Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Louise Robichaud (Cochrane Telecom Services)

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Ottawa, 25 September 2015

Our reference: 8638-C12-59/02

BY EMAIL

Ms. Louise Robichaud
Chief Financial Officer
Cochrane Telecom Services
153 6th Ave., Box 640
Cochrane, ON  P0L 1C0
louise.robichaud@cochranetel.ca

Re: 2014 Quality of service reports

Dear Madam,

As explained below, Cochrane Telecom Services (Cochrane) is expected to file its 2014 quality of service report no later than 16 October 2015.

Background

In Regulatory framework for the small incumbent telephone companies, Decision 2001-756, 14 December 2001, the Commission found it appropriate for small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) with less than 25,000 network access services to report to the Commission, on 31 March of each year starting in 2002, the following information for the previous calendar year:

Par. 147          

  1. the number of customers to whom service was not provided within 10 days from the date of the customer's request;
  2. the total of initial out-of-service trouble reports not cleared within 24 hours;
  3. the number of customers who reported a trouble with their service;
  4. the number of customers who reported that their listing in the white pages was either omitted or erroneous; and
  5. the number and nature of written and verbal complaints addressed to officers and/or department heads of the telephone company and/or to the Commission.

Reminders

The Commission reminded small ILECs of their obligations regarding quality of service reporting in paragraph 123 Regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Regulatory Policy 2013-160, 28 March 2013.

Given that as of 23 July 2015 Cochrane had not filed its quality of service report for 2014, Commission staff reminded the company, via a letter dated that day, of its obligations and requested that Cochrane file its 2014 report with the Commission no later than 31 July 2015.

As of 17 September 2015, the Commission has not received Cochrane’s 2014 report, despite several informal reminders in August and September.

Potential consequences for failure to provide information

Please note that failure to provide the information requested above may result in serious consequences.

In Guidelines regarding the general administrative monetary penalties regime under the Telecommunications Act, Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Information Bulletin 2015-111, 27 March 2015, the Commission outlined its options for conducting enforcement activities.

For example, the Commission has the authority to establish general administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) to promote compliance with the Act. Persons who do not comply with the Act, a regulation, or a Commission decision could be found to have committed a violation and may incur AMPs or be subject to other enforcement tools available to the Commission. In Paragraph 50, TELUS Communications Company ‒ Application to revise the company’s deferral-account-funded broadband service expansion plan, Telecom Decision 2014-419, 7 August 2014, the Commission stated its view that, generally, in circumstances such as when a company fails to meet established deadlines, it would be necessary to consider the application of administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) as a regulatory measure.

The Commission also has the option to issue a mandatory order, which can be registered with the Federal Court. Failure to comply with a decision registered with the Federal Court could result in contempt of court proceedings.Footnote 1 The Commission may also initiate proceedings for disconnection of a company’s services in Canada.

Action that Cochrane is expected to take

Cochrane is expected to file its 2014 quality of service report no later than 16 October 2015. Failure to meet that deadline will lead to consideration of further enforcement measures, such as the application of AMPs or issuance of a mandatory order.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Robert Martin for

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c: Jean-François Roof, CRTC, 819-639-2537, jean-francois.roof@crtc.gc.ca

References

Regulatory framework for the small incumbent telephone companies, Telecom Decision 2001-756, 14 December 2001

Regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters, Telecom Regulatory Policy 2013-160, 28 March 2013

TELUS Communications Company ‒ Application to revise the company’s deferral-account-funded broadband service expansion plan, Telecom Decision 2014-419, 7 August 2014

Guidelines regarding the general administrative monetary penalties regime under the Telecommunications Act, Compliance and Enforcement and Telecom Information Bulletin 2015-111, 27 March 2015

Footnotes

Footnote 1

The Commission’s powers to request information from any person, issue mandatory orders, register its decisions with the Federal Court, and enforce the registered decision through the Federal Court, are set out in subsection 37(2), section 51, and subsection 63(2) of the Telecommunications Act, respectively.

Return to footnote 1

Date modified: