ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Robert Quance (ISP Telecom Inc.)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 26 May 2015
Our references: 8740-J34-201110460, 8740-J34-201110478, 8740-J34-20110519, 8740-J34-201110733
BY EMAIL
Mr. Robert Quance
General Manager
ISP Telecom Inc.
1155, boul René Lévesque Ouest,
Suite 2500
Montréal, QC H3B 2K4
robert@isptelecom.net
RE: Tariff Notices 10, 11, 12, 13, and 13A – Revisions to CLEC Access Services Tariff
Dear Sir:
Between 5 July 2011 and 12 July 2011, the Commission received applications by ISP Telecom Inc. (ISP Telecom), under Tariff Notices (TNs) 10, 11, 12, 13, and 13/A, in which the company proposed modifications to its CLEC Access Services Tariff to incorporate changes to comply with all updates the Commission had made to its CLEC Model Tariff since November 2008.
These applications were approved on an interim basis in Telecom Order 2011-430, dated 19 July 2011.
In a letter dated 20 October 2011, Commission staff asked ISP Telecom to indicate whether, between November 2008 and 19 July 2011, it had charged a rate for any telecommunications services otherwise than in accordance with its approved tariff for that time.
In a letter dated 28 November 2011, ISP Telecom responded that, during the relevant time, it had charged a rate for trunk-side access service that varied from its tariff. However, ISP Telecom submitted that the rate it had charged for this service during the relevant time was $0. The company requested ratification for the service and time period in question.
Commission staff considers that since no rate was charged for the service during the period in question, ratification is not required in this case. In Telecom Order 2015-219, the Commission approved these applications on a final basis.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: Andrew Matoga, ISP Telecom, andrew@isptelecom.net
Laurie Ventura, CRTC, 819-997-4589, laurie.ventura@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: