COVID-19 Update

TekSavvy is monitoring the COVID-19 situation carefully and adding network capacity to help our customers stay connected. We are waiving overage charges for current customers on limited plans until June 30, 2020. Our team is here to help through self-serve in the MySavvy customer portal, by email (support@teksavvy.com), or by phone at 1-877-779-1575. New customers may experience longer hardware delivery or installation timelines. Stay safe. Stay home. Stay healthy.

TekSavvy is monitoring the COVID-19 situation carefully.  Learn More

Skip to main content

regulatory

             
Last updated: April 6, 2020

Regulatory Submissions

TekSavvy complaint to the Competition Bureau about incumbents’ anti-competitive activity (posted March 30, 2020)

On February 20, 2020, TekSavvy filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau concerning a pattern of anti-competitive behaviour by Bell and Rogers. Our complaint states that while Bell and Rogers drove up competitors' wholesale costs, they targeted those competitors in the retail market with fighting brands and retail prices set below inflated wholesale costs. This wholesale rate manipulation resulted in higher retail prices not only for TekSavvy customers but for Internet services for all consumers in Canada, costing millions of Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars. That complaint is available here; our press release is here.

***


TekSavvy’s responses in the wholesale rates appeal (posted March 30, 2020)

On August 15, 2019, the CRTC found that existing wholesale rates for broadband services were massively inflated based on the evidence provided by the incumbent telecommunication providers. This meant the rates TekSavvy paid the incumbents were too high going back to at least 2016. Since the CRTC issued lower final wholesale rates, TekSavvy reduced retail rates or increased data plans for 85% of our customers.

Shortly after the CRTC’s decision, the incumbents appealed the lower final rates using three tracks: First,  they appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, which granted an “interim stay”. This meant that the new final rates were (and continue to be) suspended at least until the Federal Court of Appeal hears the appeal— in other words, TekSavvy is still paying the old input costs. Second, they appealed the decision to the CRTC (with three “review and vary” applications). And third, they “petitioned” the Government (with three Petitions to the Governor-in-Council).

In January 2020, TekSavvy launched a tool to help Canadians tell their Members of Parliament and Government of Canada that they support the CRTC decision and want lower Internet and cell phone bills. Over 152,000 Canadians voiced their support for the CRTC decision. TekSavvy is also actively defending all three appeals: The court process is still underway as of this update; TekSavvy’s response in the CRTC proceeding here; and TekSavvy’s response in the Governor-in-Council process is here.

***


TekSavvy’s submissions to the CRTC about competition in the wireless industry

In Canada, the big three mobile network operators—Bell, Rogers, and TELUS—control the vast majority of the market. In early 2019, the CRTC announced a review of the Canadian wireless industry with the goal of enabling competition through mandated wholesale services for competitors known as Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNO).

TekSavvy submitted its views and evidence in the year-long process, supporting the need for mandated wholesale access rates, and we appeared before the Commission on Friday, February 21, 2020. The role of MVNOs could massively change the consumer landscape for mobile services in Canada, offering innovation and choice for mobile services. You can read and watch TekSavvy’s submissions below:

***


TekSavvy representations regarding proposed policy direction to CRTC (posted April 9, 2019)

On April 8, 2019, TekSavvy submitted our comments to ISED, strongly supporting a proposed Policy Direction to the CRTC. It represents a bold move for consumers and sends a long overdue signal to the CRTC to put consumers first in its decision-making. Moreover, in just 11 days, 67,000 Canadians submitted letters supporting more choice and lower prices through paylesstoconnect.ca. The 2006 Policy Direction has harmed consumers and competition, and must be replaced.

***


TekSavvy’s submission to the Competition Bureau’s Broadband Market Study (posted February 25, 2019)

The Competition Bureau is conducting a market study to look into how consumers purchase Internet services in Canada, and specifically exploring challenges to competition in the broadband market, and whether there are ways to foster more competition in the sector.

TekSavvy’s original submission to the Competition Bureau in September, 2018 included confidential information, so we did not make it public, but we are now publishing this abridged version of our submission to the Competition Bureau. This document provides an inside view of how the wholesale wireline broadband industry operates. First, we explore TekSavvy’s growth milestones since it began offering competitive telecommunications services. Next, we discuss how incumbents—in their role as providers of wholesale services—introduce and maintain barriers for wholesale-based competitors that disadvantage those competitors, ultimately limiting or excluding the availability of services for consumers.

***


Letter to the CRTC about incomplete data in their 2018 annual telecom report (sent February 13, 2019)

TekSavvy sent a letter to the CRTC pointing out omissions in their annual telecom industry report for 2018, and asking them to explain and correct those omissions. Past reports included more and more details about relevant issues, like more granular reporting on higher speeds in 2016 and 2017. But in 2018, while competitors are fighting restrictions on higher speeds, the CRTC omitted exactly the information that competitors needed.

***


CNOC Part 1 for competition on higher speeds (last update: April 9, 2019)

On November 7, 2018, TekSavvy’s industry association, the Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC) filed an application with the CRTC, asking the CRTC to fix its wholesale rates, to promote competition on higher speeds, and to review of its fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) rules.

TekSavvy released this press release supporting CNOC’s application, asking the CRTC to support meaningful consumer choice.

On January 7, 2019, TekSavvy filed its intervention supporting CNOC’s application, specifically arguing for reinstatement of speed-matching rules so competitors can offer the same Internet speeds as incumbent carriers.

On March 29, 2019, TekSavvy filed the next phase of its intervention supporting CNOC's application. In it, we argue the regulatory framework that the CRTC built in its earlier decisions is fundamentally flawed because it was built on a foundation of astronomically inflated capacity rates. Moreover, leaving competitors without access to FTTP facilities in the meantime violates the CRTC's own speed matching rules, and has caused serious harm to competition and consumers. Simply put, the incumbents inflated CBB rates for years, distorting the process that led to the CRTC's decision (not to mention overcharging competitors and consumers), and then further delayed implementation of even that broken regime by manipulating the costing process, all of which has left us without competitive access to FTTP facilities, while further entrenching incumbent monopolies.

***


Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review (last update: January 11, 2019)

On January 11, 2019, TekSavvy filed a submission with the legislative review panel, explaining how CRTC’s costing processes are broken and unfair, and allow incumbents to overbill competitors and delay access to higher speeds.

***


CRTC Proceeding on Telecommunications Sales Practices (last update: November 9, 2018)

In the fall of 2018, TekSavvy argued that incumbent carriers’ use misleading and aggressive sales practices and their position as our wholesale supplier to poach our customers. Here are TekSavvy’s filings:

Procedural Letter on Flanker Brands

Intervention

Reply

Oral Comments at Hearing

Final Reply

@Derby_Grrrl @Derby_Grrrl

Where would you like service?

Because the speeds of our service vary in different places, we’ll need to do a service qualification on the address where you’d like your service installed.

Can't find your address?

Please confirm your address.