Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Distribution List
Ottawa, 24 July 2019
Our references: 8740-E17-201900134 (TN 40), 1011-NOC2018-0459 (NOC)
RE: Eastlink Tariff Notice (TN) 40 and Telecom Notice of Consultation (NOC) 2018-459
Dear Madam, Sir:
In Telecom Decision 2018-458Footnote1 , the Commission directed Bragg Communications Incorporated, carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink) to file for approval revised Tariff pages that include a specific term permitting customers to resell High Speed Access (HSA) service on a wholesale basis and remove any terms that limit the services an HSA customer can offer to retail Internet and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services.
Subsequently, in Telecom Notice of Consultation 2018-459Footnote2 , the Commission also initiated a proceeding in which Cogeco Communications Inc. (Cogeco), Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers), Shaw Cablesystems G.P (Shaw), and Videotron Ltd. (Videotron) were directed to show cause why the determinations made in paragraph 47 of Telecom Decision 2018-458 should not apply to them, since they also have similar terms relating to resale and the restriction on service offerings in their respective HSA tariffs.
Eastlink’s TN 40 Application (TN 40)
In response to Decision 2018-458, Eastlink filed with the Commission TN 40 on 10 January 2019. On 7 February 2019, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), and on 11 February 2019, City Wide Communications Inc. (Citywide), Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (CNOC), Frontier Networks Inc. (Frontier), collectively the ‘intervenors’ in the TN 40 proceeding, filed interventions to Eastlink’s TN 40 application. Eastlink filed its reply to the interveners’ comments on 21 February 2019.
On 27 February 2019, Frontier filed a procedural request with the Commission requesting that certain new evidence filed by Eastlink, in its reply comments, be expunged from the record of TN 40 proceeding or, in the alternative, that Eastlink be required to disclose to the public record certain portions of this new evidence that was filed in confidence and that interveners be granted ten days to comment on Eastlink’s new evidence.
On 28 February 2019, Eastlink filed its response to Frontier’s procedural request.
NOC 2018-459 (NOC)
On 28 January 2019, Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron filed their respective comments on the issues raised by the Commission in NOC 2018-459. On 12 February, CNOC, Distributel Communications Limited (Distributel) and Rothschild & Co. (Rothschild), collectively the ‘intervenors’ in the NOC proceeding, submitted interventions to the above cable companies’ submissions. On 22 February, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron submitted reply comments to the interveners’ submissions.
Commission staff notes that parties to the NOC have made references to comments filed in TN 40 and that both proceedings deal with similar issues. Commission staff considers that it would be more efficient for parties to both the TN 40 and the NOC if the proceedings were examined together. Further, merging and processing these two proceedings together would allow the Commission to determine the terms and conditions for the HSA services in a consistent manner across the incumbent cable carriers.
Based on the above, the Commission staff sets out the following further process with regard to the TN 40 and NOC proceedings:
- The parties to the TN 40 proceeding (Eastlink as well as the interveners) may file comments on the submissions made by the cable carriers as well as the interveners in the NOC proceeding, by 14 August 2019
- The parties to the NOC proceeding (Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron as well as the interveners) may file comments on the submissions made by Eastlink as well as the interveners in the TN 40 proceeding, by 14 August 2019
- The parties to each of the above proceedings, as appropriate, may file reply comments by 28 August 2019
In regards to Frontier’s request for disclosure of confidential information filed by Eastlink in TN 40, Commission staff notes that requests for disclosure of information designated as confidential are addressed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and sections 30 and following of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure). In evaluating a request, an assessment is made as to whether the information falls into a category of information that can be designated confidential pursuant to section 39 of the Act. An assessment is then made as to whether there is any specific direct harm likely to result from the disclosure of the information in question and whether any such harm outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In making this evaluation, a number of factors are taken into consideration, including whether information could be reasonably aggregated and the competitive sensitivity of the information itself. The factors considered are discussed in more detail in Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, 23 December 2010, as amended by Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961-1, 26 October 2012.
Eastlink is required to refile the company’s reply to the interveners’ comments, originally filed on 21 February 2019, as given in the attachment, by 31 July 2019.
Staff also notes that where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date with the Commission, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date. Copies of the documents should also be sent to William.Lloyd@crtc.gc.ca
Original signed by
Director, Competitor Services & Costing Implementation
c.c.: Bill Lloyd, William.Lloyd@crtc.gc.ca
Trichur Krishnan, Trichur.Krishnan@crtc.gc.ca
Regulatory Affairs, Cogeco Communications, firstname.lastname@example.org
Regulatory, Eastlink, email@example.com
Regulatory Telecom, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Regulatory Affairs, Shaw Cablesystems G.P., Regulatory@sjrb.ca
Regulatory Affairs, Quebecor Media Inc. (Videotron), email@example.com
CNOC Regulatory, Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, email@example.com
City Wide Communications, firstname.lastname@example.org
Frontier Networks Inc., email@example.com
Regulatory Affairs, Distributel Communications Limited, firstname.lastname@example.org
Rothschild & Co. Limited, email@example.com
Christopher Copeland, firstname.lastname@example.org
Information to be disclosed and to be kept confidential by Eastlink
Eastlink is required to release the following confidential information, contained in the company’s ‘Eastlink TN 40 – Reply to Interventions’ document (the document), filed with the Commission on 21 February 2019, on the public record.
- Release the confidential information in its entirety filed by Eastlink at paragraph 9 of the document on the public record.
- Release all information provided in confidence on the public record, at paragraph 11 of the document, except the names of the two entities identified therein.
- Keep confidential the four instances that show customers’ names, in the fourth and fifth sentences (lines 8 to 11) of paragraph 16 of the document; release the remaining text on the public record.
- Keep the fifth sentence (line 8) of paragraph 17 of the document, beginning from the customer’s name to the end of that sentence, confidential; release the remaining text of the fifth, sixth and seventh sentences (lines 8 to 12) on the public record.
- Date modified: