Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to various parties
Ottawa, 5 November 2024
Reference(s): 8622-E25-202300979, Telecom Decision 2024-42, 8622-E25-202405638
BY EMAIL
Ian Stevens, CEO
Execulink Telecom Inc.
1127 Ridgeway Road
Woodstock, ON N4V 1E3
ian.stevens@execulinktelecom.ca
Nathan Third, Project Manager
Escalade Property Corp.
P.O. Box 37, Station Lambeth
London, ON N6P 1P9
thirdnathan@escaladepc.com
Jonathan Leahy, President
JLC Homes Ltd.
28 Farmington Terrace
London, ON N6K 3N4
jlchomesltd@yahoo.ca
Subject: Part 1 Application by Execulink Telecom Inc. requesting non-discriminatory and timely access on reasonable terms and conditions to MDUs owned by JLC Homes Ltd. - Telecom Decision 2024-42
Dear Ian Stevens, Nathan Third, and Jonathan Leahy,
In Telecom Decision 2024-42 (issued 28 February 2024), the Commission determined that JLC Homes Ltd. (JLC) was denying to Execulink Telecom Inc. (Execulink) timely access under reasonable terms and conditions to three MDUs in Tillsonburg, Ontario, so that Execulink may install its telecommunications equipment and provide service to the MDUs’ unit owners. In that decision, the Commission determined that unless Execulink was permitted access to the three MDUs under reasonable terms and conditions, the Commission would enforce the MDU access condition pursuant to section 24 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), as follows:
- Effective 30 days from the date of the decision, neither Bell, Rogers, nor any other LECs or carrier ISPs would be permitted to provide services to any new resident of the MDUs and would not be permitted to provide services to a current resident that is not an existing customer of Bell or Rogers, or any other LEC or carrier ISP present in the MDUs, as applicable.
- Effective 45 days from the date of this decision, neither Bell, Rogers, nor any other LECs or carrier ISPs will be permitted to modify or upgrade the services being provided to a current resident.
- Effective 60 days from the date of this decision, the Commission will explore all regulatory options available to it, including issuing an order under section 42 of the Act and issuing a decision which could result in all LECs and carrier ISPs present in the MDUs not being permitted to provide any services to the residents.
By letter dated 28 June 2024, Execulink informed the Commission that it had signed an agreement with Escalade Property Corp. (Escalade) for access to the MDUs; consequently, all service restrictions that were effect at that time were automatically lifted.
Then, by letter dated 18 October 2024, Execulink informed the Commission that Escalade had terminated the access agreement. Execulink requested the Commission to immediately reinstate the service restrictions imposed in TD 2024-42.
Execulink’s request is being considered by the Commission as a new Part 1 application (File number 8622-E25-202405638). The request has been posted to the CRTC website, classified as the Application. The Commission will consider the relief requested by Execulink including the potential use of section 42 of the Act—to ensure that Execulink is provided access to the MDUs in a way that is consistent with Telecom Decision 2003-45.
Staff acknowledges receipt of Escalade’s letter dated 25 October 2024, filed in response to Execulink’s submission. Escalade’s letter has been added to the public record of this new Part 1 proceeding classified as an Answer.
Escalade, JLC Homes, and any interested persons will have until 5 December 2024 to file comments regarding Execulink’s request. Execulink will then have until 16 December 2024 to file reply comments.
Parties and interested persons are reminded that their responses are required to be submitted electronically, and in full compliance with the applicable provisions of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure. Your responses will become part of the public record and will be posted on the CRTC website. Section 39 of the Act and Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961 provides that persons may designate certain information submitted to the Commission as confidential. A detailed explanation of why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest must be provided, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. If you file a document containing confidential information, an abridged version of the document omitting only the confidential information must also be filed with the Commission; alternatively, reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed must be provided. Only the abridged version of the document will become part of the public record and will be posted on the CRTC website.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director of Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.:
Rudy Rab, CRTC, rudy.rab@crtc.gc.ca
Chris Copeland, Tacit Law, cjpcopeland@tacitlaw.com
Tanya Merritt, Execulink Telecom Inc., tanya.merritt@execulinktelecom.ca
Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca;
Rogers Communications Canada Inc., regulatory@rci.rogers.com
- Date modified: