Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter adressed to the 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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Ottawa, 21 November 2016

Our reference:  1011-NOC2016-0333

BY EMAIL

Re: Disconnection practices between telecommunications service providers

On 18 August 2016, the Commission issued Disconnection practices between telecommunications service providers, Telecom Notice of Consultation2016-333, seeking comments on disconnection practices when a telecommunications service provider ceases providing services to another telecommunications service provider (TSP).

In order to assist the Commission in its analysis of this matter, the parties identified in the attachment to this letter are requested to respond to the following questions, providing context or rationale where appropriate:

  1. Provide, for the last 12 months, the number of notices of disconnection (excluding the notices of imminent disconnection, e.g. final 24-hour notice) that were issued to other TSPs that are a) Canadian carriers and b) resellers.
  2. Indicate how many of these notices of disconnection resulted in an actual
    a) suspension of service or b) termination of service.
  3. Indicate what services, if any, including access to emergency services (i.e., 9-1-1), continued to be available to end-users where there was or would have been
    a) suspension of service or b) termination of service.
  4. For question 3, if 9-1-1 service was not available to end-users where there was, or would have been, a suspension or termination of service, explain why not.

Responses to the above questions are to be filed with the Commission by 6 December 2016.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, 819-953-5255, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (1)

The Request for Information is addressed to the following parties:

Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Bragg Communications Inc., operating as Eastlink, regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc., cedwards@ccsa.cable.caFootnote 1
Canadian Independent Telephone Company Joint Task Force, jonathan.holmes@itpa.caFootnote 2
Distributel Communications Limited, regulatory@distributel.ca
Iristel Inc., regulatory@iristel.com
Québecor Media on behalf of Vidéotron, dennis.beland@quebecor.com
Rogers Communications Canada Inc., rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com
Shaw Cablesystems G.P., Regulatory@sjrb.ca
TBayTel, rob.olenick@tbaytel.com
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
TekSavvy Solutions Inc., regulatory@teksavvy.ca
Zayo Canada Inc., regulatory@zayo.com


Footnotes

Footnote 1

May submit aggregated answer for its members that may be affected by this proceeding.

Return to footnote 1

Footnotes

Footnote 2

May submit aggregated answer for its members.

Return to footnote 2

Date modified: