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This page has been archived on the Web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.
File number: 8695-C12-201214155
Ottawa, 4 April 2013
BY EMAIL:
Distribution List (attached)
RE: Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-623 - Proceeding to consider whether the Commission should withhold subsidy payments to the Quebec small ILECs that have not yet implemented local competition
Dear Madam or Sir:
In Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-623, the Commission sought comments on whether it would be appropriate to withhold subsidy payments from CoopTel, Téléphone Guèvremont inc., Téléphone Milot inc. (Milot), and Sogetel inc. (collectively, the Quebec small ILECs) to encourage them to implement local competition in their territories.
Based on information filed with the Commission, Commission staff notes that while there are outstanding activities that remain regarding the implementation of local competition these activities require the combined effort of the Quebec small ILECs and the competitor, namely Telus Communications Company (TCC) and Cogeco Cable Inc. Consequently, implementation of local competition in the Quebec small ILECs respective territories is generally expected to be completed in the March or April 2013 timeframe.
Given the above, Commission staff considers it appropriate to defer further consideration of this file, at this time. As stated by the Commission in Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-623, the goal of the above-noted proceeding is to ensure that local competition is implemented without any additional delays. At this time, it appears to Commission staff that implementation of local competition is progressing. However, should circumstances change and the implementation of local competition be further delayed, Commission staff will reconsider its position.
In addition, Commission staff notes that, as part of the above-noted proceeding, TCC indicated that there is a disagreement with Milot regarding interconnection in the company’s St-Paulin exchange. In this regard, Commission staff notes that in Telecom Decision 2013-176, the Commission stated that, for the purposes of implementing local competition, parties must interconnect using the most efficient configuration, reducing as much as possible the costs to be incurred. Commission staff considers that this principle also applies to interconnection in the St-Paulin exchange. Commission staff encourages Milot and TCC to negotiate in order to find an alternate interconnection approach to the proposed joint-build, if a more cost efficient solution exists. Failure to identify an agreed interconnection solution would constitute an undesirable delay regarding the implementation of local competition.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by:
Chris Seidl
Executive Director, Telecommunications
Distribution List:
gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca; sylvain.bellerive@sogetel.com; pallard@cooptel.qc.ca; louise.begin@sogetel.com; rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com; michel.messier@cogeco.com; telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; bell.regulatory@bell.ca; jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca; sophie.houde@sogetel.com; paul.frappier@telmilot.com; choquette@comgate.com; augustin@guevremont.com; sdesy@actq.qc.ca
- Date modified: