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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Our reference: 8662-G49-201214030

Ottawa, 4 December 2012

By Email

Mr. Max May
GATPE Services
P.O. Box 47501 Plateau Mt-Royal Branch
Montreal, Quebec H2H 2S8

RE:  Application to review and vary of Telecom Decision 2012-424

Dear Mr. May:

On 1 November 2012, GATPE Services ( filed an application with the Commission to review and vary GATPE Services, operating as – Application requesting that certain telecommunications service providers cease offering free local VoIP telephone services in Montréal, Telecom Decision 2012-424, 6 August 2012 (Telecom Decision 2012-424).

In its application, alleges that the Commission failed to consider a basic principle which was raised in the original proceeding, namely that the Commission’s determinations in Telecom Decision 97-81 regarding forbearance for competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) should have been re-examined subsequent to the Commission’s local forbearance decisions for incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).2

First, Commission staff notes that the determinations in Telecom Decision 2012-424 were unanimously made by a quorum of Commissioners. Second, Commission staff notes that all elements and principles on the record in the original application were fully considered by the Commission in rendering its decision in Telecom Decision 2012-424. In order for the Commission’s decisions to be as clear and concise as possible, however, all arguments raised by the parties to a proceeding are not normally summarized in every decision.

In its application, also requests that the Commission “publish for public inspection” the Bell Digital Voice Lite minimum rate, as mandated by Telecom Decision 2006-11.3 For your information, in Access-independent VoIP services pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 2006-1314, Telecom Circular CRTC 2006-10, 16 November 2006, the Commission noted that by virtue of Order in Council 2006-1314, the tariffs previously approved by the Commission for Bell Digital Voice Lite were no longer of any force or effect to the extent specified in the Order in Council P.C. 2006-1314.

In view of the above, your review and vary application is being returned with this letter, thereby closing the file.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by:

Chris Seidl
Executive Director

.c.: John Stix,

[1] Local competition, 1 May 1997, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8

[2] Starting with Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, 6 April 2006, as amended by the Governor in Council's Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, P.C. 2007-532, 4 April 2007, and including specific ILEC decisions such as Bell Canada - Applications for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services, 3 August 2007, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-65.

[3] Bell Digital Voice Service, 9 March 2006, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-11

Date modified: