ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 15 April 2011

Our ref.: 8622-D11-201104455

BY E-MAIL 

Donald Cavanagh
Vice-President, Telecommunications
Distributel Communications Limited
Suite 300, 177 Nepean Street
Ottawa, Ontario  K2P 0A4
regulatory@distributel.ca

Brenda Stevens
Director Regulatory
Rogers Communications Company Inc.
333 Bloor Street East
Toronto, Ontario  M4W1G9
rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com

Re:  Application by Distributel for expedited hearing process

Dear Sir and Madam:

In a letter dated 4 March 2011, Distributel Communications Limited (Distributel) requested that the Commission hold an expedited hearing pursuant to paragraph 29 of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Information Bulletin CRTC 2009-38, to resolve a dispute between itself and Rogers Communications Company Inc. (RCCI) regarding the porting of telephone numbers.  

In its application, Distributel sought relief requesting that the Commission determine that:

• RCCI must execute in a timely manner all end-user authorized port requests presented by Distributel insofar as those requests pertain to telephone numbers obtained by Communication Télosystème Inc. (CTI), an affiliate of Distributel, through its acquisition of Cybersurf's customers, and
• RCCI must immediately port to Distributel any remaining CTI-acquired telephone numbers upon advice from Distributel that Comwave Telecommunications Inc. (Comwave) has disrupted the service through which it delivers to CTI calls directed to such telephone numbers.  RCCI must prepare itself to act on that request at any time such service is interrupted, including for example, after regular business hours or on weekends.

Commission staff notes that Distributel and RCCI have submitted that they both would like this dispute to come to a rapid conclusion.  Commission staff considers that this dispute can be resolved with clarifications from Commission staff on whether it is legitimate for RCCI, based on Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-511 (Decision 2010-511), to deny Distributel’s end-user authorized port requests pertaining to telephone numbers obtained by Communication Télosystème Inc. (CTI), an affiliate of Distributel, through its acquisition of Cybersurf's assets.

The Commission, in Decision 2010-511, noted that number porting initiated by end-users is a cornerstone of local competition and is critical to enabling consumer choice.  As a result, the Commission has established, and made mandatory, a customer transfer framework that includes number portability.  This framework ensures that customers can seamlessly be transferred from one service provider to another without any disruption in service.

Commission staff clarifies that Decision 2010-511 did not prevent Distributel from using the individual end-user number porting process to seek the porting of telephone numbers for all the customers it acquired from Cybersurf.  Commission staff notes that the determinations in Decision 2010-511 were made having regard to Comwave’s assurance provided on the record of that proceeding, that service to end-users will not be disrupted as a result of this dispute and that it will not deny porting requests that stem from individual end-users who wish to have their numbers ported.

Commission staff further clarifies that any disputes over commercial arrangements, should not be considered by RCCI as a legitimate reason to not abide by the Commission mandated requirement to port numbers based on end-user requests.  In light of the above, Commission staff considers that RCCI’s denial of porting requests that stem from individual end-users is contrary to the intent of Decision 2010-511 and previous Commission Decisions on number portability.

Commission staff further notes that Comwave, in a letter to Rogers dated 2 December 2010, stated that if porting were effected, Comwave would disrupt the end-customers’ service because of its dispute over commercial arrangements with Cybersurf.  Commission staff considers that such a disruption would be contrary to Comwave’s previous assurance that service to end-users will not be disrupted as a result of its dispute with Cybersurf.

Commission staff considers that any disruption of end-customers’ service by Comwave, or further denial of individual end-user number porting requests by RCCI or Comwave would be contrary to the determinations in Decision 2010-511.

In light of the above, Commission staff concludes that:

• RCCI has received end-user authorized port requests from Distributel and, therefore, should execute those porting requests immediately;
• In situations where Comwave, as a result of the dispute over the commercial arrangements with Cybersurf, disrupts or terminates service to end-customers’ acquired by CTI, an affiliate of Distributel, from Cybersurf, RCCI must immediately port to Distributel the telephone numbers of those customers.

Further to the above, RCCI is requested to submit to the Commission in seven (7) days from the date of this letter, confirmation that it has ported the telephone numbers for which Distributel has made individual end-user porting requests.  Any port rejections should clearly be identified by telephone number and a detailed reason for the rejection (i.e., disconnected or suspended telephone number).  In the interim, this letter should not be construed to mean that the Commission has made a determination on Distributel’s request for an expedited hearing.

Sincerely,  

Original signed by:
John Traversy
Executive Director, Telecommunications

c.c.        Michael Koch, GOODMANS LPP,  mkoch@goodmans.ca
              don@distributel.ca
              Brenda.stevens@rci.RCCI.com

Date modified:

2011-04-15