ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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, 20 November 2009
Our file No: 8661-O40-200911778
Ms. Cindy Quigley
President
On Call Internet Services Ltd.
1158-8th Street
Kamloops, BC V2B 2Y2
Mr. Ted Woodhead
Vice-President
Telecom Policy and Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street, 8th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 0A6
Dear Ms. Quigley and Mr. Woodhead:
Re: Part VII Application by On Call Internet Services Ltd. for Urgent and Expedited Relief against Service Suspension and Disconnection by TELUS Communications Company
On 19 August 2009, On Call Internet Services Ltd. (On Call) made an application, pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules of Procedure), submitting that TELUS Communications Company (TCC) had filed a notice of intent to terminate all services provided to On Call on 29 August 2009. In its application, On Call requested the following interim relief prior to 29 August 2009:
a. an order directing TCC to immediately withdraw its notice of intent to terminate services provided to On Call on 29 August 2009;
b. an order directing TCC to process new orders from On Call for existing services;
c. an order directing TCC to release excess deposit funds held over and above that which is permitted under tariff;
d. an order directing TCC to accept and deal with the billing disputes raised by On Call in accordance with TCC’s General Terms of Service; and
e. that the interim award be filed with the Federal Court of Canada.
On Call also requested that the Commission issue directives on procedure which would be shorter than the standard 30 days set out in the Rules of Procedure for Part VII applications. On Call further requested that the Commission grant a hearing into this matter.
Commission staff addressed interrogatories on 1 October 2009. That interrogatory process concluded on 26 October 2009.
On 3 November 2009 Commission staff issued a letter that provided for further process. That process concluded on 12 November 2009.
Commission staff considers that further interrogatories are warranted in order to help Commission staff come to a better understanding of On Call’s network, in particular with regard to the nature of services provisioned by TCC to On Call. Commission staff also considers that interrogatory 5) from the previous interrogatory process was not satisfactorily answered in that the specific parameters that framed that interrogatory were not respected. Accordingly, this interrogatory is being reissued. The interrogatories can be found in Appendix 1 to this letter.
For questions 1) to 4), parties are to file their responses with the Commission, serving a copy on the other party, by 2 December 2009. By no later than 7 December 2009, parties are to file with the Commission, serving a copy on the other party, its reply comments to the other party’s responses.
For question 5), On Call is to file its response with the Commission, serving a copy on TCC, by 2 December 2009. On Call’s response must conform to the parameters set out in the interrogatory without modification. By no later than 7 December 2009, TCC is to file with the Commission, serving a copy On Call, its reply comments to On Call’s answer.
Where a party designates information filed with the Commission as confidential, pursuant to section 19 of the Rules of Procedure, it must provide the reasons for its claim for confidentiality at the time it files the information with the Commission. However, to the extent possible, parties are encouraged to provide to the other party to this proceeding a complete copy of materials that are filed. In the case of a confidential filing, if it chooses to do so, the other party has two days to make representations to the Commission, clearly starting why it considers the disclosure of the information filed in confidence is in the public interest, serving a copy on the party claiming confidentiality. The party claiming confidentiality will have two days to file a reply, serving a copy on the requesting party.
Documents to be filed and served in accordance with the above process are to be received, not merely sent, by the dates indicated. Copies of the documents should also be sent to the following email addresses: kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca and eric.bowles@crtc.gc.ca.
The above-established process is set out in order to allow the Commission to dispose of
On Call’s request for interim relief. After reviewing the information provided, the Commission will make a decision on the need for further information and further process, if needed, or will issue a decision with regard to On Call’s request for interim relief.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director
Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications
cc: Kevin Pickell, CRTC, kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca
Eric Bowles, CRTC, eric.bowles@crtc.gc.ca
Appendix 1
1) Provide a detailed description and diagram of On Call’s ADSL network, clearly identifying interconnection elements from TCC’s network to On Call’s point of presence.
2) Provide a detailed description and diagram of On Call’s Ethernet network, clearly identifying end locations connected and end-user locations being served, as well as interconnection elements from TCC’s network to On Call’s point of presence.
3) Provide a detailed description and diagram of the Carrier Internet service provisioned to On Call by TCC.
4) With regard to service provisioned by TCC to On Call in Merritt, On Call claims that it should be receiving a 10 Mbps CWAN service, while TCC claims that On Call is receiving Ethernet HDX Routed Fibre and PRI services. Accordingly, provide:
a. a description and/or a diagram of the services that On Call is receiving in Merritt,
b .detailed evidence and rationale in support of your claims as to which service On Call is receiving in Merritt including, if possible, documentation supporting or denying the switch from Ethernet HDX Routed Fibre and PRI services to 10 Mbps CWAN service, and
c. detailed evidence that a 10 Mbps CWAN service could replace Ethernet HDX Routed Fibre and PRI services.
5) On Call is to provide factual evidence that On Call does not represent an abnormal risk of loss to TCC. Specifically, On Call should provide evidence that demonstrates that, in the event it is determined that On Call must pay TCC the estimated $600,000 that TCC alleges it is owed, On Call has the ability to make such a payment. Such evidence can be provided in the form of, for example, audited financial statements, a bank letter of credit, a credit rating report, or any other alternative proposed by On Call that is reasonable in the circumstances. A written guarantee of payment from another person will not be accepted as evidence unless that person’s creditworthiness, as established by an accredited financial institution, is provided.
- Date modified: