ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8663-C12-200402892 - PN 2004-2 Amended Procedures

Our File: 8663-C12-200402892

Ottawa, 22 April 2004

To: Parties to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2, Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol, 7 April 2004 (PN 2004 2)

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: PN 2004-2 Amended Procedures

On 15 April 2004, the Commission received letters filed jointly by Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, TELUS Communications Inc., TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. and Télébec, société en commandite (the "Companies") and by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) requesting modifications to the process set out in PN 2004 2.

The Companies submitted that the complexity of the factual underpinnings and the policy issues to be decided in this proceeding as well as the potential prejudice that may be caused to the Companies from adoption of the Commission's preliminary views warrant a more complete procedure. Further, the Companies indicated that it would not be possible to understand the full implications of the Commission's preliminary views or the cross impacts amongst the parties in the timeframe as currently set out in PN 2004 2.

The Companies argued that additional procedures are required to ensure that all parties have a full and meaningful opportunity to comment on all relevant issues. Specifically, the Companies proposed that the comments due on 28 April 2004 and the public consultation on 19 and 20 May 2004 be focused on developing a common understanding of the facts upon which the policy discussion can proceed and a list of the issues to be considered in the proceeding. The Companies suggested that following the consultation, the Commission would issue a list of all the issues pertinent to the regulatory framework for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) that are to be considered in this proceeding. Parties would then have the opportunity to file evidence on 21 June 2004; thereafter, the Commission would determine what further process is necessary, such as interrogatories, final and reply argument.

In addition, the Companies requested that staff briefing papers, research studies or other material relied upon by the Commission to form its preliminary views be made available on 28 April 2004.

PIAC noted that the proceeding initiated by PN 2004 2 concerns important telecommunications policy and requested that the Commission modify the process set out in PN 2004 2, for example, to extend the deadline for filing initial evidence, to allow for an interrogatory process, and to provide for the filing of final and reply submissions.

On 16 April 2004, a Commission staff letter was issued inviting parties to file with the Commission, by 20 April 2004, comments regarding modifications to the process set out in PN 2004 2, serving copies of any such comments on the Companies and PIAC at the same time and date. The 16 April 2004 letter also stated that parties would not be required to file comments by 28 April 2004 as set out in paragraph 33 of PN 2004 2.

The Commission has received comments from the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) and Microcell Solutions Inc. (Microcell) dated 16 April 2004; from The British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre representing BC Old Age Pensioners' Organization, Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of B.C., federated anti poverty groups of B.C., Senior Citizens' Association of B.C., West End Seniors Network, End Legislated Poverty and Tenant Rights Action Coalition (collectively, BCOAPO et al.) and the Ontario 9 1 1 Advisory Board (OAB) dated 19 April 2004; and from Allstream Corp. (Allstream), Call Net Enterprises Inc. (Call Net), the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), Cybersurf Corp. and its various affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively Cybersurf), FCI Broadband, a division of Futureway Communications Inc. (FCI Broadband), O.N. Telecom, Ministry of Economic Development and Trade on behalf of the Province of Ontario (OMEDT), Quebecor Média inc. (QMI), RipNET Limited (RipNET) and Xit télécom Inc. (Xit) dated 20 April 2004.

BCOAPO et al. supported PIAC's request and CEP, Cybersurf and O.N.Telcom supported the requests made by the Companies and by PIAC for modifications to the process set out in PN 2004 2. Cybersurf argued that parties must be given an adequate opportunity to assess the materials used by the Commission in reaching its preliminary views set out in PN 2004 2.

OMEDT stated that it would not object to a reasonable modification of the process set out in PN 2004 2.

Allstream, Call Net, CCTA, FCI Broadband, Microcell, OAB, QMI, RipNET and Xit opposed the requests made by the Companies. Most of these parties expressed support for a modest extension of time for filing comments but opposed adding any new procedural steps. OAB and Microcell asked that the dates for the public consultation be changed as they coincide with a VoIP & 911 Critical Issues Forum scheduled by the National Emergency Number Association. Several of the parties opposing the Companies' proposals specifically rejected the Companies' request for disclosure of material relied on by the Commission in arriving at its preliminary views.

Determination

The Commission notes that most parties opposed the proposal by the Companies to conduct a separate process to identify the issues and the facts in this proceeding. As noted by the Commission in PN 2004 2, parties may comment on the Commission's preliminary views as well as any other matters that may be pertinent to the regulatory framework for voice communications services using IP. The Commission also notes that PN 2004 2 explicitly allowed for parties to submit any research studies or other material that they wish to refer to in this proceeding. The Commission considers that parties have an adequate opportunity to raise and respond to pertinent issues and to set out the facts upon which they wish to rely. In the Commission's view, an additional process to identify other issues and to develop a common understanding of the facts prior to the filing of comments is neither necessary nor appropriate in the circumstances of this proceeding.

Further, the Commission notes that many of the parties who commented on the requests for modifications to the PN 2004 2 process sought some additional time for the filing of initial comments. The Commission also notes that there are a number of other large proceedings currently underway in which many of the parties to this proceeding are also participating. In the Commission's view, it would be appropriate to allow extra time for the filing of comments. In addition, in order to ensure that all parties have a full opportunity to challenge the positions put forward by other parties, the Commission has determined that it would be appropriate to allow parties to address interrogatories to other parties.

Accordingly, the process set out in paragraphs 33 - 41 of PN 2004 2 is hereby revised as follows to incorporate an extension of time for filing comments as well as an interrogatory process:

33. Parties are invited to file comments on the Commission's preliminary views and on any other matters set out in this public notice, by 18 June 2004, serving a copy on all other parties by that date. Any research studies or other material that parties wish to refer to in this proceeding are to be submitted along with written submissions filed in accordance with the previous paragraph.

34. (a) All parties may address interrogatories to any party who filed submissions pursuant to the preceding paragraph. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on the party in question, by 16 July 2004.

(b) Responses to those interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all parties, by 6 August 2004.

(c) Requests by parties for further responses to their interrogatories, specifying in each case why a further response is both relevant and necessary, and requests for public disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed, setting out in each case the reasons for disclosure, must be filed with the Commission and served on the relevant party or parties by 13 August 2004.

(d) Written responses to requests for further responses to interrogatories and for public disclosure must be filed with the Commission and served on the party or parties making the request by 20 August 2004.

(e) A determination with respect to requests for further information and for public disclosure will be issued as soon as possible. Any information to be provided pursuant to that determination must be filed with the Commission and served on all parties, by 15 September 2004.

35. A public consultation will be held on 21-22 September 2004 at 140 Promenade du Portage, Niveau 0, Phase IV, Gatineau, Quebec. Parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the consultation are required to file comments pursuant to paragraph 33 above, and to indicate by email their intention to participate in the consultation by 18 June 2004.

36. The Commission reserves the right to group parties of similar views together for the purpose of presenting their views at the public consultation.

37. The Commission will issue an organization and conduct letter to outline the process of the public consultation.

38. Any persons who wish merely to file written comments in this proceeding without receiving copies of the various submissions may do so by submitting their comments in writing to the Commission by 18 June 2004.

39. The Commission will not formally acknowledge comments. It will, however, fully consider all comments and they will form part of the public record of the proceeding.

40. Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties, by 13 October 2004.

41. 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.

With regard to the request by the Companies for disclosure of any staff briefing documents, research studies or other material relied on by the Commission in reaching its preliminary views, the Commission notes that the basis for the Commission's preliminary views is set out fully in the Public Notice. The Commission's decision regarding its preliminary views, and on any other issues raised within the scope of this proceeding, will be based on the record of the proceeding. All parties will have a meaningful opportunity to put their position on the record for consideration by the Commission and to challenge the positions put forth by other parties. In addition, the Commission has consistently retained in confidence staff analysis and recommendations. In light of the foregoing, the Commission rejects the request by the Companies for disclosure of documents it relied on in reaching the preliminary views set out in PN 2004 2.

Finally, the Commission notes that the Companies stated that PN 2004 2 does not address the reasons why all VoIP providers are Canadian carriers and therefore subject to section 24 of the Telecommunications Act. For the sake of clarity, the Commission notes that it did not state that all VoIP service providers are Canadian carriers; in fact, it explicitly contemplated in paragraphs 23 and 24 of PN 2004 2 that VoIP service providers could be Canadian carriers or resellers.

Yours sincerely,


Diane Rhéaume
Secretary General

c.c.: Parties to PN 2004-2
       C. Pinsky, CRTC, 604-666-3644

Date modified:

2004-04-22