Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to Distribution List
Ottawa, 22 November 2016
Our reference: 1011-NOC2016-0192
To: Distribution List
Re: Telecom Notice of Consultation 2016-192 – Examination of differential pricing practices related to Internet data plans (the Notice) – Requests for increase to page limit and additional time for final submissions
Dear Madam, Sir:
On 3 November 2016, at the oral phase of the proceeding initiated by the aforementioned Notice, TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TekSavvy) undertook to provide the Commission with a draft Net Neutrality Code (Code) reflecting the principles set out in its written and oral submissions. On 14 November 2016, TekSavvy filed its proposed Net Neutrality Code with the Commission.
On 17 November 2016, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) submitted a procedural request seeking an increase to the 15-page limit for final submissions set out in the Notice. TCC requested that all parties other than TekSavvy be given a right of reply to TekSavvy’s proposal in the form of an allowed additional filing, of no more than five pages in length, to be filed concurrently with their final submissions due on 23 November 2016. In TCC’s view, parties responding to TekSavvy’s proposal should be given a proportional opportunity to respond to the issues without having to dedicate a portion of their final submissions to the proposal.
On 18 November 2016, comments in support of a revised process were received from the Equitable Internet Coalition (Coalition) and Vaxination Informatique (Vaxination). The Coalition considered that parties have not had a chance in the written and public hearing phases of this proceeding to comment on TekSavvy’s proposal. The Coalition therefore argued that it would be unfair to require parties to use their allotment of 15 pages to address whether TekSavvy’s proposal would be an effective approach to the issues in this proceeding. Vaxination considered that all parties have had opportunities to propose similar regulatory frameworks in the course of the proceeding. It nonetheless argued that, should TCC’s request be approved, all parties should be given an opportunity to respond to any concrete proposals submitted. Vaxination therefore requested that the deadline for final submissions be extended to 10 days following receipt of these proposals, with the corresponding page limit increased to 20 pages.
In a letter also received on 18 November 2016, TekSavvy stated that it did not object to the proposals of either TCC or Vaxination. It further noted an intention to submit a revised Net Neutrality Code as an integral part of its up-to-15-page final submission as a result of suggestions it has received from other parties seeking to work collaboratively with TekSavvy.
Having carefully reviewed the submissions by TCC, the Coalition, Vaxination, and TekSavvy, the Commission has concluded that the existing process affords all parties a meaningful opportunity to participate in this proceeding. Parties have had the opportunity to file two rounds of interventions and to appear at the oral phase of the hearing, and they can file final submissions by 23 November 2016.
During the course of the oral phase of the hearing, panel members asked a number of parties, including TekSavvy, to undertake to expand on their responses provided to a question at the hearing or to a particular aspect of their submissions, or to file specific data. The Code submitted by TekSavvy in response to a request by a panel member generally reflects the submissions made by TekSavvy in its written and oral submissions.
The Commission considers that the 15-page limit on final submissions is appropriate and is sufficient to allow parties to respond fully to any matter raised on the record of this proceeding, including any new matter that may have been raised at the oral phase of the hearing and in the undertakings filed by parties on 14 November 2016. In particular, with respect to the requests made by TCC and Vaxination, the Commission does not consider that parties require additional time or the ability to file an additional five pages to respond to TekSavvy’s undertaking.
The Commission therefore denies the requests in question.
Original signed by
Andrew Falcone, Andrew.Falcone@crtc.gc.ca;
Suneil Kanjeekal, Suneil.Kanjeekal@crtc.gc.ca;
Josiane Lord, firstname.lastname@example.org;
Eric Macfarlane, Eric.Macfarlane@crtc.gc.ca;
Regulatory.email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; DBINGLEY@COBROADCASTING.COM; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Jennifer.Simpson@telus.com; Stephen.Schmidt@TELUS.COM; Daniel.Stern@telus.com; Eric.Edora@TELUS.COM;firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
- Date modified: