ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8638-C12-200405755 - Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-28, IMCAIP against certain incumbent cable and telephone carriers – Provision of higher-speed access and retail Internet services including Lite service

This page has been archived on the Web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.


Ottawa, 15 June 2004

Our file: 8638-C12-200405755

By Fax

To:   Interested Parties

Subject:  Re:   Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-28, IMCAIP against certain incumbent cable and telephone carriers - Provision of higher-speed access and retail Internet services including Lite service

This letter deals with requests to extend the filing deadline referenced in IMCAIP against certain incumbent cable and telephone carriers - Provision of higher-speed access and retail Internet services including Lite service, Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-28, dated 5 May 2004 (Decision 2004-28).

In Decision 2004-28, the Commission directed incumbent carriers who have a tariff for third-party Internet access (TPIA) service or asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL) service to file, within 60 days, cost studies based on the Commission's incremental Phase II costing approach, delineating the specific costs causal to Lite access service. The Commission further directed Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. (Cogeco), Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw) and Vidéotron Inc. (Vidéotron) to file, within 60 days, updated cost studies based on the Commission's Phase II incremental costing approach for the access services which relate to the per end-user access rates approved by the Commission in Terms and rates approved for large cable carriers' higher speed access service , Order CRTC  2000-789 , 21 August 2000 (Order 2000-789). The Commission further directed Cogeco, RCI, Shaw and Vidéotron to file, within 60 days, their respective views on the appropriate mark-ups to be used in establishing the above-referenced per end-user access rates, with full justification.

On 26 May 2004 , the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) filed a request for approval of a 60 day extension to the filing deadline specified in Decision 2004-28.   The CCTA stated that the extension was necessitated due to the number of current telecom proceedings, the pending launch of local telephony service, the need to assemble the necessary resources as well as the time required to review and prepare the requested Phase II costing studies.   The CCTA indicated that preparing the requested filings is a large and complex exercise and noted that the cable companies require time to assess adjustments made by the Commission in Order 2000-789 to the results of the cable companies' Phase II cost studies and, if necessary, incorporate them in the context of Decision 2004-28.   The CCTA also indicated that given the significant lapse of time between the original filings of Phase II cost studies for TPIA in 1999, approval of end-user rates in 2000, subsequent Point of Interconnection (POI) rate filings in 2001, and Decision 2004-28, all components of the existing TPIA study require careful review to assess appropriate changes. The CCTA indicated that, under the current situation, its member companies would not be able to meet the filing dates provided in Decision 2004-28.

On 26 May 2004 Quebecor Média Inc. (Quebecor), filed comments indicating that Quebecor and Vidéotron supported the CCTA's request.

On 4 June 2004 , the Independent Members of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (IMCAIP) filed comments on CCTA's request for a 60 day extension to the filing deadline prescribed in Decision 2004-28 and submitted that the CCTA had overstated the burden associated with providing the requested costing information. IMCAIP requested that the CCTA be directed to comply with the procedures set out in Decision 2004-28 and argued that to do otherwise would serve only to prolong potentially illegal conduct.   IMCAIP stated that none of the other cable or telephone carriers subject to Decision 2004-28 directives had requested additional time and that compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Telecommunications Act is not negotiable or subject to a carrier's workload.   According to IMCAIP, the CCTA's claims regarding resources cannot be permitted to delay the proceeding and whether the launch of local telephony services is pending is irrelevant.   IMCAIP stated that the CCTA's claim that its members require additional time to assess the adjustments made by the Commission in Order 2000-789 cannot be taken seriously given that almost four years have elapsed since the issuance of that order. IMCAIP further stated that the preservation of the status quo works to the significant advantage of the cable carriers and to the disadvantage of independent Internet service providers (ISPs).

On 7 June 2004 , the CCTA filed reply comments reiterating points made in its 26 May 2004 submission.   In addition, the CCTA indicated that its 26 May 2004 submission was filed on behalf of its members and noted that Vidéotron supported the CCTA's extension request.   The CCTA also noted  that, other than IMCAIP, no party opposed  the CCTA's request.

Proceeding with Decision 2004-28 follow-up activity in a timely fashion is important.   A reassessment of underlying access costs could result in lower TPIA rates.   As noted by the Commission in Decision 2004-28, to the extent that the costs to an incumbent carrier to provide Lite access service are lower than the costs to provide regular higher-speed access service, an incumbent carrier could be using its facilities to provide its own retail Internet service on a basis that is more favourable than that on which an ISP may use the incumbent carrier's access service.

However, recognizing the complexities associated with preparation of the requested underlying cost studies identified by the CCTA, a 45 day extension to the filing deadline established in decision 2004-28 for Cogeco, RCI, Shaw and Vidéotron is appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Godin
Director, Competition and Technology

c.c.          Interested Parties

Date modified: 2004-06-15

Date modified: