Competitors balk at ILECs’ request for stay in wholesale orders implementation

A number of competitive providers state that it doesn't matter that ADSL and Ethernet services will be considered under the wholesale services proceeding (Telecom Public Notice 2006-14), the incumbent telephone companies should still be required to comply with the rules as set out by the CRTC on January 25. The comments come as ILECs battle against having to comply with a number of tariff orders they say run counter to the Policy Direction. Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, SaskTel and Telus argue that the tariff orders should be stayed until the CRTC reworks its wholesale services regime. The Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), whose members benefit the most from the orders, notes in a May 4 submission that PN 2006-14 wasn't initiated to deal with specific tariff applications, but instead the larger framework of wholesale and essential services. The Internet providers association also points out that the proceedings that led to the orders were already closed prior to the Policy Direction coming into force, so the orders can't fall within the purview of the government edict. "While CAIP agrees that the services that are the subject of the are certainly within the scope of the proceeding initiated by PN 2006-14 (as acknowledged by the commission in the orders), this does not turn the tariff notice proceedings upon which the orders are based into ‘matters' that are pending before the commission in the PN 2006-14 proceeding," writes CAIP. Cybersurf Corp. states that the commission was simply setting the terms and conditions of the ILECs' tariffs and not considering a change to the definition of an essential service - one of the key questions raised in PN 2006-14 - when it issued the orders. The orders "applied the existing wholesale services regime in determining the terms and conditions under which ILEC Ethernet and ADSL wholesale services should be applied," the company writes in its submission, noting that the CRTC is entitled to do this under section 11(3) of the Telecommunications Act. Telus Corp. maintains in its comments that the Policy Direction dictates how the commission must regulate the telecommunications sector and the orders run counter to that government order. "While the Policy Direction signals that the commission should be considering the reduction or elimination of the mandated provision of non-essential wholesale services, the Ethernet Order defiantly proceeds in the opposite direction by adding to the list of mandated non-essential services that the ILECs must make available," writes Telus. The Vancouver-based ILEC concedes that the Policy Direction doesn't apply to these orders, but states the sprit of it should be taken into account. "Moreover, even if it is contended that the Policy Direction was not legally binding on the commission when it issued the Ethernet order, Telus submits that the Policy Direction constitutes a fundamental change in circumstances and establishes new principles which the commission should have taken into consideration before issuing the orders," says Telus. The company adds that the recent price cap decision specifically mentioned the Policy Direction as having an impact on its ruling.

Competitors balk at ILECs’ request for stay in wholesale orders implementation

News | 05/15/2007 2:25 pm EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us