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This page has been archived on the Web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, 21 April 2010
Our Reference: 8663-C12-200907321
Interested Parties to High Speed Access Proceeding, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261
Re: Organization and conduct of the oral hearing
Dear Madams, Sirs:
The Commission is scheduled to hold an oral hearing in connection with the above-noted proceeding commencing on Monday, 31 May 2010 at the Conference Centre, Phase IV, Outaouais Room, 140 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec.
The purpose of this letter is to provide information to the parties on a variety of matters relating to the organization and conduct of the oral hearing.
The Commission intends to begin the hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, 31 May 2010. The order and estimated date of appearance of the parties that have advised the Commission of their intention to appear at the hearing are set out in the attached Schedule 1.
In order to facilitate a more effective and efficient hearing, Schedule 1 provides that most participants are to appear as part of panels during both Phase I and Phase II of the hearing.
Participants are responsible for monitoring the progress of the hearing so that they are aware of any Commission directives and ready to make their presentation on the day scheduled or, if necessary, the day before or after their scheduled date of appearance, depending on the progress of the hearing. 0 Please note that an audio link will be available throughout the hearing on the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca.
Phase I: Opening Presentations
Participants other than the Cable Carriers (as defined below) will each be granted a maximum of 25 minutes to make their opening presentation in Phase I of the oral hearing. Given that they have largely participated as a group to date in the proceeding, Rogers Communications Inc., Cogeco Cable Inc., Quebecor Media Inc. on behalf of its affiliate Vidéotron Ltd., Shaw Communications Inc. and Bragg Communications Inc. (collectively the Cable Carriers) are strongly encouraged to present a joint opening presentation and oral rebuttal argument. Regardless of their choice, because of the commonality of their respective positions, the Cable Carriers will have 1 hour combined to make opening presentation(s). Participants’ opening presentations may include arguments relating to the submissions and evidence of other parties to the proceeding.
Opening presentations will be followed by questioning from members of the Commission panel and, as appropriate, by Commission staff.
Participants may make use of audio-visual aids in their presentations. Participants that wish to employ an audio-visual aid are to contact Lynda Roy, Hearing Secretary by email at firstname.lastname@example.org by no later than 24 May 2010, so that the necessary arrangements can be made.
Phase II: Oral Rebuttal Argument
After the conclusion of Phase I, participants other than the Cable Carriers will each be provided with a maximum of 15 minutes to make oral rebuttal argument in Phase II of the oral hearing. The Cable Carriers will be granted a maximum of 40 minutes to make oral rebuttal argument. During this phase, participants are to restrict their argument to addressing the submissions of other participants, following which Commission panel members and Commission staff may ask questions. Participants will proceed in the reverse order of appearance of the opening presentations set out in Schedule 1.
All participants must have appropriate representatives present for the entirety of Phase II of the hearing. Participants may be called upon at any time during Phase II to answer questions from members of the panel or Commission staff in light of another participant’s submissions in its rebuttal oral argument.
Post-Hearing Written Submissions
In accordance with the procedures established in Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261-7, the Commission reminds parties that they may file written final submissions on any matter within the scope of the proceeding by 21 June 2010, serving copies on all other parties.
Structure and Approach of Submissions
Parties are asked to present their submissions (both oral and written) in accordance with the structure and approach set out in Schedule 2. The Commission panel’s questions at the hearing will be structured along these lines.
Responsibilities of the Participants
Participants are required to bring with them all relevant documentation and knowledgeable personnel, including technical experts. An adverse inference may be drawn from the failure of a participant to bring all relevant documentation and knowledgeable personnel to the oral hearing.
For ease of translation and transcription and to assist the Panel members and Commission staff, parties are requested to bring 30 copies of their prepared remarks.
Record of Appearance
In order to assist the Commission, participants are asked to submit a record of appearance, including the names and positions of the representatives who will appear on behalf of the participant and the name, telephone number and email address of the participant’s chosen representative so that he or she can be contacted immediately preceding and during the public hearing. Parties are requested to file this information via e-pass, providing a copy to Lynda Roy, Hearing Secretary via e-mail at email@example.com by Monday, 10 May 2010. This will enable the Hearing Secretary to contact parties, if necessary, to obtain information or to inform them of matters relating to the hearing.
Participation by Videoconference
Participants may appear at the oral hearing by videoconference from one of the Commission’s regional offices. Those that wish to appear by videoconference must inform Lynda Roy, Hearing Secretary, of their desire to do so by email at firstname.lastname@example.org by Monday, 3 May 2010.
Copies of Documents Filed
All parties are reminded that, with respect to all documents filed at the oral hearing (such as exhibits, proposed exhibits or responses to undertakings), 30 copies must be provided to the Hearing Secretary for the Commission's use.
At the same time, a copy of all such documents must be served on all other parties present at the oral hearing on the date the document is filed.
Original signed by
Robert A. Morin
Distribution List - Interested Parties, High Speed Access Proceeding, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261, 8 May 2009, as amended
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; 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; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; David.Wilkie@tbaytel.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261
31 May 2010
Order and Date of Appearance*
Monday, 31 May 2010
|1.||Bell Aliant Regional Communications Partnership, Bell Canada and Télébec, Société en commandite|
|2.||TekSavvy Solutions Inc .|
|4.||Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.|
|5.||Execulink Telecom Inc.|
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
|6.||TELUS Communications Company|
|7.||The Coalition of Internet Services Providers|
|8.||Canadian Association of Internet Providers|
|10.||Public Interest Advocacy Centre|
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
|11.||MTS Allstream Inc.|
|12.||Cogeco Cable Inc.|
|13.||Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of Vidéotron ltée|
|14.||Rogers Communications Inc.|
|15.||Shaw Communications Inc.|
|16.||Bragg Communications Inc.|
|17.||Distributel Communications Limited|
Thursday, 3 June 2010, Friday, 4 June 2010
|Oral rebuttal argument, participants appear in reverse order of order set out above.|
* Note: The dates of appearance are estimates only, based on projected sitting times. If necessary, the Commission will reconvene on Thursday, 10 June 2010 and Friday, 11 June 2010.
In addressing the issues set out below, parties are to apply the existing essential services framework, the criteria specified in Order in Council 2009-2007, and the Policy Direction.
1. Equitability/competitive disadvantages of current wholesale obligations for ILECs and Cable companies
a. For each of the ILECs and the cable companies, what inequities/competitive disadvantages, if any, are imposed by the existing wholesale obligations, and, to the extent such inequities/competitive disadvantages exist, what changes should be made to make them equitable and not competitively disadvantageous vis-à-vis each of the ILECs and cable companies?
2.Potential mandating of a CO-based high speed ADSL access service for ILECs
a. Should a CO-based high speed ADSL access service be mandated?
b. If the Commission decides to mandate such a service, on what basis and how should the incumbent be compensated for economic risk (e.g. mark-up, cost of capital)?
3.Potential mandating of the head-end-based high speed access service for cable companies
a. Should a head-end-based high speed access service be mandated?
b.If the Commission decides to mandate such a service, on what basis and how should the incumbent be compensated for economic risk (e.g. mark-up, cost of capital)?
4. Potential mandating of matching speeds for aggregated ADSL access services
a. Should matching speeds for aggregated ADSL access services be mandated?
b. If the Commission decides to mandate matching speeds, on what basis and how should the incumbent be compensated for economic risk (e.g. mark-up, cost of capital)?
5. New types of internet access infrastructure (Next Generation)
a. How should new types of internet access infrastructure (Next Generation) be defined?
b. If wholesale access is to be mandated (new wholesale services not currently offered and not under consideration above), what principles should govern such access?
- Date modified: