ARCHIVED - Broadcasting - Commission Letter - Part VII of the Telecommunications Rules ofProcedure by Rogers Cable Inc.
This page has been archived on the Web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 April 2000 Our File: 8644-R4-01/98
Pamela Dinsmore - and -
Terry Connolly
Dear Ms. Dinsmore and Mr. Connolly: On 14 July 1998, Rogers Cable Inc. (Rogers) filed a complaint under Part VII of the Telecommunications Rules of Procedure respecting the Commission's policy of end-user choice in Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 (Decision 97-8). Rogers asked the Commission to direct BC TEL, now known as TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc., (BC TEL) to ensure that Rogers has reasonable access to a multi-dwelling unit building in Vancouver (the "Europa") during its construction stage so that Rogers could provide competitive telecommunications services to residents of that building. Positions of Parties Rogers requested access to the Europa so it could install its own telecommunications facilities in that building. Rogers also asked the Commission to order BC TEL to stop providing telecommunications services to the building, unless BC TEL provides or arranges the access requested by Rogers. The former vendor of the property, Concord Pacific Developments Ltd., (Concord Pacific) designated BC TEL as the only provider of telecommunications services to the building. Further to an agreement between Concord Pacific and the property's developer, Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd. (Henderson), Concord Pacific refused to permit Henderson to provide Rogers with access to the building so Rogers could install its own telecommunications facilities. Rogers argued that this arrangement contravenes the Commission's policy of end-user choice in Decision 97-8. BC TEL stated it supports the policy requiring end-user choice, but it cannot require Concord Pacific to provide access to Rogers. BC TEL also submitted that the remedy Rogers requested is draconian and further noted that issues respecting building access are before the Commission in other forums. The Commission's Decision The Commission has considered the submissions of the parties regarding the approach it should adopt to achieve end-user choice in local exchange services in a multi-dwelling unit building such as the Europa during the building's construction stage. The Commission would not require BC TEL to ensure Rogers has access to the Europa for the purpose of installing its own telecommunications facilities during that building's construction stage. This is consistent with the Commission's approach to achieving end-user choice in Decision 97-8 and Location of Demarcation Point for Inside Wire in Multi-Dwelling Units and Associated Issues, Telecom Decision 99-10, 6 August 1999 (Decision 99-10) which do not require that local exchange carriers be able to provision their own facilities within a multi-dwelling unit building. After the building is constructed, the approach set out in Decision 99-10 will apply to achieving end-user choice in local exchange services. In the circumstances of this case, the Commission therefore denies the requests for relief made by Rogers in its application. Sincerely,
Ursula Menke cc: CRTC Regional Offices |
- Date modified: