ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8662-S49-01/01
This page has been archived on the Web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, 15 July 2005 File No.: 8662-S49-01/01 By electronic mail
To: stark.marie @rogers.com Dear Parties: Re: Application by Mrs. Marie Stark and Mr. Chris Stark to review and vary Review of Regulatory Framework, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, 16 September 1994 - Request for clarification of issues and Amended procedures This is further to Commission staff's letter dated 29 April 2005 which stated that a revised procedure for the above referenced proceeding (this proceeding), taking into account the various requests on the record to date, would be announced shortly. The record On 18 November 2001 , Mrs. Marie Stark and Mr. Chris Stark (the Starks) filed an application pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act requesting that the Commission review and vary a portion of Review of Regulatory Framework , Telecom Decision 94-19, 16 September 1994 (Decision 94-19). On 16 January 2002 , the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) filed evidence on the Starks' application. On 17 January 2002, submissions were filed by Bell Canada, on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc. and MTS Telecommunications Inc. (collectively the Companies), TELUS Communications Inc. on behalf of itself, TELE MOBILE Company and TELUS Québec (collectively TELUS) and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) on behalf of the wireless telecommunications industry in Canada. On 19 and 23 January 2002 , the Starks filed additional submissions in support of their application and in response to comments filed by other parties. Responses to Commission interrogatories were filed by the Starks on 6 July 2003 and on 5, 12 and 17 September 2003 by other parties. On 14 and 21 September 2003 , the Starks served interrogatories on two of the other parties. On 23 September 2003 , Commission staff suspended the proceeding in order to commission a consultant report on the accessibility of telecommunications terminals to Canadians with a visual disability. On 29 April 2005 , Commission staff forwarded to parties an electronic copy of the report by Acuity Research Group Inc. entitled, "Telephone terminals and accessibility with special reference to visual disabilities". Outstanding Issues On 24 June 2003 , the Commission received a letter from the Starks seeking confirmation that cellular telephone terminals were included within the scope of this proceeding. In a letter dated 28 July 2003 , Arch: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities (ARCH) supported the Starks request. On 20 August 2003 , CWTA filed comments objecting to the Stark's request. CWTA stated that the Commission had dealt with the issues raised by the Starks with respect to wireless terminals in Order CRTC 2001-163, Access to Microcell's Fido-related service by persons who are blind , 26 February 2001 and in Order CRTC 2001-164, Access to Bell Canada 's SimplyOne by persons who are blind , 26 February 2001 . CWTA also submitted that wireline and wireless terminals comprise separate markets. CWTA asked that the Commission deny all requests to include wireless terminals in this proceeding. In a letter addressed to the Commission and to CWTA dated 25 August 2003 , the Starks responded that at the time they filed their application for review and vary, they were under the impression that Decision 94-19 applied to all terminal equipment. The Starks submitted that, for the purpose of accessibility for persons who are blind, there were not any differences between wired and wireless telephones that would warrant separate consideration by the Commission. As part of their submission and responses to interrogatories dated 5 September 2003 , ARCH asked that the Commission include other disabilities within the scope of this proceeding. Analysis Commission staff notes that the Starks' application was brought before the Commission as an application for review and vary of that part of Decision 94-19 dealing with the sale, lease and maintenance of wireline terminal equipment. Commission staff also notes that consistent with this, the record of this proceeding was developed to examine issues related to access to wireline terminal equipment only. In addition, the record shows that not all interested parties which could be impacted by a Commission determination dealing with wireless terminal equipment are parties to this proceeding. Considering all of the above, within the scope of this proceeding, the issues raised in the Starks' application will be examined having regard to the wireline terminal market only. Commission staff considers that matters associated with wireless terminal equipment would be more appropriately and efficiently dealt with following determinations made in this proceeding. Similarly, Commission staff notes that this proceeding was initiated to consider access issues in the context of the needs of blind persons and that the record was developed accordingly. Therefore, and in order to address the specific issues raised by the Starks application, the scope of this proceeding is limited to accessibility issues for persons who are blind. Schedule of Proceedings In their letter dated 25 August 2003 , the Starks requested that the schedule of the proceeding be adjusted in such a way as to provide them with more time to participate. In this respect, the Starks suggested that people who are blind should be given double the time sighted persons are afforded. Commission staff is of the view that the Starks' requested time adjustments are reasonable and will not cause prejudice to the other parties. Commission staff has reviewed the requests put forth by the Starks with respect to the underlying processes in this proceeding. After careful consideration, Commission staff is of the view that the process established at the outset of this proceeding, with the necessary changes, remains appropriate and will minimize any further delays. The schedule of proceedings set out in the Commission's letter dated 16 June 2003 , as amended in the Commission's letter dated 11 July 2003 and suspended in the Commission's letter dated 23 September 2003 , is amended as follows: Paragraph 12: Parties may address interrogatories to any party who has filed submissions. Such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on the parties to which the interrogatories are addressed by 5 August 2005 for all parties but the Starks, and by 19 August 2005 for the Starks. Responses to those interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, serving all parties by 2 September 2005 for all parties but the Starks, and by 16 September 2005 for the Starks. Paragraph 13: All parties but the Starks may file arguments with the Commission serving a copy on all other parties by 30 September 2005 . The Starks may file arguments with the Commission serving a copy on all other parties by 14 October 2005 . Written argument shall be no longer than 30 pages. Paragraph 14: All parties but the Starks may file reply arguments with the Commission, serving all parties by 28 October 2005 . Reply argument shall be no longer than 10 pages. Paragraph 15: The Starks may file reply arguments with the Commission, serving all parties who have provided an e-mail address by 14 November 2005 . Reply argument shall be no longer than 10 pages. Commission staff reminds parties that 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. Commission staff also reminds parties to provide a copy of their responses to interrogatories and other submissions to the Starks in a format accessible to them. Yours sincerely,
Gerry Lylyk c.c. Renée Gauthier, CRTC, (819) 994-5174 Date Modified: 2005-07-15 |
- Date modified: