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This page has been archived on the Web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, 27 July 2012
Our Reference: 8620-S4-201204164
BY E-MAIL
Mr. Simon-Pierre Olivier
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Rogers Communications Inc.
333 Bloor Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1G9
Dear Mr. Olivier:
RE: Wireless number portability (WNP) implementation plan, Sogetel Inc.
On 2 April 2012, Sogetel Inc. (Sogetel) submitted a wireless number portability (WNP) implementation plan in response to a request submitted by Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers). In its plan, Sogetel proposed, among other items, that Rogers interconnect with its switch in Lac Etchemin to implement WNP in the Beauceville exchange.
On 3 May 2012, the Commission received Rogers’ comments. The company indicated that it did not agree to deploy a shared-cost interconnection in the Lac Etchemin exchange because, as a wireless service provider (WSP), it already has a direct interconnection with Sogetel in the Beauceville exchange and is using Sogetel’s wireless service access tariff. Rogers asked the Commission to confirm that a WSP could continue to use the small incumbent local exchange carrier’s (ILEC’s) wireless service access tariff to implement WNP.
In response to an interrogatory sent by Commission staff on 9 May 2012, Sogetel indicated that, following the modernization of its network, the Beauceville switch to which Rogers has a direct interconnection had been replaced with a non-switched remote unit that is connected to the Lac Etchemin switch. Sogetel also indicated that, in accordance with its tariff, a WSP may be connected to Sogetel’s wireless interconnection service only in locations with a switch and there is no longer a switch in Beauceville.
Commission staff confirms that a WSP may continue to use the small ILEC’s wireless service access tariff to implement WNP. However, Commission staff notes that, in accordance with Sogetel’s tariff, should Rogers avail itself of this option in its request for implementation of WNP in the Beauceville exchange, it will have to interconnect with the switch serving that exchange, i.e. the switch in Lac Etchemin.
Given the fact that Rogers must deploy an interconnection in the Lac Etchemin exchange to implement WNP in the Beauceville exchange, and that it has indicated in its comments of
3 May 2012, that it does not agree to deploy a shared-cost interconnection in the Lac Etchemin exchange, Rogers is asked to confirm, no later than 3 August 2012, whether the company would like to continue with its application to implement WNP in the Beauceville exchange.
Yours sincerely,
‘Original signed by K. Wardle for M. Bertrand’
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution and Decisions
Telecommunications
c.c.: Marc Pilon, CRTC, (819) 997-4535, marc.pilon@crtc.gc.ca
Sylvie Labbé, CRTC, (819) 953-4945, sylvie.labbé@crtc.gc.ca
Roger Choquette, Sogetel, choquette@comgate.com
Sylvain Bellerive, Sogetel, sylvain.bellerive@sogetel.com
- Date modified: