ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Distribution List
This page has been archived on the Web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, 6 November 2015
Our references: 8698-T66-201503996, 8698-P8-201505992
Re: Part 1 applications regarding local number portability – Requests for Information
By letter dated 1 May 2015, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) filed a Part 1 application to propose the establishment of a special location porting zone (LPZ) comprised of seventeen specific exchanges in greater Vancouver. The creation of the special LPZ would allow customers who move between these exchanges to be able to retain their telephone numbers at their new location without giving up their wireline telephone service.Footnote 1 In its application, TCC requested that the Commission take all of the necessary steps to allow its proposed LPZ, which it argued is subject to unique market conditions.
By letter dated 15 June 2015, the Consumers Association of Canada, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (the Consumer groups) filed an application requesting that the Commission expand the current geographic boundaries associated with local number portability (LNP). In its application, the Consumer Groups argued that the continued appropriateness of the current LNP boundaries is questionable given advances in the marketplace and technology.
Commission staff considers that the issues raised in the two applications are similar and requires further information from certain incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) in consideration of these issues.
Attached are requests for information associated with the above-referenced applications. Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), TELUS Communications Company (TCC), and Télébec, Société en commandite (Télébec) are requested to provide responses, including supporting rationale and any related information, to the attached questions, serving a copy on all other parties, by 4 December 2015.
Parties who wish to file supplemental comments with respect to the ILECs’ responses may do so by 18 December 2015.
All responses and comments received will be incorporated into the records of both of the above-referenced proceedings. All submissions must be received, and not merely sent, by the indicated date.
Original signed by
Director, Policy Framework
c.c.: Adam Mills, CRTC, 819-997-4574, firstname.lastname@example.org
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
Bell Canada & Bell Aliant, email@example.com
MTS Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Saskatchewan Telecommunications, email@example.com
TELUS Communications Company, firstname.lastname@example.org
Télébec, Société en commandite, email@example.com
Shaw Telecom G.P., Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Rogers Communications Partnership, firstname.lastname@example.org
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
Independent Telecommunications Providers Association, email@example.com
Questions for TCC
- In their 15 June 2015 intervention, MTS Inc. and Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) submitted that there would be number conservation benefits if local exchange carriers (LECs) are allowed to assign numbers anywhere in the proposed LPZ rather than just being allowed to port them. In its 25 June 2015 reply comments, TCC submittedthat such a proposal would require additional work and should be the subject of another proceeding.
In the event that the Commission were to decide that numbers should be available for assignment anywhere within the proposed LPZ as suggested by MTS Allstream, specify all additional work / costs that would be required / incurred in order to implement MTS Allstream’s suggestion.
- In its Part 1 application, TCC indicated that the circumstances making its LPZ proposal viable are rare, and perhaps unique. Identify any other groups of exchanges in your operating territory that would meet the same circumstances as those described in TCC’s application.
Question for Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, MTS, SaskTel and Télébec
- In its Part 1 application, TCC indicated that the circumstances making its LPZ proposal viable are rare, and perhaps unique. Identify any groups of exchanges in your operating territory that would meet the same circumstances as those described in TCC’s application. Indicate whether the company has considered making a proposal similar to TCC’s application for these exchanges.
- Footnote 1
Local exchange carriers (LECs) are currently restricted from assigning or porting a telephone number when the customer’s service address is outside the exchange to which the telephone number belongs.
- Date modified: