ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8622-C74-02/00
This page has been archived on the Web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 File: 8622-C74-02/00
Ottawa, 17 April 2001
To: Interested Parties to PNs CRTC 2000-17 and 27
CLG Participants List
Registered Resellers of High-speed Retail Internet Services
Re: The Coalition for Better Co-location - Part VII Application for General Relief With Respect to the Current Co-location Regime, Dated 17 July 2000
This letter deals with a request filed by CBC on 12 March 2001 for further responses to interrogatories.
Responses to the request were received from Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, TELUS Communications Inc., and TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc.
With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure apply. The general principles enunciated by the Commission in past proceedings include the following:
The major consideration is the relevance of the information requested to the matter at issue.
The availability of the information requested is also a factor, which is balanced against the relevance of the information. If the provision of the information sought would require an effort disproportionate to the probative value of the information itself, further responses will not be required.
Another factor considered is the extent to which an interrogatory answer is responsive to the interrogatory as it was originally asked.
Generally, parties are not required to provide further responses to requests for further information from a party that did not ask the original interrogatory.
Having regard to all of the above considerations, the parties in question are to provide further responses to the extent set out in Attachment 1 to this letter by Tuesday, 1 May 2001, serving copies on all interested parties by the same date.
This letter reflects the Commission's objective of ensuring that all parties have the benefit of the maximum amount of information placed on the public record at the earliest appropriate stage, in order to facilitate a more efficient and effective proceeding.
Further to the Commission's letter of 19 December 2000, the following process has been established:
Parties, except CBC, may file supplemental comments with the Commission, serving copies on all parties by Friday, 18 May 2001.
CBC may file reply comment with the Commission, serving copies on all parties by Friday, 1 June 2001.
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.
In addition to hard copy filings, parties are encouraged to file with the Commission electronic versions of their submissions. The Commission's e-mail address for electronically filed documents is firstname.lastname@example.org. Electronically filed documents can be accessed at the Commission's Internet site at www.crtc.gc.ca.
Executive Director - Telecommunications
c.c. Brenda Jolicoeur (819) 997-4571
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Provide a full and complete response to the interrogatory, as modified below:
9. a) Indicate whether the company allows any of its customers or affiliates to place equipment in its COs which is configured to route traffic from one end-user's line to the line of any other end-user without first leaving the CO.
b) If the answer to a) is "yes", provide a list of all such equipment by type and manufacturer and the approximate date of first installation.
c) Indicate whether the company allows any of its customers or affiliates to place equipment in its COs where routing decisions based on the destination of the traffic is performed by the co-located equipment on traffic bound for the customer's or affiliate's networks (with the exception of network management messages).
If the answer to c) is "yes", provide a list of all such equipment by type and manufacturer and the approximate date of first installation.
Provide a list of any other equipment that the company has allowed (i) its customers and (ii) its affiliates to place in the company's COs that is not currently on the National Co-location Equipment List. This list should include the type of equipment that has been placed in the CO, the manufacturer, the approximate date of first installation, and the number of installations currently in place for each type of equipment.
For the purposes of this interrogatory, affiliate has the same meaning as that which is contained in subsection 35(3) of the Telecommunications Act.
- Date modified: