Search

Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List

Gatineau, 17 June 2025

Reference: 1011-NOC2025-0010

BY EMAIL

Distribution list

Subject: Implementing a retail Internet service subsidy in the Far North, Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-10, Request for information-2 and Request for comments on the CRTC Conversations Report – 17 June 2025

This letter sets out a request for information related to the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-10, to implement a retail Internet service subsidy in the Far North.

To help develop a fulsome record and assist the Commission in its assessment of the areas identified within Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-10, parties are asked to file responses to the questions included in the appendix to this letter by 11 July 2025.

Many questions are directed to specific parties to the proceeding. However, all parties to the proceeding can provide answers to any questions regardless of whether the questions are directed to them.

This letter also contains questions for entities that are not parties to the proceeding, but who may offer retail Internet services in the Far North. These entities are requested to respond to questions directed to them. The entities include:

If any of the above noted entities would like to be made a party to the proceeding, which would enable them to participate in future comment periods, they may submit a formal request for the Commission to consider.

This letter also advises that a report of all comments gathered via the online engagement platform, CRTC Conversations, has been placed on the public record of the proceeding. Parties can find the report on the public record of this proceeding, linked here, and are invited to comment on the information presented in the report by 11 July 2025.

Parties may file replies with the Commission no later than 18 July 2025 limited to comments on responses to this request for information and comments provided on the CRTC Conversations report.

Confidential information

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.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me (Lisanne.Legros@crtc.gc.ca), or the Commission's Indigenous Relations Team at era-irt@crtc.gc.ca.

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

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Lisanne Legros
Director, Telecommunications Networks Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Josiane Lord, CRTC, josiane.lord@crtc.gc.ca
Sarah McMaster, CRTC, Sarah.McMaster@crtc.gc.ca
Hayley Meulenbroeks, CRTC, Hayley.Meulenbroeks@crtc.gc.ca
 Loïc Yves Abena Fouda, CRTC, loicyves.abenafouda@crtc.gc.ca
Bella Chu, CRTC, Bella.Chu@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (3)

Distribution List

Central Fund Administrator: knadeau@cfawelchllp.com
Canadian Telecommunications Contribution Consortium Inc.: jkennedy@fasken.com
Government of British Columbia: rachel.greenspan@gov.bc.ca
Union of British Columbia Municipalities: rtagami@ubcm.ca
Government of the Northwest Territories: dave_heffernan@gov.nt.ca
GPNetworks : Support@GPNetworks.ca
Peace Region Internet Society PRIS : melanson@pris.ca
Red Creek Telecom : admin@redcreektelecom.ca
Rigstar Communications Inc.: brian.lund@rigstar.ca
Kativik Regional Government: dpellerin@krg.ca
Regional District of Kitimat Stikine: drockle@icloud.com
Peace River Regional District: trevor.ouellette@prrd.bc.ca
Taku River Tlingit First Nation: wcd.cherishclarke@gov.trtfn.com, geoff@batstonelaw.com
Mount Lorne Local Advisory Council: lac@mtlorne.ca
Tagish Community Centre: brycebekar@gmail.com
Public Interest Advocacy Centre: tdawood@piac.ca
Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement: canadadeafgrassrootsmovement@gmail.com
ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership: Monica@atg.net
Bell Canada and Northwestel Inc.: regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca
City West Cable and Telephone Corporation: legal@cwct.ca , Brandi.lam@cwct.ca
Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc.: Lindsay@galaxybroadband.ca
Iristel Inc.: regulatory@iristel.com
New North Networks: tom@newnorth.ca
Quebecor Media Inc: regaffairs@quebecor.com
Rogers Communications Canada Inc.: regulatory@rci.rogers.com
SpaceX Canada Corp.: Shea.Boyd@spacex.com
SSi Canada: regulatory@ssicanada.com
TELUS Communications Inc.: Kim.Miller@telus.com
Xplore Inc.: legal@xplore.ca
Paulhus Communications Inc.: paulhuscommunications@gmail.com
Nicole Corrado: ntcorrado@rogers.com;
Marc Coulombe: mc470903@gmail.com
Pingle Eleta: selenawolf@live.ca
Jeremy Freeman: jeremyfreemanbiol@gmail.com
Ron Knowling: ronknowling@gmail.com
Virginia Labelle: virginia_labelle@hotmail.com
Cyril Melin: vetemelin@gmail.com
Yuri Podmoroff: yuri_podmoroff@hotmail.com
Richard Schlosser: rickrschlosser@gmail.com
Jennifer Tregidgo: Jtregclav@gmail.com
Douglas Tutty: douglas.tutty@hushmail.com
Warren Mulvey: mulveyw@live.com
Frances Woodcock: Franwoodcock@gmail.com

Appendix

Questions

Subscriber eligibility

  1. Some parties have noted that subscribers who are participating in the Connecting Families Initiative (CFI) should not be eligible to receive the subsidy.

    1. Is your company participating or considering participating in the CFI?
    2. If your company is participating in the CFI, how many of your subscribers in the Far North subscribe to CFI plans? Separate these subscriber numbers by CFI 1.0 or CFI 2.0 plan types.
    3. Are eligible subscribers able to cancel their CFI subscription at any point to subscribe to non-CFI plan offerings?
    4. How administratively burdensome would it be to exclude subscribers of CFI plans from eligibility for the subsidy in the Far North?

    Respondents: All Internet service providers including Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  2. In its intervention, Bell and Northwestel (page 10, paragraph 17) submitted the following:

    “… should the Commission extend eligibility for the subsidy to non residential customers, we do not propose to exclude any organization based on its size so long as it purchases an eligible retail Internet plan, with the exception of governments and their affiliated departments and agencies, such as public schools, public libraries, hospitals, police services, and publicly funded community centres. Governments are ultimately paid for by their taxpayers. It is inappropriate to create a regime whereby the rest of Canadian telecommunications consumers have to subsidize publicly financed entities. Thus, even if such governments purchase an otherwise-eligible Internet plan, we propose that they be ineligible to receive a subsidy on any Internet plan. As an exception to this exclusion, the subsidy should be extended to Indigenous governments purchasing eligible retail Internet plans.”
    1. Comment on whether your company has the ability to identify which of your customers are publicly funded institutions such as public schools, public libraries, hospitals, police services, publicly funded community centres, and Indigenous governments.
    2. If your company cannot do so with its existing systems, explain what changes would be required to do so, including associated timelines and cost estimates.

    Respondents: All Internet service providers including Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications.

    1. Would it be appropriate to exclude publicly funded organizations such as such as public schools, public libraries, hospitals, police services, and publicly funded community centres, from eligibility to receive the subsidy? If so, explain why.

    Respondents: All parties

  3. Some Internet service providers (ISPs) indicated that they do not offer plans that are differentiated between residential and business customers. For example, SSi stated the following in its intervention (page 2, paragraph 7):

    “Unless required through the terms of a broadband fund or other assistance program, SSi does not discriminate against or distinguish between our customers in the Far North on the basis of the type of institutions or individuals they are. Again, except where there have been restrictions imposed on us through an assistance or funding program, all our customers are eligible for QINIQ’s suite of broadband internet service packages, including our ground-breaking Kamotik services launched in May 2024.”

     Iristel/Ice Wireless submitted the following in its intervention (page 2, paragraph 7):

    “Ice Wireless does not have business-specific Internet plans. The plans for consumers and small businesses are the same.”

    Therefore, if only residential customers are eligible for the subsidy, it may be difficult for some ISPs to identify ineligible subscribers. If the Commission were to make the subsidy available only to residential customers;

    1. comment on whether your company is able to differentiate between residential and business retail Internet customers.
    2. explain what measures would be required for your company to be able to differentiate between residential and business customers.
    3. identify whether there is an alternative approach that could be used to determine subscriber eligibility.

    Respondents: All Internet service providers including Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  4. Retail Internet services may be marketed differently depending on the ISP, with some ISPs offering set price plans, and others offering a base package plan with optional add-ons (data capacity, etc.). Comment on whether the eligibility for and the amount of the subsidy (should a threshold be applied) should be based solely on the base Internet plan, or on the entire amount paid for Internet-related services.

    Respondents: All parties and Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  5. Within the notice of consultation, the Commission committed to balancing the affordability needs of the Far North with the impact on the National Contribution Fund. In its intervention Bell and Northwestel Inc. submitted the following (pages 12-13, paragraph 26):

    “… we propose that in addition to excluding any Internet plan that is clearly intended for enterprise-grade customers that the Commission also implement an upper eligibility threshold whereby retail Internet plans equal to or above $500 per month are ineligible for the subsidy. This upper eligibility threshold would apply to Northwestel as well. This will ensure that most small business Internet packages are eligible (all current small business Internet packages offered by Northwestel would be eligible) while excluding enterprise-grade Internet plans from receiving the subsidy.”

    The Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement also proposed a $500 Internet-only threshold in its intervention (page 5, paragraph 20). The Government of Northwest Territories supported a $500 Internet threshold in its reply comments (page 14, paragraph 50).

    1. Comment on whether a threshold of $500 for monthly Internet services only would be appropriate, with supporting rationale.

    Respondents: All parties

Monthly amount and calculation method

  1. The Government of Northwest Territories proposed imposing a price floor, which would limit the subsidy amount to ensure that post-subsidy plan prices do not drop below a certain amount. It also suggested that the Commission set the price floor at $30 so that it is higher than what customers pay for existing Connecting Families Initiative 1.0 and 2.0 plans.

    1. Should a price floor be set below which subscribers’ Internet bills could not drop with the subsidy?
    2. If so, what should this amount be and why?

    Respondents: All parties

  2. Complete Table 1: Retail Internet service subscriber and plan data, if your company, or another entity controlled or wholly owned by your company, provides retail Internet services in the Far North.

    To anticipate funding needs for the National Contribution Fund, provide actual numbers for each of the years 2023 and 2024, current subscribers, and projections for 2025 and 2026, of retail Internet by access technology (satellite, fixed broadband, fixed wireless, or other specified Internet access technology), separated by province and territory as well as community in the Far North. Include the speeds subscribers subscribe to (upload, download, and any applicable or corresponding data capacity). Further separate these subscribers by business and residential plans in the table provided.

    Table 1: Retail Internet service subscriber and plan data
    Year Province or Territory Community Residential or business plan* Technology Plan upload and download speeds Data capacity Price (CAD$) Number of subscribers
                     

    *If your company does not offer plans that are differentiated between residential and business customers, use this column to list the plan name.

    Respondents: All Internet service providers including Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  3. On the CRTC Conversations platform, respondents were asked what percentage of the $72 delta between plans in the Far North and other regions of Canada should be covered by the subsidy amount. Responses primarily supported covering 100% of this delta, or $72 per month, with the second-most popular suggestion being 50%, or $36 per month.

    1. Comment on whether 50% of the delta, or $36 per month, would be appropriate and whether this amount strikes the right balance between improving affordability in the Far North and the impact on contributions to the National Contribution Fund.

    Respondents: All parties

  4. In the notice of consultation, the Commission proposed a calculation method to determine the monthly subsidy amount that considered the average costs of 50/10 Mbps (current universal service objective-level) speeds over a three-year period. The Commission may wish to revise the monthly subsidy amount throughout the lifecycle of the subsidy.

    1. Comment on whether it would be appropriate to revise the subsidy amount using the same time period as proposed in the notice (i.e. previous three-year average), with supporting rationale.
    2. If a. above is not appropriate, explain why and identify alternatives.

    Respondents: All parties

Roles and responsibilities of the Commission and third-party administrators

  1. On 23 January 2025, Commission staff sent a request for information to the Canadian Telecommunications Contribution Consortium Inc. (CTCC) and the Central Fund Administrator (CFA) of the National Contribution Fund. In the CTCC’s response, there were some items that the CTCC and the CFA indicated would need Commission approval, prior to implementing further changes to internal IT systems to reflect the administration of the subsidy to ISPs. The CTCC and the CFA stated that to begin the steps required to prepare these documents, they would need information related to (i) the calculation of the subsidy funds to be distributed to ISPs; (ii) whether a separate fund should be created for subsidy contribution and distribution payments would be created, similar to the Broadband Fund; and (iii) the frequency at which the subsidy amount is to be revised.

    Staff notes that, while a number of these items are currently before the Commission as part of this proceeding, the CTCC and the CFA are requested to comment on the following:

    1. whether there should be a year-end adjustment for the subsidy amount paid to ISPs, if the subsidy amount were to be based on calculation method AFootnote 1 or BFootnote 2, to address any over or under-payment to ISPs. If so, explain how this process would be operationalized, including any information you may require from ISPs or the Commission;
    2. what the administrative burden to the CFA would be to create a separate sub-fund within the National Contribution Fund for the purposes of collection and distribution of subsidy funds (similar to what is performed for the Broadband Fund) in comparison to drawing from the broader National Contribution Fund. Include whether there are benefits or considerations with respect to either approach from an administrative standpoint;
    3. whether it would be appropriate to update the subsidy amount within the annual National Contribution Fund revenue-percent charge decision made by the Commission; and
    4. describe the impact that each of the above points would have on operational or administrative costs. Explain how this could result in increased administrative costs for the CTCC and the CFA relating to the operation of the National Contribution Fund.

    Respondents: The CTCC and the CFA

  2. Given the desire to distribute subsidy funds to subscribers as quickly as possible, comment on the feasibility of the submission of an amended Procedures for the Operation of the National Contribution Fund and National Contribution Fund Administration Agreement to the Commission for approval within the following timeframes, from the date of publication of the Commission’s determinations in this proceeding:

    1. two months (60 days); or
    2. one month (30 days).

    Describe the steps that would need to occur to meet either of the above timeframes, including whether it would be feasible for changes that do not require the Commission’s approval to be completed (ex. changes to IT systems, etc) while awaiting Commission’s approval of the submitted documents.

    Respondents: The CTCC and the CFA

  3. The public record of the proceeding demonstrates support for an ISP registration process with the Commission.

    1. Comment on whether the following information would be appropriate for inclusion in a registration process, which could be performed via letter or form submission, including whether such a process would be administratively burdensome.

      The registration letter or form could include the following:

      1. the name and contact information of the ISP, including the chief financial officer (CFO) or equivalent who would be responsible for providing validated financial reporting to the Commission, should an auditing framework or affidavit function be introduced;
      2. where the ISP operates in the Far North, and what type of retail Internet service plans are provided, including the upload and download speed, price, and data capacity;
      3. the number of subscribers the ISP services via fixed Internet access in the Far North, by community and by province and/or territory;
      4. acknowledgement of the subsidy program requirements and its commitment to abide by them;
      5. whether some information submitted should be made publicly available, either via the Commission’s website or via the ISP’s own website. Identify which information could be made publicly available.
    2. Is there any other information that should be included in the registration form?

    Respondents: All parties and Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

Distribution of funds

  1. Subscribers in the Far North will be able to access the subsidy from any ISP providing retail Internet services in the Far North. To account for subscriber churn within a billing cycle, as suggested on the record by some parties, would a pro-rated calculation method for the subsidy amount be appropriate? This would ensure that a subscriber receives some portion of the subsidy, even when they discontinue their service or change providers during a billing cycle.

    1. Comment on whether it would be appropriate to calculate the pro-rated amount based on the total monthly Internet bill divided by the number of days the subscriber was subscribed to the service.
    2. Comment on whether it would be administratively burdensome to collect and report on this information to the third-party administrator of the subsidy, to calculate and verify the distribution of funds to your company.

    Respondents: All parties, and Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  2. In responding to the below questions, consider that distribution of funds from the third-party administrator to ISPs may occur on a monthly basis. TELUS submitted in its intervention (page 27, paragraph 21) that the current CFA timelines for the reporting of data and receipt of funds contains a delay of 19 business days, meaning that ISPs would need to cover the costs of the subsidy amounts applied to subscribers’ bills for 19 business days before they receive funds from the CFA.

    To calculate the funds that should be distributed from the third-party administrator to ISPs, some information on the record suggested that it would be more accurate and efficient to rely on subsidy amounts applied to subscribers’ bills (calculation method A). Calculation method A may require ISPs to track and submit information to the third-party administrator as subscriber counts at the beginning, middle, and end of the month to calculate the subsidy funds applied to subscriber bills.

    Other comments suggested that the Commission retain the most administratively simple method to calculate subsidy funds to be distributed to ISPs by using beginning-of -month and end-of -month subscriber data to derive an average of subsidy funds provided to eligible subscribers in a given month (calculation method B).

    1. Comment on the feasibility and administrative burden of the calculation methods suggested above, including what information would need to be tracked and submitted to authorize the distribution of funds.
    2. Comment on the likelihood of under-payment of funds to ISPs throughout the year with each of these methods, and the financial implications associated with covering these costs prior to any year-end adjustment mechanism.
    3. Would a monthly distribution schedule be feasible, given data submission requirements? Describe the costs and benefits of covering the subsidy amount and the administrative costs of reporting on a monthly basis.

    Respondents: All Internet service providers and Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

Measures to promote transparency and accountability

  1. To implement the subsidy, ISPs may be required to display the subsidy as a line item on subscribers’ monthly bills. To achieve this, changes to ISPs’ billing systems may be required to ensure that the subsidy is applied automatically to eligible subscribers.

    1. How long would your company require to make such changes to your internal systems to implement this?
    2. Explain whether the time frame submitted in response to question a. would be impacted if the Commission implemented a price floor and/or if pro-rated subsidy amounts are to be automatically applied to subscribers’ bills.

    Respondents: All Internet service providers, including Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  2. The Commission expressed the preliminary view in the notice of consultation that ISPs should be required to list the subsidy as a separate line item on subscribers’ Internet bills. However, subscribers may subscribe to add-ons (e.g., additional data capacity) or other services from ISPs. The Internet Code describes in detail the obligations that large facilities-based service providers have to ensure that the prices set out in their offers and contracts are clear, including prices related to promotions, discounts, incentives, other time-limited offers, and bundles. The Internet Code applies to larger facilities-based providers such as Northwestel Inc. however, all ISPs are expected to behave in a manner that is consistent with all the principles set out in the Internet Code, such as using clear communication, providing bill management tools, and having consumer-friendly business practices.

    To ensure that the subsidy is applied clearly and consistently, would it be appropriate to require all ISPs offering the subsidy to clearly state the price of the Internet plan before and after the application of the subsidy discount within customer contracts and on ISPs’ websites, regardless of the promotion subscribed to, in alignment with the Internet Code?

    1. If only the subscriber’s bundle, incentive, time-limited offer, or promotion is displayed on bills (i.e. the retail Internet service that is subject to the subsidy is not separated by individuals on the bill), explain whether it would be feasible to identify each service separately for the purpose of demonstrating how the subsidy discount is applied solely to retail Internet services. Include an estimate of costs and time needed to do this.

    Respondents: All Internet service providers, including Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  3. The subsidy is intended to improve affordability of retail Internet service in the Far North. The Internet Code defines Internet services as follows:

    “All retail fixed Internet access services, including cable, fibre, digital subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless, and satellite services (emphasis added). Fixed Internet access services do not include mobile wireless data services.”
    1. Do any of your Internet service plans in the Far North allow for the associated customer premises equipment (including antennas, routers, modems, etc.) to be relocated outside the Far North? If so, does this enable subscribers to access Internet services from areas outside the geographic scope of the Far North using the same equipment and under the same or a different subscription plan?
    2. If so, can the location of these receptors be tracked or identified within the network in the Far North?

    Respondents: All Internet service providers, including Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

  4. The Commission’s Broadband Fund (BBF) funds the build-out of telecommunications networks across Canada to bring universal service objective (USO)-level service to underserved communities. In the notice of consultation that launched Call 3, section 6.1.3(f), access project eligibility criteria – pricing and affordability, the Commission stated the following:

    “An applicant must also commit to providing broadband Internet access service packages at a rate no higher, and at a speed and with a capacity no lower, than the ones proposed in its application, for a minimum of five years from the project completion date."
    1. To avoid plan pricing inflation, and to help ensure that the full value of the subsidy is passed from ISPs to subscribers, should a similar provision be included for the subsidy in the Far North, where eligible service providers commit to keep offering certain plans (e.g. USO-level speed plans or those that are nearest to those speeds, in the event that USO-level speed plans are not available) or all packages at a price no higher and at a speed no lower that what is currently offered?
    2. If so, how long should those plans be made available for?

    Respondents: All parties and Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

The Commission’s approach to monitoring

  1. The Commission assigns several existing reporting forms that capture subscriber information to telecommunications service providers. In support of the Commission’s approach to monitoring the subsidy program, new forms may be created and assigned to collect information on subscriber counts, subsidy amounts applied, plan upload and download speed, and data capacity; separated by province, territory, and community. The Commission may also monitor retail plan pricing data in the Far North via the existing Pricing Survey.

    ATTACHMENT 1 outlines the proposed annual reporting via two main forms:

    Form 253ps – New form – Subsidies for Internet Subscription in the Far North

    This would collect the following information, disaggregated by territory (Northern Alberta, Northern British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon):

    • number of subsidy eligible retail Internet access subscribers by category (residential, business, and retail); and
    • the total amount of subsidy discounts applied for the year (CAD$).

    Form 255s – Existing form with modifications – Residential Internet access high-speed plans

    This would collect the following information, disaggregated by territory (Northern Alberta, Northern British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon):

    • number of subscriptions, revenue per subscriber and one month revenue, for each speed tier (Mb/s);
    • number of subscribers separated by residential capacity breakdown (GB/month), for each tier;
    • the number of subscribers per download and upload tier (Mb/s); and
    • supplemental subscriber details, such as the average of GB downloadable and advertised download and upload speeds for all subscribers.

    Comment on the following:

    1. The feasibility and administrative burden of reporting the information requested in ATTACHMENT 1 on an annual basis for:

      1. Form 253ps; and
      2. Form 255s.

    2. The relevance and practicality of monitoring the following elements to assess whether the subsidy is achieving its objectives:

      1. Presence of ISPs/competitors in communities;
      2. Types of Internet access technologies available (e.g., fibre, cable, digital subscriber line (DSL), satellite, etc.);
      3. Number of retail Internet service subscribers;
      4. Trends in subscriber demand for higher speeds or data capacity;
      5. Availability of USO-level speed plans in the Far North at prices comparable to national averages;
      6. Changes in the monthly subsidy amount over time.

    Respondents: All parties and Xplore Inc., New North Networks, City West Cable and Telephone Corporation, Inuknet, Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc., ATG Arrow Technology Group Limited Partnership, GPNetworks, Peace Region Internet Society PRIS, Red Creek Telecom, Rigstar Communications Inc.

Date modified: