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This page has been archived on the Web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, 17 December 2013
Our reference: 8638-S9-201314046
BY EMAIL
Mr. Paul Cowling
Senior Director
Regulatory Affairs
Shaw Communications Inc.
40 Elgin Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5K6
Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Mr. Stephen Schmidt
Vice-President - Telecom Policy & Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel
Telecom Policy & Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street, 8th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0A6
regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Re: Application for an order that TELUS Communications Company’s (TCC) censuses of its support structures to determine the number of service poles in use by licensees are in breach of directives contained in Telecom Order CRTC 2013-114
Dear Sirs:
On 24 October 2013, Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw) filed the above-noted application requesting certain relief related to the census of service poles and other attachments currently being undertaken by TCC.
On 25 November 2013, TCC filed its answer to Shaw’s application, and on 5 December 2013 the record for this file closed when Shaw provided its reply.
On 10 December 2013, TCC filed a letter with the Commission objecting to information filed by Shaw in its reply. TCC alleged that Shaw’s reply breached the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules) by (a) placing new information on the record, and (b) seeking Commission determinations that were not addressed in Shaw’s original Part 1 application, thereby denying TCC any opportunity to comment. TCC requested that the Commission strike from Shaw’s reply certain paragraphs and attachments or, failing that, that the Commission provide TCC with the opportunity to provide comments on Shaw’s reply.
On 13 December 2013, Shaw filed a letter with the Commission responding to TCC’s 10 December 2013 letter. In its letter, Shaw (a) requested that the Commission dismiss TCC’s request to strike from Shaw’s reply certain paragraphs and attachments, and (b) did not object to TCC’s request to provide TCC with the opportunity to provide comments on new information provided in Shaw’s reply.
Commission staff notes that subsection 27(2)(a) of the Rules states that a reply must be restricted to the points raised in the answer or the document. Commission staff considers that Shaw’s reply contravenes that subsection of the Rules, as it introduces new information on the record and seeks a Commission decision not originally contemplated in Shaw’s initial application.
Commission staff considers, however, that the information and relief requested in Shaw’s reply is pertinent to the issues raised by Shaw in its application, and that the information provided in its reply requires due consideration by the Commission.
Accordingly, Commission staff is modifying normal Commission processes to provide TCC an opportunity to provide further comment. TCC may file further comments with the Commission in relation to Shaw’s reply, serving a copy on Shaw, by 14 January 2014.
In addition, Commission staff has reviewed the information on the record and has determined that there is a need for further information in order to properly assess Shaw’s requested relief. Consequently, TCC is requested to respond to the attached interrogatories, serving a copy on Shaw, by the same date referenced above.
Shaw may file final comments with the Commission in relation to TCC’s further comments and interrogatory responses, serving a copy on TCC, by 20 January 2014.
As set out in Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, 23 December 2010, parties may designate certain information as confidential. Parties must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a note explaining how the information removed is confidential.
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date. Copies of the documents should also be sent to kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
Telecommunications
cc: Kevin Pickell, CRTC, kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca
Attach.
Attachment 1
INTERROGATORIES
TCC
1) Provide the dates of and regions covered by any field census that was conducted or will be conducted on TCC’s behalf from 2012 and 2014 for TCC’s service poles in British Columbia.
2) For each field census identified in interrogatory 1) above, provide a copy of the Statement of Work provided by TCC to its contractor(s). If multiple Statement of Work documents were used, provide copies of each version.
3) Provide copies of all invoices sent to Shaw in relation to its use of TCC service poles, as well as any documentation provided to Shaw in support of the charges in those invoices. TCC is to provide, at a minimum, copies of the invoices dated 19 June 2013, 12 July 2013, and 30 August 2013.
4) TCC submitted a sampling methodology that was developed to arrive at a service pole count for Shaw in British Columbia. Based on that sampling methodology, TCC issued an invoice to Shaw dated 11 April 2013. In that invoice, TCC billed Shaw for a certain amount of money reflecting the sampling estimate of the number of service poles to which Shaw is attached in British Columbia. This invoice was later withdrawn.
On 17 October 2013, TCC filed Tariff Notice 464 with the Commission, proposing revisions to its Support Structure Service. In its tariff notice application, TCC proposed introducing a one-time service charge to recover a portion of the costs incurred “to audit all of the Company’s jointly-owned and wholly-owned service poles in B.C.” TCC further states in its application, “To date, TELUS has audited over 30,000 service poles (approximately 20% of total service poles to be audited).”
How many service poles does TCC estimate that it owns (wholly and jointly) in British Columbia? Confirm that it invoiced Shaw on 11 April 2013 for a certain number of service poles to which it estimated Shaw was attached in British Columbia, and compare that invoiced number with TCC’s estimate in its tariff application that TCC owns approximately 150,000 service poles in British Columbia.
- Date modified: