ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural 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This page has been archived on the Web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, 13 November 2015
Our reference: 8661-P8-201510199
Re: Part I Applications regarding Videotron’s mobile wireless Unlimited Music service – Further process and procedural request
Dear Madam, Sir:
This letter establishes the remaining process related to the Part 1 applications referenced above,Footnote 1 and disposes of an additional procedural request, dated 19 October 2015, by Québecor Média inc. (QMI), on behalf of its affiliated company, Vidéotron s.e.n.c. (Vidéotron).
The remaining process with respect to the Part 1 applications is set out below:
- The Commission will issue requests for information, in the form of interrogatories, to QMI. Responses to the requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by 16 December 2015.
- All parties may file supplemental submissions with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties, by 13 January 2016.
- All parties may file replies with the Commission, serving a copy on all other parties, by 27 January 2016
By providing for a round of supplemental submissions, the process will allow parties to supplement their initial filing based on QMI’s responses to the interrogatories. Parties’ supplemental submissions should not repeat submissions already made.
In its letter dated 19 October 2015, QMI submitted that certain interventions were filed late while others failed to comply with the rules for interventions set out in subsection 26(2) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules). In addition, QMI argued that OpenMedia’s intention to include the contents of a petition in its final comment would violate section 27 of the Rules applicable to reply submissions. QMI requested that the Commission confirm by letter to all parties that reply submissions that do not comply with section 27 of the Rules as well as late submissions will not be accepted on the record of this proceeding.
By letter dated 19 October 2015, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (collectively, the Consumer Groups) supported QMI’s submission. By letter dated 22 October 2015, the Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) disputed QMI’s assertions.
Section 26 of the Rules requires that an intervention to a Part 1 application state, among other things, the intervener’s position. Commission staff notes that interveners who file their submissions late could review other parties’ submissions prior to filing their own, and thus could gain an advantage in the process and possibly prejudice parties who comply with the submission deadline. In the circumstances of this proceeding, however, in which all parties are afforded the opportunity to file supplemental comments and replies Commission staff considers that acceptance of the late interventions would be appropriate and would not prejudice the rights of other parties to participate fully in the process.
Likewise, Commission staff considers that it would be appropriate to allow individuals who did not set out their position by the intervention date to participate in the remainder of this process. These interveners must, however, set out their positions in the supplemental round of comments.
Commission staff notes that the acceptance of the late submissions at this stage of the process does not mean that late submissions will be accepted at a later phase of this process. Late submissions in any proceeding are only accepted where it is appropriate in light of the particular circumstances. For example, the Commission rejected CIPPIC’s late submission in the process that led to Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-177.Footnote 2
Finally, Commission staff confirms that the restrictions with regard to the content of replies set out in section 27 of the Rules apply to replies to be filed in this proceeding.
Original signed by John Macri for
Strategic Planning & Research
c.c.: Adam Mills, CRTC, email@example.com
- Benjamin Klass, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Vaxination Informatique, email@example.com
- Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organization of British Columbia, and the Public Advocacy Centre, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Bell Canada email@example.com
- Bell Aliant, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Rogers, email@example.com
- TELUS firstname.lastname@example.org
- SaskTel, email@example.com
- MTS Allstream, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Eastlink, email@example.com
- Tbaytel, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Independent Telephone Providers Association, email@example.com
- Vidéotron, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Globalive Wireless Management Corp., email@example.com
- Data & Audio Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
- Canadian Network Operators Consortium, email@example.com
- Canadian Cable Systems Alliance, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cogeco Cable, email@example.com
- Shaw Cable, Regulatory@sjrb.ca
- Fenwick McKelvey, Concordia University, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Steven James May, Ryerson University, email@example.com
- Samuelson‐Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
- David Ellis, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Teresa Murphy, email@example.com
- Marc Nanni, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Footnote 1
On 1 September 2015, the Commission received an application from the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre claiming that Vidéotron’s billing practices in respect of its Unlimited Music service are in violation of the Telecommunications Act. On 4 September 2015, the Commission received a Part 1 application from Vaxination Informatique also making similar allegations regarding Vidéotron’s billing practices in respect of its Unlimited Music service. By letter dated 28 September 2015, the Commission stated that it would consider these applications in a single proceeding and set out the remaining phases of the process at a later date.
- Footnote 2
Regulatory framework for wholesale mobile wireless services, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-177, 5 May 2015.
- Date modified: