ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada)

This page has been archived on the Web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, 8 February 2019

Our reference: 1011-NOC2018-0214 1011-NOC2010-0214


Philippe Gauvin
Assistant General Counsel
Bell Canada
Floor 19, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON K2P 2C4  

Re:   Review of the price cap and local forbearance regimes, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2018-214Foot Note1 – Requests for information

Dear Mr. Gauvin

Attached are requests for information from the Commission.
Responses to these requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by 15 February 2019. The responses must be received, not merely sent, by that date.

Original signed by

John Macri
Director, Policy Framework
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: Christine Brock, CRTC, (873) 353-5852,
attach (1)


Requests for information addressed to Bell Canada et al: Foot Note2

  1. Assume that the Commission allows technological flexibility in the provision of stand-alone primary exchange service in regulated exchanges similar to the flexibility permitted in forborne exchanges. Explain, with supporting rationale, whether the customer or the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) would have the choice in deciding which technology to use in any exchange.
  2. At paragraph 123 of Bell Canada et al.’s intervention, the companies submitted that the Commission should modify the local forbearance competitor presence test for business local exchange services. Bell Canada et al. proposed that the test should be modified to grant local forbearance if, in addition to the ILEC, there is at least one independent facilities-based telecommunications service provider, whether wireline or wireless service provider.
    In Telecom Decision 2005-35,Foot Note3 the Commission set out the list of services that were to be included in the scope of forbearance from the regulation of local exchange wireline services. For each wireline business service listed in Telecom Decision 2005-35 other than single and multi-line business exchange services, justify why the service should still be considered within the scope of forbearance if the competitor presence test were to be met with only an independent wireless service provider.
Date modified: