Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to Samer Bishay (Ice Wireless) and David Watt (Rogers Communications 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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Ottawa, February 16, 2016

Our reference:  8620-J106-201601633

BY EMAIL

Mr. Samer Bishay
President & CEO
Ice Wireless
675 Cochrane Drive, 6th floor, East Tower
Markham, Ontario L3R 0B8
regulatory@icewireless.ca

Mr. David Watt
Senior Vice President – Regulatory
Rogers Communications Inc.
333 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4W 1G9
david.watt@rci.rogers.com

RE:  Part 1 application by Ice Wireless Inc. relating to Rogers Communication Partnership’s attempt to disconnect Ice Wireless Inc. and the proper interpretation of Telecom Regulation Policy CRTC 2015-177 – Process letter

Dear Sirs:

The Commission is in receipt of a Part 1 Application filed by Ice Wireless Inc. (Ice Wireless) on 15 February 2016 in which Ice Wireless states that the effect of Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-177 (TRP 2015-177), and in particular paragraph 167 thereof, is to allow its affiliate Sugar Mobile to leverage the Roaming Agreement between Ice Wireless and Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) and roam onto Rogers’ network. Ice Wireless submitted that Rogers has taken the opposite view and has informed Ice Wireless that Sugar Mobile’s roaming on its network constitutes a violation of several provisions of the Roaming Agreement and that the agreement would be terminated as of 23 February 2016.

In its Application, Ice Wireless requests, among other things, that the Commission grant interim relief on an expedited basis by:

  1. Preventing Rogers from disconnecting either Ice Wireless or Sugar Mobile from its mobile network pending the Commission’s ruling on the final relief requested by Ice Wireless;
  2. Abridging the times under the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure)  for the filing and service of an answer and reply with respect to the interim relief sought;
  3. Requesting that, if the Commission were to decline Ice Wireless’ interim relief, Ice Wireless be provided with
    1. A period of ninety days following the Commission’s decision to cease Sugar Mobile’s roaming activities on Rogers’ network; and
    2. An order requiring Rogers to maintain the Roaming Agreement in full force and effect, subject to any modifications stemming from TRP 2015-177 and subsequent proceedings determined by the Commission.

Commission staff considers that in the circumstances an expedited process for the interim relief requested is appropriate. Accordingly, Rogers and any interested party are to file their answer to the application for interim relief, serving a copy on Ice Wireless, no later than 18 February 2016. Reply comments from Ice Wireless may be filed by no later than 22 February 2016. Documents are to be received, and not merely sent, by these dates. It is noted that these dates are essentially in accord with the revised dates that the Public Interest Advocacy Centre requested, in its letter of 16 February 2016.

In order for the Commission to properly assess Ice Wireless’ request for interim relief, Commission staff requests that Rogers maintain its Roaming Agreement with Ice Wireless in effect until the Commission rules on the interim relief requested, and confirm in its answer that it will do so.

With respect to Ice Wireless’ request for final relief, deadlines as set out in the Rules of Procedure for a Part I application will apply. As such, any interested party will have until 17 March 2016 to file its intervention and Ice Wireless will have until 29 March to file its reply comments.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Kay Saicheua
Director, Competition and Emergency Service Policy
Telecommunications sector

c.c.:  Christian Tacit, ctacit@tacitlaw.com
Geoffrey White, gwhite@piac.ca
Kim Wardle, kim.wardle@crtc.gc.ca
Josiane Lord, josiane.lord@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified: