Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Natalie MacDonald (Eastlink)

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.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, 11 February 2016

Our reference: 8662-B2-201512161

BY EMAIL

Mrs. Natalie MacDonald
Vice President, Regulatory Matter
Eastlink
Suite 801
6080 Young Street
Halifax, NS  B3K 5M3
Regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca

Re:  Bell Canada – Certain comments submitted by Bragg Communications Inc. with respect to Bell Canada’s Part 1 Application to review and vary certain determinations in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2015-326 (8662-B2-201512161)

Dear Madam:

On 4 December 2015, the Commission received an intervention from Bragg Communications Inc. (Eastlink), in which the company provided its reply comments with respect to Bell Canada’s (Bell) Part 1 Application to review and vary certain determinations in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-326, Review of wholesale wireline services and associated policies (TRP 2015-326).

In the intervention, Eastlink submitted that it disagreed with Bell’s alleged errors in fact and law, and accompanying policy proposals. However, it also raised separate issues in submitting that the manner in which the Commission proposed to implement disaggregated wholesale High-speed Access (HSA) – referred to by Bell as Disaggregated Broadband Service (DBS) – created substantial doubt as to the correctness of TRP 2015-326 for reasons distinct from those submitted by Bell.

More specifically, Eastlink submitted that the failure to set out a clear directive to transition competitors from aggregated wholesale HSA to disaggregated wholesale HSA perpetuates a wholesale regulatory regime of ongoing regulation over non-essential services.

Eastlink also submitted that it was concerned with the likelihood that, in its serving territory, competitors would rely on aggregated wholesale HSA services indefinitely because competitors are unlikely to request disaggregated wholesale HSA. Eastlink contended that such a scenario would result in it having to provide speed-matching to competitors over very high speeds with aggregated HSA service in perpetuity over coaxial cable, while Bell would not be required to provide any higher speed services because of the ubiquity of its fibre to the premises (FTTP) facilities.

For the reasons cited above, Eastlink submitted that TRP 2015-326 is noncompliant with the Policy Direction because it created a regulatory regime that did not meet the objective of efficient regulation, was asymmetrical, and did not account for regional differences.

Eastlink further submitted that in order to address these errors the Commission should reject Bell’s requested relief and instead:

  1. Establish a definitive timeframe for carriers in all regions to implement disaggregated wholesale HSA;
  2. Establish a definitive timeframe for all competitors to transition to disaggregated wholesale HSA; and
  3. Grandfather the existing higher speed aggregated wholesale HSA services incumbents provide to competitors and remove the speed matching obligation for cable carriers in regions where competitors do not have access to incumbent FTTP facilities due to the absence of disaggregated HSA services.

Commission staff considers that these specific parts of Eastlink’s intervention raise a new error in the decision not raised by Bell’s application, as well as new and distinct solutions to that error. As such, it constitutes a separate review and vary of the decision. However, as it was filed as an intervention, not all parties have had the opportunity to comments on these issues.

In light of the above, Commission staff considers these specific parts of Eastlink’s intervention to be out of scope of the current proceeding and wishes to advise that they will not be considered.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Kay Saicheua
Director, Competition & Emergency Services Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:Eric Macfarlane, CRTC, 819-997-4389, eric.macfarlane@crtc.gc.ca
Kim Wardle, CRTC, 819-997-4945, kim.wardle@crtc.gc.ca

Distribution list – Participants to proceeding leading to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2015-326:

Date modified: