ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Natalie MacDonald (Eastlink) and Samer Bishay (Iristel Inc.)

Ottawa, 27 September 2016

Our references: 8663-J64-201610121

BY EMAIL

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

Mr. Samer Bishay
President and CEO, Iristel Inc.
675 Cochrane Drive, 6th Floor, East Tower
Markham, Ontario  L3R 0B8
regulatory@iristel.ca

Re: Iristel Inc. request for implementation of local competition in Aylmer, Ontario

Dear Madame, Sir,

On 9 September 2016, Iristel Inc. (Iristel) filed a letter with the Commission regarding a request for the implementation of local competition in Aylmer, Ontario, a territory served by Amtelecom Telco GP Inc., a business unit of Bragg Communications Inc. carrying on business as “Eastlink”.

In its letter, Iristel indicated that on 9 December 2015, it made a request for implementation of local competition in Aylmer, Ontario.  Iristel claims that on 16 February 2016, Eastlink replied to Iristel’s request as follows:

“Eastlink has investigated Iristel’s request and we do not consider the request to be bona fide, as required under Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-14 Revised regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers (the “Decision”). Eastlink submits that we have several reasons for our determination that the request is not bona fide, including, but not limited to, the fact that Iristel does not have any transmission infrastructure in Aylmer (or anywhere else as far as we understand) and does not plan to establish any such infrastructure, indicating that it does not actually plan to serve the exchange as a facilities- based CLEC.”

According to Iristel, Eastlink further submitted that “the circumstances to [sic] not require Eastlink to implement competition”, despite the fact that Iristel advised Eastlink that Iristel will have transmission infrastructure in Aylmer, and has every intention of serving the exchange as a facilities-based CLEC via shared cost transport facilities.

The purpose of this letter is to allow Commission staff to gain a better understanding of Eastlink’s position in this matter.
Accordingly, Eastlink is requested to provide a response to the following questions:

1. Provide a detailed justification as to why Eastlink believes, as indicated in its 16 February 2016 reply to Iristel, that it should not be required to implement local completion in the exchange of Aylmer, Ontario.
2. How does the answer to question 1 above align with the various determinations and requirements established in Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-14 Revised regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers, including, but not limited to, the requirement for an incumbent to file with the Commission an implementation plan within 30 days of receiving a formal signed expression of interest from a competitor requesting to use competitor services within an incumbent’s territory?
3. Iristel submitted that on 16 February 2016, Eastlink indicated that it had several reasons to determine that Iristel’s request to implement local completion in the exchange of Aylmer, Ontario is not bona fide. Provide detailed explanations of all those reasons upon which Eastlink determined that Iristel’s request is not bona fide.

Eastlink is to file its responses to the above questions by 4 October 2016.

Iristel may file comments to Eastlink’s response by 12 October 2016.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Danny Moreau, CRTC, 819-953-5672, danny.moreau@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified:

2016-09-27