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This page has been archived on the Web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.
Our Reference: 8633-R28-201310820
By email
Mr. Ken Engelhart
Senior Vice-President – Regulatory,
Rogers Communications
333 Bloor Street East
Toronto, Ontario M4W 1G9
rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com
Re: Application by Rogers for Clarification regarding the Wireless Code
Dear Mr. Engelhart,
This is in reference to the application by Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers) for clarification of certain elements of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2013-271 (the Wireless Code or the Code).
Commission staff has reviewed Rogers’ application and determined that additional information is required. Accordingly, Rogers is to its file responses to the request for additional information attached to this letter by 19 August 2013, copying all parties. In light of this request, Commission staff considers that interveners could benefit from additional time in order to comment on Rogers’ application. The deadline to submit comments is therefore extended to 26 August 2013. Reply comments will be due no later than 3 September 2013.
As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961, Rogers may designate certain information as confidential. Rogers must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a detailed rationale to explain why the disclosure of the information is not in the public interest.
All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.
Yours sincerely,
{original signed by}
Steven Harroun
Acting Director General, Strategic Policy
cc: Neil Barratt, CRTC; distribution list
Distribution List
jlo@piac.ca; jlawford@piac.ca; slambert-racine@uniondesconsommateurs.ca; tisrael@cippic.ca; mac@mediac.ca; bmilligan@mediac.ca; regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca; gary.wong@mobilicity.ca; whitehurst@consumerscouncil.com; bell.regulatory@bell.ca; Bob.Boron@publicmobile.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; ljackson@windmobile.ca; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com; document.control@sasktel.com
Appendix – Request for Information
1. Describe the current approach taken by Rogers, Chatr and Fido with respect to device subsidies, and clearly explain any differences. Indicate whether this approach has changed based on the determinations set out in the Code. Is Rogers’ FlexTAB a “tab” model for the purposes of your application?
2. In paragraph 7 of its application, Rogers states that “tabs are not necessarily part of a wireless service contract.” Please elaborate on this statement. In Rogers’ view, if a Tab is not part of a wireless services contract, is it part of a separate contract between the wireless carrier and wireless customer? Please explain, with supporting rationale.
3. In paragraph 14 of its application, Rogers submits the following:
“Rogers therefore seeks confirmation from the Commission that using a percentage amount to represent the amount by which the early cancellation fee will decrease each month is acceptable”
In paragraph 11 of application 2013-1081-2, TELUS requested that the Commission:
“permit early cancellation fee reductions to be made in unequal amounts, provided that each monthly early cancellation fee reduction is at least equal to the amount based on a 24 month straight line amortization”
Would TELUS’ proposal also address the issue described in Rogers’ application? Please comment on this alternative, including any possible consequences for Rogers’ business model and its customers.
4. In the event the Commission grants Rogers’ requests, will the Code have any impact on early device upgrades for customers on indeterminate contracts? Specifically, in the case of customers with a negative tab balance that wish to upgrade their device early, how does Rogers interpret section G.2(ii)(a) of the Code, which requires that the device subsidy be calculated as retail price minus upfront costs?
- Date modified: