This page has been archived on the Web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, 5 November 2009

Our Reference:  8663-C12-200907321




Re: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261 - Proceeding to consider the appropriateness of mandating certain wholesale high-speed access services


The Commission is in receipt of a letter dated 2 November 2009, from Teksavvy Solutions Inc. (Teksavvy) requesting that the existing process be modified to allow parties to pose second round interrogatories to any party who filed submissions in either the first or second round.

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers, The Coalition of Internet Service Providers Inc., Execulink Telecom Inc. and Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. supported Teksavvy’s request. Bell Aliant Regional Communications Limited Partnership, Bell Canada and Télébec société en commandite, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and TELUS Communications Company (the ILECs) opposed Teksavvy’s request.

After careful consideration of the submissions received, Commission staff considers that the existing process should not be modified.  In this respect, it is noted that the primary purpose of the interrogatory process is to permit parties to test evidence submitted by other parties.  With respect to the ILECs, Teksavvy and other parties posed numerous interrogatories in the first interrogatory process and will have an opportunity, at subsequent phases of the proceeding, to make meaningful representations in support of their proposals to the extent that they have made them.

Given this, the scope of the second round interrogatory process remains unchanged.

Yours sincerely,

John Traversy

Executive Director


NB:  See attached distribution list.

Distribution List; 

Date modified: