DOCSLIB.ORG

Patricia Brady Director General Telecommunications and Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

14 February 2020 To: Patricia Brady Director General Telecommunications and Policy Branch Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 235 Queen Street, 10th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5 Email: [email protected] Subject: Notice No. TIPB-002-2019 Petitions to the Governor in Council concerning Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288 Dear Ms. Brady, Allstream Business Inc. is filing the enclosed comments in opposition to the Petitions to the Governor in Council made by Bell Canada, Bragg Communications Incorporated (Eastlink), Cogeco Communications Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Inc. and Videotron Ltd, concerning Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288 – Follow-up to Telecom Orders 2016-396 and 2016-448 -- Final rates for aggregated wholesale high-speed access services. Please feel free to contact me should you require additional information. Sincerely, Douglas Denney Vice President, Costs & Policy Attachments Cc: Claude Doucet, Secretary General, CRTC, [email protected] *** End of Document *** Allstream Business Inc. Comments to the Governor in Council in Opposition to Petitions to Vary Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288, Follow-up to telecom Orders 2016-396 and 2016-448 – Final Rates for aggregated wholesale high-speed access services Comments of Allstream Business Inc. Allstream Business Inc. Page 2 of 7 1. Allstream Business Inc. (Allstream) is pleased to have this opportunity to provide comments in opposition to the Petitions to the Governor in Council made by Bell Canada, Brag Communications Incorporated (Eastlink), Cogeco Communications Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Inc. and Videotron Ltd, concerning Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288 – Follow-up to Telecom Orders 2016-396 and 2016-448 -- Final rates for aggregated wholesale high-speed access services. 2. A functioning competitive market is the most effective way of promoting affordability, consumer interests, innovation and investment. In December of last year the government reinforced this fact by directing the CRTC to implement the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives in a way that, a. encourages all forms of competition and investment b. fosters affordability and lower prices, particularly when telecom service providers exercise market power. c. ensure that affordable access to high-quality telecommunications services is available in all regions of Canada, including rural areas, d. enhance and protect the rights of consumers in their relationships with telecommunications service providers, including rights related to accessibility, e. reduce barriers to entry into the market and to competition for telecommunications service providers that are new, regional or smaller than the incumbent national service providers, f. enable innovation in telecommunications services, including new technologies and differentiated service offerings, and g. stimulate investment in research and development and in other intangible assets that support the offer and provision of telecommunications services;1 3. In Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288, the Commission did just this when they established just and reasonable final rates for wholesale high speed access services. 4. Order 2019-288 is the culmination of close to sixteen years of proceedings established to set the rates, terms and conditions for wholesale high speed access. Throughout the incumbent telecom and cable providers have used various methods – from filing hyper- inflated wholesale rates to abuse of the procedures – to delay the real and widespread broadband competition that will ensue as a result of just and reasonable rates for 1 Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives to Promote Competition, Affordability, Consumer Interests and Innovation, SOR/2019-227, 22 December 2019. (emphasis added) Allstream Business Inc. Page 3 of 7 wholesale high-speed access services. Their various appeals of Order 2019-2882, this Petition included, is merely their most recent attempt to impede such competition. 5. At this time, the Commission itself is re-examining aspects of Order 2019-288 at the behest of Bell, TELUS and the large incumbent cable companies. The issues raised in the Bell et al applications to the Commission are identical to those raised in this Petition. While Allstream submits that this Petition is unnecessary and unwarranted, given the current CRTC proceeding, it is at the very least premature. 6. While these proceedings continue consumers continue to be denied the benefits of broadband competition. Challenges to Broadband Competition 7. “The Commission considers that competition in retail service markets drives innovation and provides end-users with the greatest choice of service providers and service characteristics, including pricing, service features, and customer service quality.”3 8. The Commission concluded this over a decade ago following a comprehensive review of wholesale high speed access services. Sadly, all these years later a competitive downstream retail services market for high speed access has yet to be achieved. 9. In 2018, competitors collectively accounted for only 13.7% of revenue for residential broadband services,4 compared to 35.6% of revenue for long distance services in 20085 2 Bell Canada, (“Bell”) Telus Communications Inc. (“TELUS”), (collectively incumbent telecom service providers), Bragg Communications Incorporated (Eastlink), Cogeco Communications Inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Videotron Ltd. (collectively referred to as “the large incumbent cable companies or service providers”) filed applications with the Canadian Radio- television and telecommunications Commission (“CRTC” or “Commission”) on [date] to Review and Vary Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288 (“Order 2019-288”). The proceeding is currently underway before the Commission. As well these parties applied to the Federal Court of Appeal for a stay of proceedings pending the CRTC’s review . 3 Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-632, Wholesale high-speed access proceeding, 30 August 2010, paragraph 22. (emphasis added) 4 CRTC 2019 Communications Monitoring Report, page 203. 5 Long distance competition effectively occurred with the roll out of equal access in mid-1994. Revenue share from CRTC 2013 Communications Monitoring Report, Table 5.2.4. Allstream Business Inc. Page 4 of 7 and 39.0% of local service lines in 2014.6 Incumbent telephone and cable service providers jointly command 80% to 85% of the most highly competitive retail markets, and an even higher percentage in other less competitive markets across Canada. Bell’s own submission acknowledges this market dominance.7 10. This is largely because the wholesale high speed access services offered by the incumbent telecom and cable service providers have been over-priced (in Bell’s case in excess of retail) and unavailable at the same higher speeds as their own retail access services. Initially wholesale service speeds were capped at a fraction of the incumbents fastest retail speeds. In 2010 the Commission confirmed the speed-matching requirement between wholesale and retail service speeds. While the Cable Companies abided by this requirement, Bell and TELUS have continued to limit competitor access (a limitation which is neither competitively- nor technologically-neutral). For Bell, the highest wholesale speed available is 100 Mbps. This is less than 7% of Bell’s top retail speed of 1.5 Gbps.8 For TELUS, the highest wholesale speed available is 150 Mbps, or just 16% of TELUS’ top retail speed of 940 Mbps (branded as “Gigabit fibre”9). 11. The imbalance between wholesale and retail service speeds and the punitive pricing of wholesale services have greatly impaired the ability of competitors to participate at an optimum level in the market. This outcome is reflected in the competitors’ collective low share of the broadband market. Canadian consumers are also increasingly frustrated and dissatisfied by the lack of choice resulting from the market power exercised by the incumbent telecom and cable service providers. In response, the federal government directed the Commission to investigate the issue. In the resulting report, the Commission confirmed that consumers were being harmed, and identified the need for new consumer protection measures. This would not be necessary if there really were, as Bell and the Petitioners claim, flourishing competition. 6 Local service competition effectively opened up with the introduction of Local Interconnection Regions in mid-2004 following Decision 2004-46. Line share from CRTC 2015 Communications Monitoring Report, Table 5.2.6. 7 Bell application to Review and Vary Order 2019-288, paragraph 7. 8 Bell application to Review and Vary Order 2019-288 , paragraph 56; described as “the fastest in the galaxy” in current Bell advertising. 9 https://www.telus.com/en/deals-and-bundles/gigabit-internet Allstream Business Inc. Page 5 of 7 Delay, Delay, Delay – Systematic use (abuse) of process 12. The various appeals and applications by Bell, TELUS and the Cable Companies serve to underscore how intent the large incumbents are on rehashing matters which should long ago have been closed. 13. The process leading to Order 2019-288 began in May 2015.10 Ten months later, the Commission made current prices “interim” and directed service providers to file new cost studies within 90 days.11 Five months after this, the Commission issued two Orders in which
Recommended publications
  • Closing​​Canada's​​Digital​​Divide: ​A​​Review​ ​Of

    Closing​​Canada's​​Digital​​Divide: ​A​​Review​ ​Of

    CLOSING CANADA’S DIGITAL DIVIDE: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ A REVIEW OF POLICIES IN CANADA AND ABROAD ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ by Charlie Crabb ​ ​ A Major Research Paper ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ presented to Ryerson University ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Digital Media ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In the Yeates School of Graduate Studies Ryerson University ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Toronto, Ontario, Canada ​ ​ ​ ​ © Charlie Crabb, 2017 Author's Declaration ​ ​ I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this MRP. This is a true copy of the MRP, including ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ any required final revisions. I authorize Ryerson University to lend this MRP to other institutions ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I further authorize Ryerson University to ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ reproduce this MRP by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my MRP ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ may be made electronically available to the public. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 Abstract This paper explores Canada’s telecommunications policy landscape, with an aim of evaluating ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ its
  • 2251723 Ontario Inc. V Bell Canada, 2016 ONSC 7273 (Canlii)

    2251723 Ontario Inc. V Bell Canada, 2016 ONSC 7273 (Canlii)

    2251723 Ontario Inc. v Bell Canada, 2016 ONSC 7273 (CanLII) Date: 2016-11-22 Docket: CV-16-561545 Citation:2251723 Ontario Inc. v Bell Canada, 2016 ONSC 7273 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gvr2k>, retrieved on 2016-11-24 CITATION: 2251723 Ontario Inc. v. Bell Canada, 2016 ONSC 7273 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-561545 DATE: 20161122 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) 2251723 ONTARIO INC. o/a VM ) Rocco DiPucchio and Ian Matthew EDIA )) s, for the Applicant )) Applicant )) ) )) – and – BELL CANADA and BELL MED IA INC. Steven G. Mason, Junior Sirivar, a nd Brandon Kain, for the Responde Respondents nts ) ) ) HEARD: November 17, 2016 F.L. MYERS, J. REASONS FOR DECISION The Applications [1] VMedia seeks an order declaring that its new internet retransmitting service is not infringing Bell’s copyrights in CTV television broadcasts. Bell seeks the opposite relief in a counter-application under Court File No. CV-16-561611. These reasons apply to both applications. [2] VMedia says that it is entitled to simultaneously retransmit over the internet Bell’s copyrighted over-the-air CTV television signals and programming on its new service without Bell’s consent (i.e. for free). Bell says that as the owner or licensee of the copyrights in the signals and programming, it is entitled to prevent retransmission unless it consents (i.e. it is paid). The Court does not set Broadcasting Policy in Canada [3] It is the role of the court to interpret and apply the laws of the land as enacted by Parliament. Parliament has delegated the role of setting national broadcasting policy under the Broadcasting Act, SC 1991, c 11, to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the supervision of the federal cabinet.
  • R Eg U Lato Ry

    R Eg U Lato Ry

    Regulatory December 8, 2017 VIA Electronic Submission Mr. Chris Seidl Acting Secretary-General CRTC 1 Promenade du Portage Les Terrasses de la Chaudière Central Building Gatineau, QC K1A 0N2 Dear Mr. Seidl: Subject: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2017-365: Applications for the renewal of services with mandatory distribution on the basic service pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act 1. The Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (“CCSA”) speaks for independent communications distributors – smaller cable and IPTV companies, telephone companies and ISPs – across Canada. CCSA represents more than 115 companies operating from coast to coast to coast. 2. CCSA wishes to appear at the oral hearing of this matter to speak to its concerns regarding increases to the wholesale fees and signal transport costs sought by some of the applicants in this matter and to respond to the applicants’ replies to its submissions. Executive Summary 3. CCSA addresses two issues in these comments. Those are its: 1. opposition to proposed wholesale rate increases because of the effect they would have on retail pricing and the perceived precedent that they could set; and Regulatory 2. opposition to the request by TV5 to be relieved of the obligation to pay for transport of its signals to the headends of BDUs in order to benefit from mandatory carriage. CCSA Opposes Applications for Wholesale Rate Increases Because of Their Impact on Pricing of the Small Basic Service 4. CCSA notes that AMI-audio, AMI-tv, AMI-télé, TV5/Unis, TWN and the Legislative Assemblies of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have applied for renewals but have not requested any increase to the wholesale fees they are authorized to charge BDUs for distribution of their programming services.
  • Major Canadian Isps' and Wsps' COVID-19 Responses – Retail

    Major Canadian Isps' and Wsps' COVID-19 Responses – Retail

    Major Canadian ISPs’ and WSPs’ COVID-19 Responses – Retail (Consumer) Current as of: 14 April 2020. We will add more Internet Service Providers and Wireless Service Providers (ISPs/WSPs) to this list in future updates. Please note that the following text, although quoted directly from ISP and WSP websites, are excerpts. Please refer to the referenced web page for the full text and embedded links. We provide links to major statements but there may be additional information at other links. Please also note that while some companies have listed their sub- brands, others have not. Where companies have listed links to sub-brands (also known as flanker brands) we have attempted to provide information, if available, for the sub-brands. As the COVID-19 situation is rapidly changing, along with ISP and telecom and broadcasting provider policies, we urge you to visit the website of your provider for the most up to date information. Information below is provided on a best-efforts basis, we cannot guarantee accuracy or currency; please confirm with your provider. Bell https://www.bce.ca/bell-update-on-covid-19 “With Canadians working from home or in isolation, we will be waiving extra usage fees for all residential Internet customers. We will also be providing our consumer and small business customers with Turbo Hubs, Turbo Sticks and MiFi devices an extra 10 GB of domestic usage and a $10 credit on their existing plan for each of their current and next billing cycles. Please note that data charges incurred before March 19th will still apply. Furthermore, we are waiving Roam BetterTM and all pay-per-use roaming fees for all destinations and for all mobile consumers and small businesses between March 18th and April 30th 2020.
  • Eastlink) Distribution

    Eastlink) Distribution

    BRAGG (Eastlink) Distribution #58 Ownership – Broadcasting - CRTC 2020-07-06 UPDATE CRTC 2013-95 – revocation of the licence issued to K-Right Communications Limited for the terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertaking serving Bedford, Sackville and surrounding area. Update - 2013-11-26 – minor updates as per 2013 BOIAF. CRTC 2016-287 – revocation of the licence issued to K-Right Communications Limited for the terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertaking serving Dartmouth and surrounding areas. Update – 2020-07-06 – minor change. NOTICE The CRTC ownership charts reflect the transactions approved by the Commission and are based on information supplied by licensees. The CRTC does not assume any responsibility for discrepancies between its charts and data from outside sources or for errors or omissions which they may contain. #58 Ownership – Broadcasting - CRTC 2020-07-06 APPENDIX Notes: The percentages in this chart refer to voting rights only. OWNERHSIP Bragg Communications Incorporated is 100% held by Oxford Communications Incorporated. Oxford Communications Incorporated is held as follows: • 79.96% by Tidnish Holdings Limited • 20.04% by The John Bragg Family Trust Tidnish Holdings Limited is held as follows: • 55.56% by John Louis Bragg • 11.11% by Aljaben Inc. which in turn is 90.91% held by John Louis Bragg • 11.11% by B.A.F.X. Holdings Limited which in turn is 90.91% held by John Louis Bragg • 11.11% by Colombier Holdings Limited which in turn is 90.91% held by John Louis Bragg • 11.11% by Mattbragg Holdings Limited which in turn is 90.91% held by John Louis Bragg Bragg Communications Incorporated holds: • 100% of K-Right Communications Limited • 100% of Eastlink Persona Holdings Inc.
  • Teksavvy Solutions Inc. Consultation on the Technical and Policy

    Teksavvy Solutions Inc. Consultation on the Technical and Policy

    TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Reply Comments in Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for the 3650-4200 MHz Band and Changes to the Frequency Allocation of the 3500-3650 MHz Band Canada Gazette, Part I, August 2020, Notice No. SLPB-002-20 November 30, 2020 TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Reply Comments to Consultation SLPB-002-20 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 1 B. Arguments for option 1 and against option 2 _________________________________ 1 a. Contiguity ______________________________________________________________ 1 b. Availability of ecosystem in the 3900: impacts on viability_________________________ 3 c. Moratorium ____________________________________________________________ 4 d. Arguments for Improvements to Option 1 _____________________________________ 4 C. 3800 MHz Auction _______________________________________________________ 5 a. Value _________________________________________________________________ 5 b. Procompetitive Measures _________________________________________________ 5 c. Tier 4 and 5 Licensing Area ________________________________________________ 6 TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Page 1 of 6 Reply Comments to Consultation SLPB-002-20 A. INTRODUCTION 1. TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (“TekSavvy”) is submitting its reply comments on ISED’s “Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for the 3650-4200 MHz Band and Changes to the Frequency Allocation of the 3500-3650 MHz Band”. 2. TekSavvy reasserts its position in favour of Option 1 in that Consultation document, and its strong opposition to Option 2, as expressed in its original submission. TekSavvy rejects Option 2 as disastrous both for WBS service providers’ ongoing viability and availability of broadband service to rural subscribers. 3. TekSavvy supports Option 1, wherein WBS Licensees would be allowed to continue to operate in the band of 3650 to 3700 MHz indefinitely as the only option that enables continued investment in rural broadband networks and continued improvement of broadband services to rural subscribers.
  • 2017-18 Annual Report

    2017-18 Annual Report

    Helping Canadians for 10+ YEARS 2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.”– H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.”– H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” –L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC P.O. Box 56067 – Minto Place RO, Ottawa, ON K1R 7Z1 www.ccts-cprst.ca [email protected] 1-888-221-1687 TTY: 1-877-782-2384 Fax: 1-877-782-2924 CONTENTS 2017-18
  • Cologix Vancouver: Metro Connect Services Convenient, Simple Solution to Increase Access Across Data Centres Within a Metro Market

    Cologix Vancouver: Metro Connect Services Convenient, Simple Solution to Increase Access Across Data Centres Within a Metro Market

    Cologix Vancouver: Metro Connect Services Convenient, simple solution to increase access across data centres within a metro market Cologix’s Metro Connect is a low-cost product offering that extends Cologix’s dense network availability to customers regardless of data centre location within a market. Metro Connect is a fibre-based service that offers bandwidth of 100Mb (FastE), 1000Mb (GigE), or 10G and higher (Passive Wave). FastE and GigE services are delivered through a Cologix switch to the customer via a copper cross-connect. The Passive Wave offering provides a dedicated lambda over Cologix fibre that customers must light with their own network equipment. Customers are able to request one of two diverse routes for all three services. Cologix Vancouver Metro Connect enables: Connections between Extended carrier and network A low-cost alternative to local Cologix’s 2 Vancouver data choice loops centres Our Vancouver Metro Connect product provides connections between 1050 West Pender and 555 West Hastings over shared dark fiber and Cologix-operated network equipment. The product comes in several different confgurations to solve various customer requirements. All Metro Connect services include a cross-connect within each facility to provide a complete end-to-end service. Cologix Vancouver Metro Connect Map Quick Facts: • Network neutral access to 10+ unique carriers on-site plus 20+ networks at the Redundant bre routes ymor St. Harbour Centre via Se have 1 meter clearance diverse fibre ring 1 Meter between duct systems • Home to the primary
  • The Benefit of the Wireless Telecommunications Industry to the Canadian Economy April 2010

    The Benefit of the Wireless Telecommunications Industry to the Canadian Economy April 2010

    Part of the Datamonitor Group The Benefit of the Wireless Telecommunications Industry to the Canadian Economy April 2010 A Report prepared for the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association WWW.OVUM.COM Table of contents 1 Executive summary ......................................................................... 1 2 Introduction .................................................................................... 3 2.1 Scope of the study ............................................................................ 3 2.2 Canadian wireless sector overview ...................................................... 4 2.3 The economic contribution of wireless telecoms services......................... 7 2.4 The structure of the report ................................................................. 8 3 Supply side impacts of the Canadian wireless industry.................. 10 3.1 Supply side impacts: our methodological framework .............................10 3.2 Canada’s wireless value chain............................................................12 3.3 Total value add generated by the Canadian wireless sector ....................15 3.4 Geographic distribution of value add ...................................................17 3.5 Wireless services compared with other sectors .....................................18 3.6 Employment Effects .........................................................................19 3.7 Employee value add .........................................................................22 4 Productivity gains from
  • January 11, 2019 the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel C/O Innovation, Science and Economic Devel

    January 11, 2019 the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel C/O Innovation, Science and Economic Devel

    January 11, 2019 The Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel c/o Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 235 Queen Street, 1st Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5 VMedia Inc. (“VMedia”) is grateful for the opportunity to submit comments on the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review (the “Review”) initiated by Innovation, Science and Economic Development (“ISED”) Canada. Executive Summary The Review ES1.The issues outlined in the terms of reference and the themes described by the panel appointed by ISED to review the relevant legislation (the “Panel”) are extensive. There are seven terms of reference relating to issues to consider in connection with the Telecommunications and Radiocommunication Acts, and eight in connection with the Broadcasting Act. In addition, there are four themes set out by the Panel intended to “help guide its work and structure meaningful dialogue during its consultation process”. ES2.Among those 19 elements of consideration, we note that the word competition is mentioned only twice, with little elaboration or context. ES3.As the second point under both the Telecommunications and Radiocommunication Acts, under the heading “Competition, Innovation, and Affordability”, the question is asked, “Are legislative changes warranted to better promote competition, innovation and affordability?” ES4.In addition, competition is mentioned at the very end of the first of the Panel’s themes, “Reducing Barriers to Access by All Canadian to Advanced Telecommunications Networks”. All of the rest of that theme focuses on the achievements of telephone and cable companies, and the heavy lifting ahead of them as they keep up with digital transformation. ES5.There is no mention at all of competition in the terms of reference relating to the Broadcasting Act.
  • Cologix Torix Case Study

    Cologix Torix Case Study

    Internet Exchange Case Study The Toronto Internet Exchange (TorIX) is the largest IX in Canada with more than 175 peering participants benefiting from lower network costs & faster speeds The non-profit Toronto Internet Exchange (TorIX) is a multi-connection point enabling members to use one hardwired connection to exchange traffic with 175+ members on the exchange. With peering participants swapping traffic with one another through direct connections, TorIX reduces transit times for local data exchange and cuts the significant costs of Internet bandwidth. The success of TorIX is underlined by its tremendous growth, exceeding 145 Gbps as one of the largest IXs in the world. TorIX is in Cologix’s data centre at 151 Front Street, Toronto’s carrier hotel and the country’s largest telecommunications hub in the heart of Toronto. TorIX members define their own routing protocols to dictate their traffic flow, experiencing faster speeds with their data packets crossing fewer hops between the point of origin and destination. Additionally, by keeping traffic local, Canadian data avoids international networks, easing concerns related to privacy and security. Above: In Dec. 2014, TorIX traffic peaked above 140 Gbps, with average traffic hovering around 90 Gbps. Beginning Today Launched in July 1996 Direct TorIX on-ramp in Cologix’s151 Front Street Ethernet-based, layer 2 connectivity data centre in Toronto TorIX-owned switches capable of handling Second largest independent IX in North America ample traffic Operated by telecom industry volunteers IPv4 & IPv6 address provided to each peering Surpassed 145 Gbps with 175+ peering member to use on the IX participants, including the Canadian Broke the 61 Gbps mark in Jan.
  • An Introduction to Telecommunications Policy in Canada

    An Introduction to Telecommunications Policy in Canada

    Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy An Introduction to Telecommunications Policy in Canada Catherine Middleton Ryerson University Abstract: This paper provides an introduction to telecommunications policy in Canada, outlining the regulatory and legislative environment governing the provision of telecommunications services in the country and describing basic characteristics of its retail telecommunications services market. It was written in 2017 as one in a series of papers describing international telecommunications policies and markets published in the Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy in 2016 and 2017. Drawing primarily from regulatory and policy documents, the discussion focuses on broad trends, central policy objectives and major players involved in building and operating Canada’s telecommunications infrastructure. The paper is descriptive rather than evaluative, and does not offer an exhaustive discussion of all telecommunications policy issues, markets and providers in Canada. Keywords: Policy; Telecommunications; Canada Introduction In 2017, Canada’s population was estimated to be above 36.5 million people (Statistics Canada, 2017). Although Canada has a large land mass and low population density, more than 80% of Canadiansi live in urban areas, the majority in close proximity to the border with the United States (Central Intelligence Agency, 2017). Telecommunications services are easily accessible for most, but not all, Canadians. Those in lower-income brackets and/or living in rural and remote areas are less likely to subscribe to telecommunications services than people in urban areas or with higher incomes, and high-quality mobile and Internet services are simply not available in some parts of the country (CRTC, 2017a). On average, Canadian households spend more than $200 (CAD)ii per month to access mobile phone, Internet, television and landline phone services (2015 data, cited in CRTC, 2017a).