CRTC Inquiry Into Satellite Transport Services

The CRTC quietly issued Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-44 on 06 Feb 2014 entitled:

"Appointment of an Inquiry Officer to review matters related to transport services provided by satellite”

Commissioner Candice Molnar will conduct “an inquiry with respect to the Canadian marketplace for satellite services that are used by telecommunications service providers (TSPs) to provide telecommunications services to Canadians.”  One way to look at TSPs is to consider them the last mile service providers.

The inquiry will look at both sides of the satellite provisioning issue;

Satellite perspective. The satellite services provided by satellite operators to the TSPs covering such items as: who they are; rates the TSPs pay; technical limitations; current and future satellite capacity; future technology; and CRTC framework for the satellite services.

TSPs perspective. Indentify TSPs that use satellite services; TSPs operating areas; the numbers of customers who have access to their services and the numbers of customers they serve; delivered services; and end-users service limitations.

The high cost of satellite backhaul service was a recurring theme in the recent CRTC hearings about Northwestel regulatory framework and Modernization Plan (the Northwestel proceedings). In particular, many of the intervenors placed much of the blame for the high cost providing reasonably priced Internet access to remote communities on the high cost of satellite transport.

While the satellite technology exists that can provide a service that compares favourably with terrestrial based systems used in the urban and suburban environment, the amount of bandwidth required it provide reasonable capacity is either not available or prohibitively expensive and in lot of cases a combination of both.

Unfortunately, the inquiry will not address issues relating to satellite services that satellite operators provide directly to end-users, it should cover services provided by the self styled “Canada's leading provider of rural broadband” TSP – Xplornet.

The inquiry is scheduled to be completed by October 2014. 

Telecom and the Federal Budget 2014

The Federal Budget released on 11 Feb 14 had a few sections affecting telecommunications. The full budget and related information can be found starting at the budget home page.  Information about telecommunications can be found in Chapter 3.4 pages 177 to 180.

In the cellular arena, the budget calls for amending the Telecommunications Act by introducing a cap on “wholesale domestic roaming rates to prevent wireless providers from charging other companies more than they charge their own customers for voice, data and text services.” This action is obviously being introduced to help the new entrants –, Mobilicity, Vidéotron and Wind – who rely on the incumbent carriers for network access (roaming) outside their home area.  There should be little direct impact on the average consumer unless they are a new entrant customer and the companies decide to pass the potential savings on to their customers. On the other hand, there is the chance the incumbents could adjust their rates to make-up for any loss income.

The budget implies that the cap will be temporary and may be adjusted as a result of the ongoing CRTC study of Canadian roaming rates

The Telecommunications Act will also be amended to give Industry Canada and the CRTC “the power to impose administrative monetary penalties on companies that violate established rules.” Some of the target infractions relate to the Wireless Code, spectrum deployment timelines, service to rural areas and tower sharing.

There are also a number of areas that the government feels need addressing including such as:

   

1.       Enhanced information sharing amongst the CRTC, Industry Canada and the Competition Bureau; 

2.      Clarify the elements of the spectrum auction rules; and 

3.       Clarify the prohibition on jamming devices. 

There is an additional one that I do not quite understand so I will quote it in full:

“Provide the CRTC with the authority to impose conditions pertaining to social requirements on telecommunications service providers that are not carriers (i.e. “re-sellers” of services) to help ensure that all consumers can benefit, no matter which provider they choose.”

On the broadband (high speed) Internet side of the house, the budget identified the sum of $304 million over five years “to extend and enhance access” broadband access networks. The body of the document also mentions “enhancing and extending access.” This is a subtle change to previous funding programs which could not be used to enhance or improve existing services.

One has to question the targeted speed of 5 Mbps. While this may be considered barely adequate today, I suspect that by the time implementation actually takes place it will be borderline acceptable.

Also, the budget does not address the issue of the fiscal digital divide. The fact remains that many people cannot afford the hardware and recurring charges associated with getting Internet service in their homes.

The telecommunications section ends with a short discussion of the use of spectrum to deliver broadband in rural areas. It reinforces the previously espoused principle of “use it or lose it” where licensees are given a specific time period to implement the service roll-out or lose the license.  

It is a fact that while cellular broadband and data is the fastest growing segment of the market and in the rural areas the cheapest for the vendors to install, it is also the most expensive for the end user on a monthly billing basis unless a special tariff is created.

The section ends with this statement: “…an additional 280,000 Canadian households, which represents near universal access. The Government will announce further details about the new program in the coming months.”

One can only hope that they learned from their previous efforts and the new program shows a vast improvement. 

Stay tuned for additional news. 

New Cell Sites in North Sault

I have received various reports that Bell has recently activated a number of cell sites in the Goulais and Wawa areas. 

The new Goulais sites are Goulais Bay (Pine Shore Road), Nils Bay, and Kirby’s Corner. These sites are in addition to the existing Bell sites at Batchawana Bay, Havilland (Buttermilk) and Heyden. The site at Havilland Bay will likely come on line in the second quarter of 2014. See the map below.

St. Joseph Island  sites are still under construction.

There are also three sites in the Wawa area that are now operational. See the map below.

While the sites were built as part of the Deferral Account project, the full Deferral Account service option is not scheduled for commissioning until end July 2014. The Deferral Account network cell sites are designed to provide maximum broadband (high speed) Internet service coverage using a data hub connected to an external antenna. Standard cell voice and data service is a side benefit. Because of this, it may be possible that data hub service will be better than voice service in some areas.

Once Bell is ready to activate the Deferral Account area, they will do a advertising blitz to inform local residents about the program. 

Bell Deferral Account Report Released 17 Jan 2014

The CRTC released the Bell Deferral Account report for the 4^th Quarter of 2013 on Friday 17 Jan 2014.

Unlike previous reports, there is some useful data left in this report instead of being redacted. There is still a lot of information I would like to see and cannot think of any compelling reason why it is blacked out. (They actually use the # symbol which is ironic considering how the hash tag is used in other applications to highlight available information.)

The new uncensored information provided by Bell is entitled “Service Ready Date”.  The dates for the Algoma District Deferral Account areas are:

Area	Date*
Echo Bay	31 Aug 2014
Goulais	31 Jul 2014
SSM-Airport	31 Jul 2014
St. Joseph Island	30 Jun 2014
Wawa	31 Jul 2014

∗ Latest planned date. Could be earlier if all is ready

Bell indicated they are still having problems with local residents in some areas about the location of towers. The main complaints centre on aesthetics, height of the tower, and avoidance lighting. When comments about the health impact are included, the list pretty well covers the majority of adverse comments brought forth at public consultations. There have been a number of sites in the Algoma District that have been moved (on paper) in response to local input.

Bell has also had a few problems with backhaul networks. A crushed conduit under the highway near Marathon means they will be relying on radio backhaul instead of fibre optic cable for a while.

In December 2013, the CRTC specifically asked Bell about the use of an external antenna. While Bell stated “there has been no negative feedback from our customers related to the use of such antennae and that in the marketing materials we send out to the communities to be launched, we advise our potential customers that the use of an external antenna is required.”, they did not comment about any other feedback for the service in general. In particular, has Bell designed a solution that can handle network congestion?  

Finally, there are a number of small inconsistencies in the dates used in the written report document and those used in the spreadsheet. In most cases this is only a month or two but does show a lack of attention to detail which I hope is not reflected in network design.

The full report is available on the CRTC website. Scroll down to 2014-01-15 - Bell Canada

Bell Deferral Account Report for Third Quarter 2013

Bell submitted the third quarterly Deferral Account update report to the CRTC on 15 Oct 2013. For some inexplicable reason, the CRTC released the public version of the report under a different file folder number than previous quarterly reports and it took some effort to locate it. 

For the uninitiated, there are two versions of the quarterly reports. A fully detailed report with actual facts and figures is submitted to the CRTC for internal use and a redacted report with most facts and  information which may be of interest to the public (or according to Bell – the competition) replaced by # signs.  This is allowed under terms of the Telecommunications Act and CRTC policy.

The actual statement of justification as used by Bell in their submission is:

“Release of this information would provide potential competitors with invaluable competitively-sensitive information that would not otherwise be available to them, and which would enable them to develop more effective business strategies.  Release of such information could prejudice Bell Canada's competitive position resulting in material financial loss and cause specific direct harm to Bell Canada.”

I have not figured out how not listing a tower location on a spread sheet prevents a competitor from seeing a 90 metre tower with cellular antennas that is visible from a public road and deducing some competitively-sensitive information.

Like previous reports, the latest one provides little actual information which can be applied to the Algoma District situation. The target date for completion of the project is still August 2014. It was possible to glean more information through backdoor resources and physical observation during drive abouts as noted in previous blog entries.

Apparently the CRTC also has concerns with the Bell reporting content. Consequently, in a letter dated 16 Dec 2013, they directed Bell to submit additional information in their reports as follows: 

“The Commission notes that there are still many activities to be completed within the next nine months and that, more specifically, construction of wireline transport backbone to 17 approved communities must be both started and finished within the first eight months of 2014 in order to meet the August deadline.

The Commission also notes that the Bell companies indicated in their July 2012 report that they needed to provide most consumers with an external antenna to deliver quality service. However, no update on this situation was provided in subsequent reports.

Consequently, the Commission directs the Bell companies, in their 15 January 2014 report, to

a) update their risk assessment and mitigation strategy for the last eight months of the rollout, and

b) provide a summary of any evaluations of the service quality delivered to consumers using the external antenna in deferral-account-funded communities.

Further, the Commission directs the Bell companies, beginning in their January 2014 report and continuing in subsequent quarterly reports, to refine their forecast for the period of January to August 2014 by

1. specifying, for each of the remaining communities, in which month 

a. the remaining towers are to be completed (column H) [1],

b. construction of wireline transport is expected to start (column J),

c. construction of wireline transport is expected to be completed (column K), and 

d. service will begin (column L), versus specifying a single date of August 2014 for all communities; and

2. providing a summary of the number of new towers forecasted to be completed in 2014, by month.

Additionally, in their subsequent quarterly reports, the Bell companies are to identify where any changes have been made to the forecasted month for each of the items in 1. above.”

Unfortunately, I suspect the information of true interest will be marked by a # in the public documents. 

The next quarterly report is due on 15 Jan 2014

---

[1] The reference to columns refers to columns in the Bell report spreadsheet headings.

Bell Data Hub Overages and the Wireless Code

I have been exchanging e-mail with a user in East Algoma about the high cost of Bell data hub service.  He was getting monthly bills in the $200.00 - $350.00 range for a 4 user household with a mix of computers and smartphones.   All the hardware used the data hub’s WiFi capability when they were within range.

Of late, he was getting cutting off at $100.00 overage and had to contact Bell to get reconnected.

Needless to say, he was not happy with both the price and the procedures.

I received the following info from him recently:

“I just received my Dec Bell bill and low and behold the max charge for data over 10 GB is $50.00.

We used $197 worth and they only charged $50 for that and waived $147.50.

Our bill for the month is $96.05; Relief finally.

I was suspicious and call them. It’s due to the CRTC Wireless Code.”  

This is the section of the Wireless Code that would seem to apply in this case:

          Sec 3 - Cap on data overage charges

        A service provider must suspend data overage charges once they

      reach $50 within a single monthly billing cycle, unless the customer 

      expressly consents to pay additional charges.

      A service provider must provide this cap at no charge.

My interpretation of this section was that once the cap was within reach during a billing cycle, the vendor would contact the user, normally by e-mail or SMS, notify them of the cap limit coming into force and warning this would result in a cancellation of service until the end of the billing cycle unless the user gave explicit permission to charge additional overage fees.

Indeed, this is what was happening prior to 02 Dec 2013 when the CRTC Wireless Code came into effect.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the January billing cycle.

If this is in fact the long term Bell policy for handling data hub overages, it will certainly be of tremendous benefit to rural broadband (high speed) Internet users.  

Tbaytel's Seasonal Service

I recently sent a query to the Tbaytel Community Forum concerning the availability of a seasonal service option for Tbaytel customers in the Algoma District. You may view the full query and the Tbaytel response at this link.

In short, Tbaytel offers a seasonal service option for “HSPA Wireless Service” (Rocket/data hub) and “Regional Internet (Canopy) Service”.  They recommended I contact Tbaytel Customer Care at 1-888-264-9501 for additional information.

I could not find any reference to this offering on the Tbaytel website. This is unfortunate.