CRTC doesn’t need disconnection heads up, interveners say

New regulations that would require telecom companies to tell the CRTC if they’re going to disconnect another company from their network are unnecessary, according to the majority of interveners who submitted feedback to the CRTC’s call for comments on disconnection practices. Most contracts between carriers or between carriers and resellers already have a notification period built in, eliminating the need for further oversight by the CRTC, said many of those who filed comments before the Sept. 19 deadline. The commission launched the consultation as a result of a January dispute that left 27,000 telephone customers without service. The CRTC asked for comment on whether there should be a minimum time frame for giving notice of intent to disconnect, if the CRTC needs to be informed of this notice, and whether there should be other measures introduced, such as notice to customers about pending disconnection. It also asked which telecom services the new measures should apply to, citing landlines, wireless and Internet services as possibilities. “In this market environment, a dispute between providers that impacts Canadians is very rare,” Shaw Communications Inc. said in its intervention, adding that it didn’t appear establishing “new regulatory measures at this time would be efficient or proportionate.” Market forces are enough to ensure that appropriate notice is given between providers, said BCE Inc. The CRTC also doesn’t need to be made aware whenever a disconnection notice of intent is given, since they don’t always result in actual disconnection, the company added. “In the vast majority of cases, disconnection notices do not result in the disconnection of a TSP’s services, but serve to, for example, catalyze the correction of a past-due account back into good standing,” Bell said. “It would be entirely inappropriate for the Commission's resources to be engaged in these cases. “ Last week, the CRTC issued a notice that Téliphone Navigata Westel Communications Inc. customers might be disconnected in November, due to a dispute with Telus Corp. Making note of if its own ongoing dispute with Iristel Inc.-subsidiary Ice Wireless’ mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), Sugar Mobile, Rogers Communications Inc. said notifying the CRTC of intent to disconnect, though not a requirement, is already “standard practice in these sort of infrequent disputes.” For its part, Iristel said it is in favour of advising the CRTC when notices of intention to disconnect are issued. It also said that establishing a “default 30 day notice period” for disconnection “strikes the most appropriate balance between consumer and commercial interests.” Distributel Communications Ltd. and Telus also said they weren’t opposed to a 30-day notification time frame, though both noted there should be exceptions and that providers can cut off service earlier. Telus also suggested a 14-day period for the disconnection of retail Internet service. “For example, to protect from network harm, reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity, or a required by order of competent public authority,” Distributel noted. If notification timelines are “implemented in a fashion which allows both TSP Resellers and end-customers to make alternative service arrangements,” telling the CRTC “may not be necessary,” Telus said. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) endorsed applying the same rules in the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services’ (CCTS) Deposit and Disconnection Code that apply to residential primary exchange services to all telecom services. “While the requirement to notify of disconnection may be complicated by wholesale disputes and obligations, PIAC believes the Commission through this proceeding can establish a set of wholesale disconnection rules which would allow TSPs to fulfill their D&D Code obligations,” PIAC said. “Therefore, the D&D Code disconnection notification rules would be triggered when there is a threat of disconnection between service providers on the wholesale level.” — With reporting by Charelle Evelyn at cevelyn@thewirereport.ca and editing by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca

CRTC doesn’t need disconnection heads up, interveners say

News | 09/26/2016 7:09 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