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This page has been archived on the Web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, 18 March 2014
Reference no.: 8620-R28-201308734
BY E-MAIL
Simon-Pierre Olivier
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Rogers Communications Partnership
rci.regulatory@rci.rogers.com
RE: Request to implement Wireless Number Portability in Wightman’s serving territory
Dear Mr. Olivier,
In a submission dated 18 October 2013, Wightman Telecom Ltd. (Wightman) filed a plan for the implementation of wireless number portability (WNP) for three exchanges in Ontario, following its receipt of a signed formal expression of interest by Rogers Communications Partnership (RCP) earlier in the year. In its plan, Wightman indicated that it had not had any discussions with RCP regarding direct interconnection arrangements. In its response, RCP reiterated its objection to directly interconnecting with Wightman.
Commission staff notes that paragraph 116 of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2012-24 states:
116. The Commission therefore decides that implementation of WNP is to be conditional on a wireless carrier directly interconnecting with a small ILEC, unless otherwise negotiated.
Commission staff notes that throughout this process RCP has taken the position that wireless carriers should be permitted to use an underlying carrier to interconnect with small ILECs instead of being forced into costly direct interconnection arrangements. RCP argued that the Commission permits wireless carriers to interconnect with large ILECs using an underlying carrier, and that the same principle should apply in the territories of the small ILECs.
In a letter dated 21 August 2013, Commission staff communicated its view that RCP’s interpretation of TRP 2012-24 was inconsistent with the Commission’s determinations, and that should RCP wish to propose changes to an existing regulatory policy, it would be required to file a Part 1 application with the Commission pursuant to the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure.
As it stands, it is Commission staff’s understanding that RCP has not changed its position with respect to its interpretation of TRP 2012-24, nor has it agreed to directly interconnect with Wightman. In light of these circumstances, Commission staff is of the view that Wightman is not obligated to implement RCP’s request for WNP at this time, pursuant to the Commission’s determinations in TRP 2012-24. As a result, Commission staff considers this file to be closed.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
c.c.: tsullivan@wightman.ca; regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
- Date modified: