ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to David Marshall (Duxbury Law Professional Corporation) and Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 31 August 2016
Our reference: 8690-C210-201409219
BY EMAIL
Mr. David Marshall
Solicitor
Duxbury Law Professional Corporation
500 – 1 King Street West
Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1A4
david@duxburylaw.ca
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Bell Canada
Senior Counsel – Regulatory Law and Policy
Floor 19, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
philippe.gauvin@bell.ca
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
RE: An application made on behalf of the City of Hamilton with respect to the establishment of a Municipal Access Agreement between the City and Bell Canada and associated matters – Request for clarification from the Commission
Dear Sirs,
On 13 May 2016, Bell Canada requested clarification from Commission staff concerning the application of clause 13(b) of the municipal access agreement (the MAA) between the City of Hamilton (the City) and Bell Canada that came out of Telecom Decision 2016-51. Submissions were received from the City and Bell Canada.
On 21 July 2016, after considering the submissions of the City and Bell Canada, Commission staff issued a clarification that clause 13(b) of the MAA between Bell Canada and the City, as worded in Telecom Decision 2016-51, does not require Bell Canada to provide vertical coordinates of underground facilities to the City.
On 16 August 2016, the City requested that the Commission make a ruling on clause 13(b), and suggested timelines for parties to file submissions with the Commission.
Given that there is an existing record and that parties have had a full opportunity to make meaningful submissions, the Commission will rule on the matter based on the existing record. Accordingly, there will be no further process.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
- Date modified: