Search

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

Gatineau, 18 December 2025

Reference: 8740-B2-202504844

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) 7726 – Withdrawal of Channels for Program Transmission – Request for information

Dear Philippe Gauvin:

On 18 September 2025, the Commission received an application from Bell Canada

(hereafter, Bell) in which Bell proposed to withdraw Item 4600 – Channels for Program Transmission 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 is requested to provide comprehensive answers, including rationale and any supporting information, to the attached questions by 19 January 2026.

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 Bell 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 it is seeking to withdraw its Channels for Program Transmission service and identified alternative services that could be used as a replacement, such as Internet Protocol-Virtual Private Network (IPVPN), Ethernet, and Internet services. This proposal subsequently received interventions from affected parties. The interveners commented on the time required to transition away from the Channels for Program Transmission service, the practicality and costs of the suggested alternative services, and other technical concerns associated with those alternatives.

Please clarify the following, with supporting rationale:

  1. In paragraph 6 of its cover letter and in paragraph 5 of its reply to the interventions, Bell stated it was proposing an effective date of 1 March 2026 for the destandardization of Channels for Program Transmission. Was that a typographical error that was supposed to say withdrawal instead of destandardization?
  2. Why did Bell file this application as a withdrawal instead of a destandardization? From Bell's perspective, would destandardization help to alleviate some of the concerns raised by intervenors in relation to this application?
  3. How does the Channels for Program Transmission service work from a technical standpoint? How do the noted alternative services operate?
  4. What are the most common use cases for customers of the service, in plain language? How would the alternative services be leveraged to fulfill these same use cases?
  5. Once an existing customer chooses an alternative service, roughly how long would it take Bell to fully install/set up each of the alternative services it identified at the affected customer site(s)? Is it possible that a single customer will require multiple solutions in the case of several sites? What would be the associated costs?
  6. In its intervention, CORUS Entertainment Inc. indicated that transitioning to new services is a time-consuming endeavour due in part to the need to coordinate between service providers, customers, and third-party vendors. Do third-party vendors need to be involved to ensure the alternative services are able to perform the same functions as the currently tariffed Channels for Program Transmission service? If so, what is their role?
  7. In its reply, Bell noted that there are significant differences in the rates prospective customers would pay when transitioning to the alternative services depending on whether the user has a contract in place for the service. What are the differences in the terms, conditions, and rates (including installation, cancellation, and monthly usage rates) for each of the relevant alternative services in cases where the user has a contract in place and in cases where they do not?
  8. Have each of the customers affected by this proposed withdrawal been provided with an up-to-date and comprehensive list of the affected circuits? If not, will Bell identify these circuits for each customer prior to the tariff’s withdrawal?
  9. Are there features offered by the alternative services to help circumvent reliability issues that could come from inclement weather or Internet outages?
Date modified: