Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to the Distribution List
Ottawa, 24 July 2018
Our reference: 8622-F40-201802372
Re: Part 1 application by Frontier Networks Inc. against Eastlink relating to the resale of Third Party Internet Access Service – Procedural Letter
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.
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
Director, Competitor Services and Costing Implementation
c.c.: Michael Holmes, CRTC, firstname.lastname@example.org
Bragg Communications Inc. (Eastlink), email@example.com
Frontier Networks Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Tacit Law, email@example.com
Bell Canada, firstname.lastname@example.org
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., email@example.com
Distributel Communications Limited, firstname.lastname@example.org
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, email@example.com
- Date modified: