment on the appropriateness of relying on the aforementioned methodologies explained in the responses above.
- The FOA exercise will require Commission to collect information about the submitted offers and the wireless market and evaluate the information based on pre-determined factors
footnote3
. The following factors are being considered for the assessment of offers within a Telecommunication FOA process (including MVNO access rates FOA’s), please provide your thoughts and comments on these factors:
Table 4: Objective Factors Data required Evaluation just and reasonable rates 7(b) Affordable and reliable wholesale service Rate structure - Are the rate structures and their justification reasonable (base price, volume discounts, bundling discounts, premiums for high speeds/Technology generation (5G vs. 4G), yearly price increases, etc.)?
- Is one rate structure more reasonable?
- Are the rates reasonable when compared to retail offerings in the market?
7(c) Enhances competitiveness of the telecom industry - Cost structure
- does the cost structure and margin analysis support the rates proposed?
7(g) Encourages innovation - Retail costs
- Retail rates
- Do proposed rates vs retail rates allow the competitor to effectively compete and innovate?
7(f) Increased reliance on market forces (market value) Historical rates (rates paid in previous agreement between the two parties) - How close are the offers to the previous agreement between the parties to the FOA?
- Are deviations sufficiently well justified?
Rates paid by other TSPs on Incumbent network - How close are proposed rates compared to what other Canadian service providers are paying for same or similar network access?
Rates paid by competitor for access to other networks - How close are proposed rates compared to those paid to access other similar networks?
Unjust preference and/or discrimination Rates paid by other TSPs and all other data identified above where possible undue advantage can be found - Does the proposed rate give an undue advantage or disadvantage to the competitor over other service providers or an undue advantage to the incumbent?
- Please provide your thoughts as to what information should be used by the Commission in the context of FOAs and what the appropriate factors would be to compare and evaluate the offers submitted in the course of an FOA on MVNO access rates, also comment on the weight each of these factors should hold in the decision and why.
- Would those factors, and your associated comments still be appropriate for FOAs that are not related to MVNO access rates?
- Date modified: