ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed 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This page has been archived on the Web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.

Ottawa, 24 July 2018

Our reference: 8622-F40-201802372


Distribution List

Re:  Part 1 application by Frontier Networks Inc. against Eastlink relating to the resale of Third Party Internet Access Service – Procedural Letter

Dear Madam/Sir:

The Commission is in receipt of a letter dated 30 May 2018 from Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink). Eastlink requested permission, pursuant to sections 5 and 7 of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure), to file supplemental comments on the record of the above-noted proceeding.

Eastlink submitted that its supplemental comments concern events that occurred after Eastlink filed its initial comments on the record of the proceeding. Eastlink submitted that its supplemental comments related to new and recent activity in the market associated with an entity with whom Eastlink has no contractual relationship to provide Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) service. Eastlink argued that its supplemental comments illustrated the ongoing time, costs, resources and impact on the company caused by entities that do not have direct TPIA agreements with Eastlink. Eastlink argued that the information it provided supplemented the facts that Eastlink filed in its initial comments, and did not in any way alter the company’s substantive arguments. Eastlink submitted that its supplemental comments would likely contribute to a better understanding of the issues in the proceeding and might assist the Commission in making its determinations. Eastlink also argued that since Frontier Networks Inc. (Frontier) has no apparent responsibility for the actions of its customers, there is therefore no expectation or need for Frontier to respond to the information.

The Commission is also in receipt of a letter, dated 1 June 2018, from Frontier, objecting to Eastlink’s request. Frontier submitted that the supplemental comments from Eastlink are irrelevant to the current proceeding, which was initiated by Frontier. Frontier argued that Eastlink’s supplemental comments relate to a third-party’s alleged breach of Eastlink’s retail Internet service terms of use, whereas the current proceeding relates to Eastlink’s refusal to allow Frontier to engage in resale and sharing of Eastlink’s TPIA service. Frontier also submitted that Eastlink has not demonstrated that its request to dispense with or vary the rules of procedure for Part 1 Applications serves the public interest or fairness, as required under section 7 of the Rules of Procedure, since the facts and issues identified by Eastlink relate to a dispute outside the scope of the current proceeding. Frontier argued that since Eastlink itself acknowledged that the additional information does not alter Eastlink’s position in the proceeding and should not alter any arguments filed by Frontier, it therefore appears that Eastlink is of the view that the supplemental information is immaterial. Finally, Frontier argued that adding Eastlink’s supplemental comments to the record of the proceeding would unnecessarily prolong the proceeding, since procedural fairness would require further procedural steps to allow Frontier and the third party identified in Eastlink’s supplemental comments to file comments responding to Eastlink.

Under section 7 of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission has the discretion to vary the filing deadlines that apply to Part 1 applications if considerations of public interest or fairness permit. Commission staff agrees with Eastlink’s submission that its supplemental comments do not alter its substantive arguments in this proceeding. In Commission staff’s view, Eastlink’s supplemental comments do not provide a better understanding of the issues under consideration in this proceeding, which relate to the interpretation of Eastlink’s tariff for TPIA service. In the circumstances of this case, Commission staff considers that it is not in the public interest to vary the Rules of Procedure in order to add Eastlink’s supplemental comments to the record of the above-noted proceeding.


Original signed by

Lyne Renaud
Director, Competitor Services and Costing Implementation
Telecommunications sector
c.c.:  Michael Holmes, CRTC,

Distribution list:
Bragg Communications Inc. (Eastlink),
Frontier Networks Inc.,
Tacit Law,
Bell Canada,
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.,
Distributel Communications Limited,
Public Interest Advocacy Centre,

Date modified: