Search

Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada)

Gatineau, 8 December 2025

Reference: 8740-B2-202504902

BY E-MAIL

Philippe Gauvin
Assistant General Counsel
Bell Canada
160 Elgin St., Floor 19
Ottawa ON K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Subject: Bell Canada Tariff Notice (TN) 7727 – Service Provided in Out-of-Footprint Territory – Request for information

Dear Philippe Gauvin:

On 26 September 2025, the Commission received an application from Bell Canada (hereafter, Bell) in which Bell proposed to add the exchange of Keewatin, Ontario, in the serving territory of KMTS, to Item 12 – Service Provided in Out-of-Footprint Territory of its General Tariff, CRTC 6716.

Commission staff notes that additional information is required to proceed with their analysis.

Paragraph 28(1)(a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may require parties to file information or documents where needed.

Accordingly, Bell Canada is requested to provide comprehensive answers, including rationale and any supporting information, to the attached questions by 19 December 2025.

As set out in section 39 of the Telecommunications Act (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 relevant information qualifies for designation as 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.

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date. The Commission requires the response or other documents to be submitted electronically by using the secured service “My CRTC Account” (Partner Log In or GCKey) and filling the “Telecom Cover page” located on this web page.

To inform the participation of interested persons in the proceeding, Commission staff expects the Bell companies to disclose information on the public record to the maximum extent possible.

A copy of this letter and all subsequent replies will be added to the public record of this proceeding.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Suneil Kanjeekal
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Mitchell Gebhardt, Analyst, CRTC, 819-712-7658, Mitchell.Gebhardt@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (1)

Request for Information

In its application, Bell stated that as part of its successful bid to build out fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) broadband services in Ontario under the (Infrastructure Ontario) Accelerated High-Speed Internet Program (ASHIP), it is proposing to build FTTP facilities to a small number of premises in Keewatin. Bell stated that any FTTP services will be provided by and connected to its own IS/IT systems, which are not integrated with those of KMTS. Due to this, Bell stated that to offer FTTP services in Keewatin, it would be required to either match the KMTS tariff for regulated home phone services in all respects, or alternatively, not offer home phone services on its FTTP facilities.

Please clarify the following, with supporting rationale:

  1. How many residential customers/premises are served in the Keewatin exchange in total? Of the total number of premises in the Keewatin exchange, how many are served by Bell and how many are served by KMTS?
  2. Are the affected premises to be served by Bell pre-existing or will Bell build FTTP to a new development? If the affected premises are pre-existing, are they all currently served by KMTS?
  3. Why is the proposed FTTP rollout limited to the premises specified in this tariff application? This approach is in contrast to the framework for FTTP implementation that Bell proposed and the Commission approved in Telecom Order 2024-214, which enabled Bell’s FTTP rollout within any part of the serving territory of Télébec, société en commandite (Télébec) and was not limited to a specific number of premises.
  4. Does Bell own or operate any other existing FTTP infrastructure in the Keewatin exchange? If so, to how many premises does Bell currently offer FTTP in that exchange?
  5. Is Bell planning to adjust the residential primary exchange service (PES) rates for the premises referred to in its application annually as set out in paragraph 30 of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2013-160, or in Telecom Decision 2002-34?
  6. Why did Bell indicate that it must either match KMTS’s tariff for regulated PES services or not offer home phone services via its FTTP facilities to the noted premises in the Keewatin exchange, given that any FTTP services will be provided by and connected to Bell’s IS/IT systems?
  7. What accounts for the differences in the costs between the scenarios where Bell matches KMTS’s tariff and where Bell implements its existing rates and billing infrastructure?
  8. What is the connection between the ASHIP and the introduction of FTTP to this community? What impacts would a Commission decision approving or denying this proposal have on any planned FTTP rollout?
Date modified: