Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List

Gatineau, 10 February 2026

CRTC reference: 8000-R28-202404581

BY EMAIL

Distribution List

Subject: Part 1 Application – Request for Immediate Temporary Stay of the Speed-Matching Requirement for Rogers’ New Gigabit Retail Internet Services – Reopening the Record and Call for Comments

On 23 August 2024, Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) filed a Part 1 Application requesting an immediate temporary stay of the speed-matching requirement, as it applies to its newly launched gigabit-speed residential retail Internet services (the Application).

Specifically, Rogers requested that the Commission:

• Grant an interim stay of the requirement to file tariff applications and Phase II cost studies for its new Gig Services, until the Commission approves Rogers’ company-specific Regulatory Economic Studies Manual (Cost Manual), filed on 8 April 2024.
• Grant an interim stay from any mandated wholesale high-speed access (WHSA) obligations for these Gig Services (and any new speed tiers launched while the relief is in effect) until final rates are approved based on updated cost studies prepared in accordance with the approved Cost Manual.

Aligned with this Part 1 (Request for Immediate Temporary Stay of the Speed-Matching Requirement for Rogers’ New Gigabit Retail Internet Services), Rogers also submitted, as directed through a Staff Letter, the proposed rates and cost studies in TN 84, 84/A, 84/B and TN 47 and 47/A from Shaw Cablesystems G.P.

In the Application, Rogers submitted that the requested relief is necessary to avoid the continued application of proxy-based interim rates which, in its view, do not reflect the company’s actual network costs and therefore fail to meet the statutory requirement for just and reasonable rates. Rogers further argued that the imposition of such below-cost interim rates would exacerbate existing regulatory asymmetries between cable carriers and incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), and that interim relief is warranted given the Commission’s limited capacity to review new cost studies in a timely manner.

By contrast, opposing parties such as TekSavvy and the Competitive Network Operators of Canada (CNOC) submitted that suspending the speed-matching obligation, even on a temporary basis, would undermine competition, reduce consumer choice, and create inequitable treatment among wholesale providers. These parties emphasized that maintaining mandated access to the highest available speeds remains essential to preserving competitive equity in the marketplace pending the outcome of broader proceedings, such as the ongoing Wholesale Wireline Review, which will determine final rates.

Staff considers that the speed-matching requirement has long been a central feature of the Commission’s wholesale high-speed access framework. The Commission has consistently required incumbents to make wholesale high-speed access services available at speeds that match their retail Internet service offerings. This longstanding principle is intended to ensure competitive neutrality, prevent incumbents from conferring an undue advantage on their own retail operations, and maintain meaningful consumer choice in the marketplace. Staff notes that Rogers is requesting a stay of this requirement in its Application, which it states it necessary given that existing interim proxy-based rates will be below cost.

Staff further notes that, in Telecom Decision 2023-196^{Footnote 1}, the Commission confirmed that, while Phase II methodology will be used as the primary rate-setting methodology for wholesale services, the Commission may consider other costing methods on a case-by-case basis to improve regulatory efficiency or advance specific policy objectives.

Given this, staff invites parties to comment on the following:

• Whether the historical approach of setting interim rates to match those of the next lowest speed, which could be adjusted when establishing final rates, would lead to any under recovered costs for Rogers given that retroactivity may be considered by the Commission once final rates are issued; and
• Whether an alternative interim rate-setting method, such as the retail-minus approach,^{Footnote 2} could preserve the speed-matching requirement while ensuring that interim rates remain just, reasonable, and competitively neutral pending the approval of final rates.

Commission staff sets out the following process to address this invitation for comments:

• Parties listed in the Distribution List may file comments no later than 24 February 2026.
• Rogers may file a reply to the comments no later than 3 March 2026.

All documents filed and served must be received, not merely sent, by the date provided. Parties are to send an electronic copy of all documents to Commission staff copied on this letter and to all other parties.

Section 39 of the Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961 provides that persons may designate certain information submitted to the Commission as confidential. A detailed explanation of why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest must be provided, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in its disclosure.

Yours Sincerely,

Original signed by

Chris Noonan
Director, Competitor Services & Costing Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Michael Holmes, CRTC 819-953-3662 Michael.Holmes@crtc.gc.ca
Ghassan Ajarar, CRTC 819-790-9835 Ghassan.Ajarar@crtc.gc.ca

Distribution List:

Company; Company Email

• TekSavvy; regulatory@teksavvy.ca
• Rogers Communications Canada Inc.; regulatory@rci.rogers.com;
• CNOC; regulatory@cnoc.ca;

Date modified:

2026-02-10