Bell said there was no consultation on the need for such requirements
By Ahmad Hathout
OTTAWA – Some of the country’s major telecommunications companies are telling the CRTC that the interim notification requirements mandated by the regulator earlier this month for major network outages are unnecessary, citing an agreement signed last year by a dozen telecoms to notify relevant authorities in cases of such service disruptions.
The CRTC temporarily ordered the telecoms to notify the CRTC within two hours of a major network outage starting on March 8 until the regulator makes a decision on the permanency of such a requirement for all carriers – part of a string of proceedings it will have on its network resiliency framework following a major Rogers outage last summer. The regulator also said it would create a webpage to host information on outages provided by the carriers.
But providers Rogers, Bell, Eastlink and Cogeco told the regulator in submissions due Friday that the notification rules are unnecessary due to the memorandum of understanding signed in September that already includes notification to relevant authorities, including the CRTC, and network sharing agreements. They added the interim order is problematic because of duplicative work that would take away from their ability to respond promptly to such outages and create inefficiencies.
“The introduction of differing forms of outage notification regulations risks undermining, rather than promoting, the orderly development throughout Canada of a telecommunications system,” Bell said in its submission.
The telco added that the CRTC failed to conduct a consultation on the need for the interim order and the proceeding on a permanent notification regime, claiming that the commission is “regulating first and asking questions later.” It added that the measures put forward by the CRTC contradict the new 2023 policy direction from cabinet requiring proceedings and decisions that are transparent, predicable, efficient, proportionate and based on sound evidence.
Bell notes that, of the six outages the CRTC cites in its order and notice of proceeding, five occurred before the signing of the MOU and the last came too soon after its signing to trigger the agreement, illustrating the alleged lack of evidence for the notification requirements.
“We recommend that the Commission should pause the implementation of the [measures] until it has had sufficient time to observe the effectiveness of the outage notification regime implemented pursuant to the MOU, or conducts a proceeding to determine whether such regulatory measures are required,” Bell said. “The Commission should move forward with the [measures] only to the extent it has persuasive, current evidence that demonstrates failings in the MOU’s notification regime.”
The large telecom is suggesting that the MOU be extended to all telecoms not yet parties to the MOU as a “more proportional measure.” Rogers agreed in its own reply.
“This new obligation be extended to all Telecommunications Service Providers (“TSPs”) providing or reselling voice, texting and Internet services,” Rogers said in its submission. “This will help ensure a comprehensive reporting structure that will benefit all telecommunications subscribers.”
Telus shared the same sentiment with Bell in asking for a pause on the interim reporting requirement until a decision is issued in the proceeding. “TELUS reiterates the importance of obtaining industry feedback prior to implementing mandated interim notification and reporting requirements for major service outages, to ensure effective and consistent reporting across the industry.”
In its order and notice, the CRTC noted the existence of the MOU and said it sought to “formalize the service outage notification format and procedures, including who will be notified and when.”
Cogeco, a signatory of the MOU, backed Bell’s submission, adding the “additional burden placed on front-line technical resources by these duplicative requirements would be counterproductive and detract from the very efforts these resources must rapidly and efficiently deploy in restoring service to consumers and businesses during critical outages.
“Add to this the multiple and overlapping efforts of multiple carriers whose networks, located in many cases in the same geographic area as a particular event that is impacting those networks, and you have the potential for more confusion and delay than the effort needed to resolve the urgent issues at stake,” Cogeco added.
Eastlink parent Bragg Communications noted that while weather outages can be anticipated and planned for, other network outages caused by cyberattacks occur unexpectedly. “When these events happen in the middle of the night there are additional challenges with fewer staff working coupled with the need to contact key team members outside of regular working hours,” Bragg said. “Given the urgency in outage situations it is essential that additional unnecessary burdensome administrative practices are not imposed which may divert resources from important service restoration activities.”
Satellite service provider Telesat also pitched the MOU as an existing suitable framework for outage notification, adding “any expansion of that MOU notice regime should be done in a way that avoids incremental reporting on the carriers who are subject to it.” It added that the reporting regime must be sensitive to differences in technology, as satellite networks are different from ground networks, and that any such regime should also apply to foreign carriers serving Canadians.
The telecoms also took issue with the imposition of the CRTC’s webpage for outage information that they said will cause consumer confusion. Cogeco said such information changes over the course of the outage, with information communicated to the public and that on the webpage “likely to differ.” Cogeco added that there is “no indication” that Canadians would visit the CRTC webpage rather than the service provider from which they get service.
Similarly, Telus said that information is unnecessary to post on the commission’s website because Canadians visit their own providers’ webpages. The telecom recommended, if any information, that the CRTC post the links to those provider pages.
Last year, executives from some of the major carriers warned the CRTC against going too far in its planned network resiliency proceedings, citing the work that had already been done with the MOU months before.
As part of the MOU, Innovation Canada asked the Canadian Telecommunications Network Resiliency Working Group – of which the major carriers are members – to provide a report on their recommendations for actions on network outages. The report, released last week included a bevy of changes that asked for more federal action.
The Competitive Network Operators of Canada, an industry group representing independent service providers, said in its submission that it supports the notification requirements, but warned against Bell’s request to extend the rules to all telecommunications service providers. Beside being outside the scope of the proceeding, CNOC said some third-party service providers only rent space from the carriers, which will be bearing the responsibility of many network outages. ISPs, it noted, should only be required to notify where the outages are associated with their own facilities.
TekSavvy agreed, adding if telecoms that rent space from carriers are forced to report, the commission will be saddled with duplicate notifications for the same outage.
At the same time, CNOC noted that smaller non-carrier providers “do not have sufficient technical and administrative resources to deliver comprehensive service outage reporting forms…within the short timeframes required by the Commission” and recommends the CRTC adopt more flexibility to help them focus those resources on resolving network outages.
Still, CNOC also said that “significant improvements are needed” to align the requirements with the 2023 policy direction. Similar to Bell’s concern, CNOC noted that the definition of “major service outages” needs clarification so that carriers can “interpret and comply with notification and reporting requirements with clarity and consistency.”
CNOC is recommending that the subscriber threshold be reduced from 100,000 to 10,000 and eliminate “ambiguous language” including “or a material portion of the carrier’s subscribers.”
Rogers recommends that for national telecoms, a major outage affecting subscribers for more than one hour be defined as those impacting 10 per cent of subscribers nationally, 40 per cent within a specific region and the same at the provincial level. For regional providers, for more than one hour, the regional and provincial thresholds would be the same.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre said it supports the interim reporting notification requirements, as well as a public notification webpage with a centralized database of confidential information that agencies can access to address the issue. The advocacy group draws on the work of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and encourages the CRTC to look at the established practice down south.
However, the group also said that the 100,000 subscriber reporting threshold is unlikely to catch outages in smaller communities. “The Commission should instead specify measurable and actionable parameters, such as an actual percentage of subscribers or certain categories of subscribers,” PIAC said in its submission, adding that would allow for its adaptability.
Finally, PIAC took issue with what it called a “parallel proceeding” wherein the CRTC sent a staff letter to the carriers in an obscure webpage ahead of its order to get input on reporting forms and the new website on outage information.
“PIAC submits that these are key components that must be subject to formal public consultation, therefore the Commission should combine the two proceedings and provide extensions as needed for further comments.”
Photo courtesy of Flickr.
