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This page has been archived on the Web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, 28 March 2014

Our Reference: 8622-S9-201311100

EMAIL

Mr. Russ Friesen
Vice President, Regulatory
MTS Allstream
P.O. Box 6666, MP19C
333 Main Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3V6
iworkstation@mtsallstream.com

RE : Telecom Decision 2014-77 – Show Cause Proceeding

Dear Mr. Friesen :

In Telecom Decision 2014-77 [1], the Commission directed TELUS Communications Company (TCC) to file for approval, within 30 days of the date of the decision, tariff revisions which state that communications-related equipment inserted into licensee cabling located on TCC strand (i.e. strand equipment) does not require a permit. The Commission also directed other incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) that provide support structure services to show cause why the Commission’s determination set out in paragraph 78 of that same decision should not be reflected in their tariffs.

In response to the show cause directive, MTS Allstream (MTS) submitted in a letter dated 24 March 2014 that it supported the Commission’s ruling and it did not in principle oppose the amendment of its tariff to accord with its historical practices regarding applications for strand equipment. MTS stated however that as noted by the Commission in Telecom Decision 2014-77, ILECs have the same or similar wording in their tariffs regarding support structure services, it is reasonable to assume that each ILEC will be expected to amend its tariff to incorporate the same or very similar wording as is ultimately approved for TCC. MTS noted that since 24 March 2014 is also the date by which TCC is to file its proposed amendments, the specific changes were as yet unknown even in the proposed version. MTS submitted that it was therefore unable to assess whether the specific amendments it will be expected to make could cause any unintended consequences. MTS requested that the Commission extend the show cause deadline until 30 days after TCC’s tariff amendments received final approval.

Commission staff notes that the ruling in paragraph 78 of the Telecom Decision 2014-77 determined that there is no basis on which to require permits for strand equipment inserted into cabling attached to TCC strand. TCC was directed to file proposed tariff revisions which state that communications-related equipment inserted into licensee cabling located on TCC strand (i.e. strand equipment) does not require a permit.

The direction to TCC to file for approval proposed tariff revisions is separate from the direction to show cause. The direction to show cause is to determine if the Commission’s ruling in paragraph 78 of Telecom Decision 2014-77 should apply to other ILECs that provide support structure services. If, as a result of the show cause, it is determined that the Commission’s ruling in paragraph 78 of Telecom Decision 2014-77 should apply to other ILECs, then those ILECs would also be required to file proposed tariff revisions. Any interested party would have the opportunity to file comments on any proposed tariff revisions, in the same way that any interested party may file comments on TCC’s proposed tariff revisions filed on 21 March 2014, as is the case with all proposed tariff revisions.

In light of the foregoing, MTS’ request to extend the deadline for the show cause is denied.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
Telecommunications

c.c: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca
Distribution List

Distribution List

regulatory@bell.aliant.ca; bell.regulatory@bell.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca; reglementa@telebec.com; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; brooke@brooktel.com; regulatory@brucetelecom.com; heather.bishop@cwct.ca; admin@cochranetel.ca; pallard@cooptel.qc.ca; jsalina@dryden.ca; jonathan.scott@execulink.com; regulatory@gosfieldtel.ca; a.schneider@hay.net; grubb@hurontel.on.ca; jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca; tellambton@tellambton.net; telvic@telvic.net; j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca; wagrier@1000island.net; rbanks@mornington.ca; pdowns@nexicomgroup.net; nfrontenac@kw.igs.net; steve@wtccommunications.ca; mjboivin@telebec.com; tracy.cant@ontera.ca; barry.stone@quadro.net; roxboro@ontarioeast.net; sophie.houde@sogetel.com; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com; telstep@telstep.net; gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca; Paul.frappier@sogetel.com; carlo.dondero@wtccommunications.ca; regulatory@tcc.on.ca; tsullivan@wightman.ca; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; Regulatory@sjrb.ca

[1] Shaw Communications Inc. –Application concerning the administration of TELUS Communications Company’s tariff for support structure service, Telecom Decision CRTC 2014-77, 20 February 2014

Date modified: