ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to David McComb (Edenshaw Homes Limited)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 25 November 2014
Our reference: 8622-B2-201411256
BY EMAIL
Mr. David McComb
President & CEO
Edenshaw Homes Limited
260 Brunel Road
Mississauga, Ontario L4Z 1T5
david.mccomb@edenshaw.com
RE: Bell Canada application for access to the Edenshaw’s Chaz Yorkville multi-dwelling unit – Name of second service provider
Dear Mr. McComb:
On 14 November 2014, Edenshaw Homes Limited (Edenshaw), in response to a Commission staff letter dated 6 November 2014, submitted the name of a second communications service provider who, in addition to Rogers Communications, has entered into an access agreement to provide services in Edenshaw’s Chaz Yorkville multi-dwelling unit (MDU) project. In its submissions with the Commission, Edenshaw requested that the name of that second service provider be treated on a confidential basis.
In response to Edenshaw’s submissions, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) filed, on 18 November 2014, a request with the Commission for the name of the second service provider to be made public.
Commission staff notes that pursuant to section 177 of Telecom Decision 2003-45, Provision of Telecommunications Services to Customers in Multi-Dwelling Units, a local exchange carrier must disclose on its web site all terms and conditions of any written access agreement concluded with a building owner for the installation of telecommunications facilities during the construction of a MDU. Commission staff further notes that in this case, the second service provider has met its obligation and has published, on its website, a copy of the access agreement between itself and Edenshaw.
Commission staff therefore finds that since the name of the second service provider who will be providing communications services to the Chaz Yorkville MDU has already been made public through the publication of the access agreement on the website, there are no reasons for the name of that provider to be treated as confidential in the above mentioned proceeding between Bell Canada and Edenshaw.
In light of the above, Edenshaw is requested to disclose, on the public record of the above mentioned proceeding, the name of the second service provider by 26 November 2014.
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.
Sincerely
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: Jean-François Léger, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, piac@piac.ca
Joel Fortune, Barrister & Solicitor, jfortune@fortunelaw.ca
Confidential LEC
Jonathan Blakey, Bell Canada, jon.blakey@bell.ca, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Pamela Dinsmore, Rogers Communications, rci.regulatory@rci.rogers.com
Danny Moreau, CRTC, danny.moreau@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: