ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8663-B7-200813685
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOttawa, 7 November 2008 File No.: 8663-B7-200813685 By email Mr. Brian Walden Dear Mr. Walden: Re: Application by Kincardine for local competition in Bruce Telecom, Huron and Wightman's territories In Revised regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-14, 29 March 2006 (Decision 2006-14), the Commission determined that a small Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (SILEC) would be required to make tariffs for competitor services available to a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) or a carrier in response to a request for those services. However, the Commission concluded that a small ILEC is only required to file proposed tariffs for competitor services if it receives a bona fide request from a competitor. The Commission also directed each small ILEC, following a formal signed expression of interest from a LEC or a carrier requesting to use competitor services within a small ILEC's territory, to file an implementation plan with the Commission within 30 days. On 28 and 29 October 2008, the Commission received letters from Wightman Communications Ltd. (Wightman) and Bruce Telecom (Bruce) regarding Kincardine Cable TV Ltd's (Kincardine) requests for local competition in their territories. Wightman and Bruce argued that 1) Kincardine's requests did not meet the criteria as outlined in Decision 2006-14, and 2) Kincardine's requests were not bona fide. Kincardine is requested to file with the Commission, by 17 November 2008, its reply to Bruce and Wightman's letters. In its reply, Kincardine is also requested to:
Bruce, Wightman and Huron will have until 25 November 2008, to file reply comments. Each company is to serve a copy of its filing with the Commission on the other companies and Kincardine. Commission staff notes that Bruce requested for an extension to the filing date for its implementation plan. The Commission will issue a new process letter specifying revised filing dates, if required, once the date for the companies' reply comments has passed. Where a document is to be filed by a specific date, the document must be actually received, and not merely sent, by that date. Yours sincerely, Original signed by Suzanne Bédard cc: Hans Nilsson, Bruce Telecom, regulr@bmts.com |
- Date modified: