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This page has been archived on the Web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: 8740-F27-201210062
Mr. Rick Schleihauf
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Carrier Relations
605 Boxwood Drive
Cambridge, Ontario N3E 1A5
RE: Fibernetics Corporation Tariff Notices 6 and 6A
On 21 August 2012, the Commission received an application by Fibernetics Corporation (Fibernetics) under Tariff Notice (TN) 6, in which the company proposed revisions to its Access Services Tariff. The application was subsequently replaced on 31 August 2012 and amended on 14 September 2012 in TN 6A. In its application, Fibernetics proposed to withdraw the provision of one-way trunks for the termination of traffic originating from exchanges external to a local interconnection region (LIR) having exchange area service (EAS) with an exchange or exchanges within that LIR. Fibernetics proposed that such traffic would be terminated over bill-and-keep trunks.
The Commission received comments by Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron G.P. (Videotron), among others. Videotron opposed Fibernetics’ application, submitting that delivery of EAS-to-LIR traffic over bill-and-keep trunks can be an effective means for delivery of such traffic, but that the choice of delivery method must ultimately reside with the carrier that is delivering the traffic.
Videotron submitted that if both of the interconnection tariff options are made available by the terminating local exchange carrier (LEC), and are properly structured and rationally costed, the terminating LEC should be indifferent as to which option the interconnecting LEC chooses. Videotron further noted that it had filed Access Service TN 40, in which it proposed to correct a drafting anomaly to ensure consistency between these two tariff options.
Commission staff notes that the outcome of the Videotron proceeding could affect the outcome of the Fibernetics TN 6/6A proceeding.
Consequently, the Commission will not dispose of Fibernetics’ application until Videotron’s TN 40 proceeding is complete.
Original signed by
Director, Regulatory Implementation
c.c: Denis Henry, Bell Aliant, email@example.com
Philippe Gauvin, Bell Canada, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dennis Béland, Quebecor Media, email@example.com
Ted Woodhead, TELUS, firstname.lastname@example.org
David Watt, Rogers, email@example.com
Joseph Cabrera, CRTC (819) 934-6352, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date modified: