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This page has been archived on the Web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, 10 November 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
Dear Madams, Sirs:
The Commission is in receipt of a letter dated 5 November 2009, from Distributel Communications Limited (Distributel), requesting confirmation of its view that the scope of the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261, as amended, permits the consideration of ADSL access service solutions other than CO-based solutions, that are available to all telecommunications service providers, whether facilities-based or not, and include configurations that aggregate traffic from multiple COs, and permit interconnection by means of co-located or non co-located facilities.
Commission staff notes that, in the Commission’s letter of 23 October 2009, it ruled that with respect to the networks of the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), the scope of the proceeding was limited to the consideration of CO-based ADSL access solutions, i.e. solutions that would allow service providers who choose to co-locate to offer high-speed Internet services to their end users. As such, the solutions are to be limited to the access portion of the network and are not to involve the provision of transport. In this respect, the proceeding is to be seen as the means by which the Commission is completing its consideration of which wholesale services are to be made available to competitors that was initiated in Review of regulatory framework for wholesale services and definition of essential service, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-14, 9 November 2006.
Commission staff notes however that the Commission’s ruling does not preclude future consideration of alternative proposals that include a transport component in light of, among other things, the disposition of various relevant petitions currently before the Governor-in-Council.
Original signed by
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
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; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; Regulatory@sjrb.ca; 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; firstname.lastname@example.org; LBC_Consulting@live.ca; email@example.com; bob.Allen@abccomm.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; Rocky@TekSavvy.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org; David.Wilkie@tbaytel.com;
- Date modified: