Search

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

Gatineau, 4 March 2025

ABRIDGED

Our reference: 8622-F27-202405282

BY EMAIL

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.
One Mount Pleasant Rd.
Toronto, ON  M4Y 2Y5
regulatory@rci.rogers.com

Subject: Fibernetics Corporation Part 1 Application for relief alleging undue preference by Rogers Communications Canada Inc. relating to their Southern Alberta Third Party Internet (TPIA) service

Dear Rick Schleihauf and Howard Slawner,

This letter sets out a request for information related to the proceeding associated with the above-referenced Part 1 application, filed by Fibernetics Corporation (Fibernetics). In this application, Fibernetics is requesting immediate relief from the Commission with respect to what it alleges is an arbitrary decision by Rogers to enforce a Point of Interconnection (POI) location that provides Rogers with an undue preference and subjects other carriers to an undue disadvantage.

Section 37 of the Act provides that the Commission may require Canadian carriers or any person to file information or documents that the Commission considers necessary for the administration of that Act. The request for information (RFI) can be found in the attachment below. The deadlines for responding to this RFI are as follows:

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, parties may designate certain information as confidential.

A party designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation of 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 party 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.

A copy of this letter will be placed on the public record of this proceeding.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Suneil Kanjeekal
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Rudy Rab, CRTC rudy.rab@crtc.gc.ca;
Paul Andersen, CNOC, regulatory@cnoc.ca
Patrick Désy, Québecor Média, regaffairs@quebecor.com
Andy Kaplan-Myrth, TekSavvy Solutions Inc., akaplanmyrth@teksavvy.ca
Frank Wang, Carry Telecom Inc., frankw@carrytel.ca

Attach. (1)

Request for Information (RFI)

To Fibernetics

  1. Advise whether Fibernetics and the third party service provider have considered alternate interconnection locations for the provision of backhaul service from Rogers to Fibernetics that are not owned/managed by Rogers .

To Rogers

  1. Fibernetics submits that it has been subscribing to TPIA service originally provided by Shaw and now by Rogers at the # # POI for many years. However, Rogers requests Fibernetics to interconnect with the third party service provider at a different location, on the grounds that this transport service is a non-tariffed service and is not part of the tariffed TPIA service purchased by Fibernetics. Given that Fibernetics already possesses fibre and other equipment to allow for interconnection at the # # POI and given that the infrastructure should already be in place to enable interconnection by Fibernetics with the third-party backhaul service provider at this POI explain why Rogers believes that it matters which backhaul transport service Fibernetics uses at this location.
  2. According to Fibernetics, the third-party backhaul service provider possesses facilities at the Rogers POI location for interconnection with Fibernetics. However, Rogers submits that the third-party provider’s facilities are not related to gigabit transport services or the TPIA POI and is not connected to Rogers’ TPIA service. According to Rogers, the third-party provider’s equipment is instead strictly utilized for services purchased by Rogers to operate its network. Are there any reasons (e.g. technical, security) why the third-party provider cannot use its equipment located at the Rogers POI location to interconnect with Fibernetics to provide backhaul services—if yes, explain, and include all supporting evidence and documentation.
  3. Fibernetics submits that, upon visual inspection of the Rogers POI location by all parties (Fibernetics, Rogers, and the third party), it was unanimously agreed that a fibre meet-me point within the building made the most sense, as the third party provider’s fibre and terminal hardware are already present within the building. If the third-party provider’s infrastructure is already available at the building, explain why Rogers submits that providing POI access to Fibernetics would require Rogers to construct a brand new co-location site at Rogers POI building.
  4. Confirm whether Rogers provides interconnection only between itself and other parties at the # # POI (as opposed to providing for interconnection between third parties).
  5. Provide a list of other parties with whom Rogers interconnects at the POI building facilitated at this location.
  6. Confirm whether Rogers provides third-party co-location services only at the # # vault located down the street from the POI building, versus at other locations in Calgary.
  7. Given that Fibernetics’ third-party provider does not have interconnection facilities at the # # vault, advise whether Rogers has a facility in similar proximity (or closer) to the # # POI, where the third party provider in question has facilities that can be used by Fibernetics for interconnection.
Date modified: