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This page has been archived on the Web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, 24 August 2012

Ref. No.: 8620-S4-201204164


Mr. Simon-Pierre Olivier
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Rogers Communications Inc.
333 Bloor Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1G9

Dear Sir:

RE: Sogetel Inc.'s wireless number portability implementation plan

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 things, that Rogers interconnect with its switch in Lake Etchemin to implement WNP in the Beauceville exchange.

In a letter dated 3 August 2012, Rogers indicated that, according to Sogetel’s tariff, Rogers was not obliged to interconnect directly with Sogetel’s switch in Lake Etchemin.  Rogers stated that it was not required to deal with the consequences of Sogetel’s decision to modify the architecture of its network, and that direct connection between the two companies in the Beauceville exchange had been in negotiation for several years.  Rogers also indicated that Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2012-241 does not require it to modify its network because it already has an interconnection with Sogetel in the Beauceville exchange.

With regard to the modification of Sogetel’s network architecture, Commission staff notes that Sogetel’s cellular connection tariff stipulates that the company reserves the right to modify its network, and that it is not responsible for any influence such modifications may have on the design, installation, operation, repair or performance of the operator’s cellular system.  Commission staff also notes that there is nothing to prevent Sogetel from modifying its network architecture if it considers it appropriate to do so.

With regard to interconnection, Commission staff notes that, according to the wireless network interconnection regime, wireless carriers are responsible for providing the interconnecting facility between its network and local exchange carrier networks.  Commission staff also notes that network interconnection arrangements require that digital channels be provisioned between two carriers' networks and connected to the carriers' respective digital switching equipment.  Commission staff notes that this requirement was not amended in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2012-24.

Commission staff notes that there has not been a switch unit in the Beauceville exchange since 1998, and that the switch unit serving Beauceville is in Lake Etchemin.  Accordingly, if Rogers wishes to implement WNP in the Beauceville exchange, the company is responsible for providing the interconnecting facility between its switch equipment and that of Sogetel in Lake Etchemin.

As Rogers indicated that it would not pursue its application to implement WNP in the Beauceville exchange if it was required to deploy an interconnection with Sogetel in the Lake Etchemin exchange, Rogers’ application is closed.

Yours sincerely,

‘Original signed by M. Bertrand’

Mario Bertrand
Director, Competition, Implementation and Technology

c.c.: Marc Pilon, CRTC, (819) 997-4535,
Sylvie Labbé, CRTC, (819) 953-4945, sylvie.labbé
Roger Choquette, Sogetel,
Sylvain Bellerive, Sogetel,

[1] Network interconnection for voice services, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2012-24, 19 January 2012

Date modified: