ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Ottawa, 23 October 2009
Our Reference: 8663-C12-200907321
Re: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261, Proceeding to consider the appropriateness of mandating certain wholesale high-speed access services
In this letter the Commission provides rulings on separate requests from:
- MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) for clarification of the scope of the proceeding and for a determination that certain parties be required to answer interrogatories;
- jointly from Bragg Communications Inc., Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd. (collectively, the cable carriers) that they not be required to provide and disclose certain information requested by TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TekSavvy) in interrogatories; and
- TekSavvy for the inclusion of a second round deficiency/disclosure process.
MTS Allstream’s request for clarification of the scope of the proceeding and for a determination that certain parties be required to answer interrogatories
In its submission of 6 October 2009, MTS Allstream requested that the Commission confirm that its proposals for alternative models for wholesale ADSL access services are within the scope of this proceeding. It also requested that the Commission direct Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, and Télébec, Société en commandite (collectively, Bell et al.) and TELUS Communications Company (TCC) to answer MTS Allstream’s interrogatories seeking their comments on such alternative models.
The Canadian Association of Internet Providers, the Coalition of Internet Service Providers, the Coalition of Internet Service Providers Inc., Distributel Communications Limited, Execulink Telecom Inc., Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc., and TekSavvy supported MTS Allstream’s request, while Bell et al. and TCC opposed it.
The Commission considers that, with respect to the networks of the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), the scope of this proceeding is limited to consideration of CO-based ADSL access solutions. Such solutions would provide facilities-based competitors, through co-location at a CO, similar capability to the ILEC for purposes of offering high-speed Internet services to end users served by that CO. By contrast, the Commission considers that MTS Allstream’s proposal consists of both access and transport segments, which would enable competitors to duplicate ILEC capability at the multi-CO level without co-location at each CO.
In light of the above, the Commission finds that MTS Allstream’s proposal is outside the scope of this proceeding and that, therefore, Bell et al. and TCC are not required to respond to interrogatories pertaining to MTS Allstream’s proposed alternate solution.
The Commission notes that this finding is based on the scope of the proceeding as set out in Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261 and that it does not preclude future consideration of MTS Allstream’s proposals and related matters in light of, among other things, the disposition of various relevant petitions currently before the Governor-in-Council.
The cable carriers’ request that they not be required to provide and disclose certain information requested by TekSavvy in interrogatories
In a letter dated 8 October 2009, the cable carriers sought a Commission ruling on whether they should be required to disclose the information requested by TekSavvy in its interrogatories regarding the percentage of Internet customers purchasing the service on a stand-alone basis or as part of a bundle with one, two, or three other services.
TekSavvy submitted that parties require the information to be able to meaningfully comment on how services should be designed to overcome barriers to bundling. TekSavvy submitted that the harm from disclosure would not be as significant as claimed because the information is aggregated, and any derived intelligence would be limited.
The Commission considers that to the extent the information is relevant to the issues to be addressed in the proceeding, the specific harm in disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Accordingly, the Commission denies TekSavvy’s request for disclosure of the information.
TekSavvy’s request for the inclusion of a second round deficiency/disclosure process
In a letter dated 9 October 2009, TekSavvy requested, among other things, a further process to permit parties to request disclosure of confidential information and further and better responses to the second round of interrogatories in this proceeding. In addition, TekSavvy proposed revised deadlines.
The Commission finds it appropriate to provide a deficiency/confidentiality process and accordingly, modifies the existing process as follows:
Parties may file submissions with the Commission, serving a copy on all parties, by no later than 30 October 2009.
Parties may address additional interrogatories to any party who filed submissions pursuant to paragraph 27 of Telecom Notice of Consultation 2009-261. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on the relevant party or parties by 6 November 2009.
Responses to interrogatories addressed pursuant to paragraph 28 of Telecom Notice of Consultation 2009-261 are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 23 November 2009.
Requests by parties for further responses to their interrogatories, specifying in each case why a further response is both relevant and necessary, and requests for public disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed, setting out in each case the reasons for disclosure, must be filed with the Commission and served on the relevant party or parties by 27 November 2009.
Written responses to requests for further responses to interrogatories and for public disclosure must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties making the request by 2 December 2009.
Determinations will be issued with respect to requests for further information and public disclosure as soon as possible. Any information to be provided pursuant to those determinations must be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties by 15 December 2009.The above material must be received, not merely sent, by the above dates.
Original signed by Allan Rosenzveig
Robert A. Morin
Distribution Listregulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; Regulatory@sjrb.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; LBC_Consulting@live.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org; bob.Allen@abccomm.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org; Rocky@TekSavvy.com ; email@example.com; David.Wilkie@tbaytel.com;
- Date modified: