ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Distribution List

Ottawa, 30 May 2017

Our reference: 8663-C182-201702598

BY EMAIL

Distribution

RE: Application by Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC) for transitional aggregated wholesale high-speed access (HSA) services over incumbent fibre-to-the-premises facilities ‒ Requests related to submission of new evidence

Dear Madam, Sir:

On 30 March 2017, the Commission received a Part 1 application from CNOC in which it requested transitional access to wholesale HSA Services over incumbents’^Footnote1 fibre-to-the-premises access facilities on an aggregated basis. The Commission received interventions on 24 April 2017 and CNOC’s reply comments on 15 May 2017.

On 19 May 2017, the Commission received procedural requests from Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (RCCI) and Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) regarding CNOC’s reply comments. On 24 May 2017, the Commission also received a procedural request from TELUS Communications Company (TCC) regarding CNOC’s reply comments, as well as CNOC’s response to RCCI’s and Shaw’s respective procedural requests.

RCCI, Shaw, and TCC submitted that CNOC’s reply comments contained new evidence with respect to alleged wholesale high-speed access service gaps^Footnote2 that ought to have been included as part of the original application, in violation of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (SOR/2010-277).

TCC also submitted that Appendix C to CNOC’s response is an anonymous account of alleged harm from an online forum, rendering it impossible for respondents to cross-examine the poster or verify the validity of the content. TCC requested that the alleged new evidence, including Appendix C, be struck from the record.

Shaw submitted that the new evidence does not contribute to a better understanding of the issue and requested, therefore, that it be expunged from the record of the proceeding. Alternatively, it requested that the Commission provide parties 30 days to respond to the new evidence.

RCCI requested that the Commission allow for an additional round of comments in response to CNOC’s reply comments, or that it expunge those reply comments from the record of the proceeding.

CNOC submitted that its reply comments and associated appendices included detailed examples of market conditions, in response to certain interveners’ claims that the market conditions it had cited to justify the relief it sought did not exist. CNOC argued, therefore, that it would be unfair to strike this additional evidence from the record of the proceeding.

CNOC also submitted that it did not object to an additional round of comments and reply, but noted that Shaw’s proposed 30-day intervention period was excessive and unjustified. Instead, CNOC proposed an additional round of comments lasting 15 days from the day the Commission issues its determinations on RCCI’s and Shaw’s procedural requests, with 7 days for CNOC to provide reply comments.

In Commission staff’s view, the evidence CNOC supplied in Appendices B and C to its reply comments constitutes new evidence that should have been submitted with its application. However, staff considers that this evidence, together with parties’ views on it, is likely to contribute to a better understanding of the issues in this proceeding and will assist the Commission in making its determinations.

With respect to the concerns raised by TCC about the information submitted in Appendix C, the Commission will consider what weight, if any, should be ascribed to the statements set out in that document when making its determinations. This assessment will be done having regard to the full evidentiary record, including the arguments raised by TCC in its 24 May 2017 letter.

In light of the above, parties may file comments on the new evidence by 13 June 2017, serving a copy on CNOC. Parties are to limit their comments to information contained in Appendices B and C and the statements set out in CNOC’s reply comments referencing this information. CNOC may file a reply to these interventions by 20 June 2017.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Kay Saicheua
Director, Competition and Emergency Services Policy
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Jeremy Lendvay, CRTC, 819-997-4946, jeremy.lendvay@crtc.gc.ca
Eric Macfarlane, CRTC, 819-997-4389, eric.macfarlane@crtc.gc.ca

Distribution list for Telecom Decision 2016-379:  nels2510@telus.net; robin.winsor@cybera.ca; steve@openmedia.ca; reza.rajabiun@ryerson.ca; darrellkrahn@shaw.ca; chall2k5@gmail.com; heather.b.gold@ftthcouncil.org; ron.murch@haskayne.ucalgary.ca; regulatory@fibernetics.ca ; jeff_mcnamee@sympatico.ca ; cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca ; regulatory@ssimicro.com ; regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca ; regulatory@mts.ca ; regulatory@zayo.com ; rs@summer.com ; corinne.pohlmann@cfib.ca ; john.pecman@cb-bc.gc.ca ; jpanter@auroracollege.nt.ca ; slambertracine@uniondesconsommateurs.ca ; george.burger@vmedia.ca ; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com ; jlawford@piac.ca ; jonathan.holmes@itpa.ca ; MaryAnne.Bendfeld@calgary.ca ; blackwell@giganomics.ca ; jfmezei@vaxination.ca ; derek.leschinsky@bc-cb.gc.ca ;  Monique.Moreau@cfib.ca ; regulatory@bell.aliant.ca ; document.control@sasktel.com ; regulatory.affairs@telus.com ; dennis.beland@quebecor.com ; david.watt@rci.rogers.com ; regulatory@sjrb.ca ; ctacit@tacitlaw.com ; regulatory@distributel.ca ; regulatory@primustel.ca ; regulatory@bcba.ca ; telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com ; bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; regulatory@teksavvy.com ; regaffairs@quebecor.com ; steve.sorochan@gov.yk.ca ; dmckeown@viewcom.ca ; Nathan.jarrett@rci.rogers.com

Date modified:

2017-05-30