Telecom - Commission Letter adressed to Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada)

Ottawa, 23 December 2021

Our reference:  8663-M22-202107044


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

RE: Part 1 – Application to implement local competition in Maskatel’s territory in the exchange of Upton

Dear Phillippe Gauvin:

On 14 October 2021, the Commission received a Part 1 application from Groupe Maskatel Québec S.E.C. (Maskatel) for the implementation of local competition in Maskatel’s territory, in the exchange of Upton.

Paragraph 28(1)(a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may require parties to provide information or documents if necessary. Consequently, in order to continue the review of your application, please provide complete answers to the following questions, including justifications and any additional information, on the attached Request for Information by 19 January 2022.

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.

Please include each question in your reply letter. Your reply letter and all supporting documents are an integral part of your application. Please note that they must therefore be made available for review and will be added to the public record of the proceeding.

The Commission requires that your documents be submitted electronically by using the secure service “My CRTC Account” (Partner Log In or GCKey) and completing the “Broadcasting and Telecom Cover Page” or the “Broadcasting Cover Page” located on this web page. Information on submitting applications to the Commission can also be found on the web page “Filing Broadcasting and Canadian Program Certification documents with the CRTC: Privacy and Security”.

As set out in section 39 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961: Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, persons may designate certain information as confidential. A person designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation on why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Furthermore, a person designating information as confidential must either file an abridged version of the document, omitting only the information designated as confidential, or provide reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c. Julie Boisvert, CRTC, 819-953-2421,

Attachment (1)

Request for Information

  1. Staff considers additional information to be required to determine whether the time frame is reasonable. Consequently, please provide detailed information justifying the time frame of at least five months to implement local competition:
    1. List of main tasks to be performed;
    2. Which task must be completed before another task can be performed, and which tasks can be performed simultaneously?
    3. Who is the responsible party (i.e. Maskatel, Bell Canada, or third party) for the performance of each of the specified tasks?
    4. What is the estimated time to complete each of the specified tasks?
    5. Indicate the resources required to perform each of the specified tasks.
  2. In your correspondence, you mention a lack of resources. Please provide more information on this lack of resources and the potential impact on the implementation of your plan.
  3. In the letter dated 23 November 2021, Maskatel indicates that, three years ago, a five-month time frame to implement local competition in the exchanges of St-Éphrem and St-Victor was considered reasonable. Maskatel also indicates that the fact that a DMS-10 switch in St-Éphrem was equipped for portability prior to 2011 does not reduce the effort required to equip Upton.
    1. Why does the fact that a DMS-10 switch in St-Éphrem was equipped for portability prior to 2011 not reduce the effort required to equip Upton?
    2. Are the DMS-10 switches in St-Éphrem and Upton connected to the same DMS-100 switch?
      1. If not, is the Upton DMS-10 switch connected to a DMS-100 switch that supports local number portability?
    3. Do Maskatel DMS-10 switches have an SS7 connectionFootnote1 with switches that support local number portability (such as DMS-100 switches)?
    4. Given that some of the necessary changes (e.g., changes to its business support system and operations systems support [BSS/OSS]) should have already been made, why does Maskatel believe it is reasonable to require the same five-month time frame to implement local competition in the Upton exchange?
Date modified: