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This page has been archived on the Web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, 2 April 2013

Our reference: 8740-W4-201304229


Mr. Tom Sullivan
President & CEO
Wightman Telecom Ltd.
Box 70, 100 Elora St. N.
Clifford, Ontario N0G 1M0

RE: Tariff Notice 28 – Interoperating Company Transit Trunk Service

Dear Sir,

On 7 March 2013, the Commission received an application by Wightman Telecom Ltd. (Wightman) in which it proposed to introduce Interoperating Company Transit Trunk Service.

Paragraph 28(1)(a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may request parties to file information or documents where needed.

Wightman is requested to provide comprehensive answers, including rationale and any supporting information, to the attached questions by 8 April 2013.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Regulatory Implementation

c.c: Joseph Cabrera, CRTC, (819) 934-6352,

Request for information – Wightman TN 28

In its application, Wightman proposed to introduce a service that would provide a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) operating in Wightman’s local interconnection region with one-way trunking between Wightman’s central office/wire centre and the CLEC’s point of presence. Wightman indicated that it would route local traffic received from other local exchange carriers (LECs) outside its operating territory destined to the CLEC customers over this trunk. Wightman submitted that it does not currently offer a service that facilitates the routing of such traffic to CLEC customers that appropriately compensates Wightman for its costs.

Wightman proposed to use Bell Aliant’s Local Transit Service rates for its own service and submitted that these rates would adequately compensate it for the costs to route this traffic to the CLEC’s customers.

Commission staff notes that Bell Aliant’s Local Transit Service was developed on the basis that the originating carrier is required to subscribe to the service. In contrast, it appears that Wightman is proposing that the receiving carrier be required to subscribe to Wightman’s transit service.

1. Confirm that Wightman proposes that a CLEC must subscribe to the proposed transit service in order that local traffic received from other LECs outside Wightman’s operating territory and destined to CLEC customers would be routed to the CLEC for termination.

2. If Wightman’s proposal is that the CLEC must subscribe to the proposed transit service, provide the company’s rationale for this requirement. Specifically, explain why the originating LEC should not be required to subscribe to the proposed transit service.

Date modified: