ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8663-C12-200717738
This page has been archived on the Web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, 11 April 2008 File No.: 8663-C12-200717738 Via Email To: Distribution list (see attached) Re: Follow-up to Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-125: CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee - Non-Consensus Report on a Functional Architecture for the Implementation of Nomadic VoIP 9-1-1 Service in Canada (Decision 2007 125) The Commission is in receipt of letters from Comwave, Primus Canada and Xittel (collectively, the VoIP service providers), dated 10 April 2008, regarding the process established in Decision 2007-125, including the review of the economic studies associated with the nomadic VoIP E9-1-1 proposal, filed by Cogeco Cable Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications and MTS Allstream Inc. (collectively, the Access Service Providers (ASPs)), and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell Canada, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and TELUS Communications Company (collectively, the Companies). The VoIP Service Providers made a request for the Companies and ASPs to disclose cost information on their economic studies, filed under claim of confidence . As well, they submitted that, if the Commission granted their request, they would need an extension of ten business days to review the new information and develop and file their interrogatories. In light of the above, Commission staff requests that the Companies and the ASPs file with the Commission their response(s), serving a copy the VoIP service providers, regarding the VoIP service providers' requests by 15 April 2008. T he material filed must be actually received, and not merely sent, by that date. When providing their response(s) to the requests made by the VoIP service providers, the Companies and ASPs are to also make reference to the guidelines for disclosure of the information related to Competitor services that are priced based on Phase II costs plus a 15% mark-up, pursuant to Commission staff letter on Decision 2003-83 Direct Connection Service - Requests for Disclosure of Confidential Information and for Further Responses to Interrogatories, dated 30 June 2005 (attached). At the time of disposing of the above requests, Commission staff will set out revised process dates. Yours truly, Original signed by Paul Godin cc: James Ndirangu (819) 997 3670 attachment Distribution list: Cogeco Cable Inc. attachment Disclosure of information in each Competitor Category 1 Competitor Service submission The list below reflects the Phase II costing related items that are being disclosed in this proceeding and are to be disclosed in all future Category 1 Competitor service submissions.
|
- Date modified: