ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8661-C12-10/02 - Competitor digital network access proceeding: Requests from TELUS
This page has been archived on the Web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.
File No. 8661-C12-10/02
Ottawa, 6 November 2003
To: Parties to Public Notice CRTC 2002-4
Re: Competitor digital network access proceeding: Requests from TELUS
In Procedural determination in the Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding with respect to an application made by the Canadian Cable Television Association, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-52, dated 1 August 2003 (Decision 2003-52),the Commission directed Bragg Communications Inc. carrying on business as EastLink (Eastlink), Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. (Cogeco), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw), Rogers Cable Inc. (Rogers Cable) (collectively, the cable companies) and Vidéotron Télécom ltée (Vidéotron Télécom) to respond to two supplemental interrogatories set out in paragraphs 23 and 24 of that decision.
The responses of the cable companies and Vidéotron Télécom form part of the record of the proceeding initiated by Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-4, 9 August 2002 (the competitor digital network access (CDNA) proceeding).
By letter dated 8 October 2003, TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) made various requests related to these and other responses, including requests for further responses. By Commission staff letter dated 21 October 2003, the cable companies and Vidéotron Télécom were given the opportunity to respond to TELUS' requests, serving a copy on TELUS, by 27 October 2003.
In its letter dated 21 October 2003, Commission staff also noted that TELUS requested that Cogeco be directed to confirm that it did not provide any circuits to telecommunications service providers through any type of contractual arrangement, including through indefeasible right of use (IRUs) agreements.
Commission staff requested that each cable company and Vidéotron Télécom indicate how it treated any facility acquired on an IRU basis that is equivalent to an incumbent local exchange carrier access or intra-exchange facility when it responded to the interrogatories in Decision 2003-52. Commission staff further requested that, to the extent a cable company provided such a facility on an IRU basis to another competitor and did not include it in its interrogatory response, the company use its best efforts to adjust the data provided in its response to include these facilities and to provide an updated response to the Commission, serving an abridged version on parties to this proceeding, by 27 October 2003.
By letter dated 20 October 2003, Eastlink responded to TELUS' requests. By letter dated 27 October 2003, each of Cogeco, Eastlink and Vidéotron Télécom addressed the issue of IRUs raised by Commission staff in its letter dated 21 October 2003.
Overview of requests and responses
TELUS requested that Eastlink, Shaw and Vidéotron Télécom be directed to provide abridged versions of their responses filed in confidence with the Commission on 2 September 2002. TELUS argued that filing abridged responses would demonstrate to parties that the information requested was provided in the format set out by the Commission. In response, Eastlink argued that the Commission is able to determine any deficiencies in the information filed without the need to file an abridged version. Eastlink further argued that the filing of an abridged response would have been meaningless in the circumstances given that each column in the table provided by the Commission would have been abridged. Shaw and Vidéotron Télécom did not respond to TELUS' request.
TELUS requested that Shaw be directed to re-file the location of its access and intra-exchange circuits information in accordance with the directions in Decision 2003-52. Shaw did not respond to this request.
TELUS requested that Rogers Cable be directed to comply with Decision 2002-52 by providing a response to the interrogatories set out in that decision as they pertain to Rogers Cable. TELUS also requested that the relevant Rogers companies be directed to re-file their interrogatory responses to certain interrogatories dated 11 October 2002. Rogers Cable did not respond to these requests.
Commission staff notes that Cogeco, in its letter dated 27 October 2003, has confirmed that it does not provide any circuits to telecommunications service providers through any type of contractual arrangement, including through IRU agreements. Commission staff considers that no further information is required.
With regard to TELUS' request for abridged versions of the electronic tables files in confidence by Eastlink, Shaw and Vidéotron Télécom, in Commission staff notes that pursuant to section 19(3) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, a party claiming confidentiality in connection with a document is required to file with the Commission an abridged version of the document or reasons for objecting to the filing of an abridged version thereof. When they filed their interrogatory responses, Eastlink, Shaw and Vidéotron Télécom submitted that no meaningful abridged version could be provided. Eastlink, Shaw and Vidéotron Télécom are to file for the public record an abridged version of the electronic tables filed in response to the supplemental interrogatories addressed to those companies in Decision 2003-52.
Commission staff notes that the process does not contemplate a party seeking a further response to a Commission interrogatory. Moreover, in Commission's staff's view, the information provided by Shaw in response to the interrogatories is adequate. Accordingly, in Commission's staff's view, no further response is required by Shaw.
However, Commission staff considers that it would be appropriate for Rogers Cable to file responses to the interrogatories set out in Decision 2003-52 as they pertain to Rogers Cable, serving a copy (abridged where appropriate) on all parties to this proceeding by 12 November 2003. Rogers Wireless Inc. (Rogers Wireless) is also to file revised responses to RWI(CRTC)11Oct2002-108 and RWI(CRTC)11Oct2002-109, serving copies (abridged where appropriate) on all parties to the proceeding, by 12 November 2003, to reflect the information of Rogers Wireless only.
Commission staff further notes that, as of the date of this letter, the Commission has not received Rogers Cable's response to the IRU issue raised by Commission staff in its letter dated 21 October 2003. Rogers Cable is requested to provide the information requested forthwith. However, because the information to be provided relates to information that will not be aggregated and placed on the public record, Commission staff notes that the dates established in its 31 October 2003 letter for the submission of comment and reply comment are not affected by Rogers Cable's delay in submitting its response to Commission staff's questions in its letter dated 21 October 2003.
Acting Director General
Competition, Costing & Tariffs
c.c.: CRTC, Daphne Fry - (819) 953-5373
- Date modified: