|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-4
|
|
Ottawa, 9 August 2002
|
|
Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding
|
|
Reference: 8661-C12-10/02; 8678-C12-11/01;
8638-C12-61/02 and
Bell Canada tariff notice 6621
|
|
In this Public Notice, the Commission responds to requests from
Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) for clarification of, and
certain procedural changes to, the follow-up proceedings initiated
in Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom
Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision
2002-34) in connection
with the competitor-Digital Network Access (CDNA) service.
|
|
The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to combine the
follow-up proceedings initiated in Decision 2002-34 with respect to
the CDNA service into one CDNA proceeding, comprised of a policy
portion and a tariff portion. In addition, the Commission make
determinations with respect to the process and the issues that will
be addressed in the CDNA proceeding.
|
|
The Commission finds that Call-Net's requests with respect to the
specific matters to be included in the proceeding constitute
requests to review and vary Decision 2002-34. The Commission further
finds that it is appropriate to review and vary Decision 2002-34 of
its own motion, in order to include these issues as part of the CDNA
proceeding.
|
|
The Commission further determines that Bell Canada tariff notice
6621 will be considered in the CDNA proceeding. The Commission
clarifies that the term "competitor" when used in relation
to the CDNA service refers to resellers and Canadian carriers.
|
|
Introduction
|
1. |
The Commission received requests dated 12 and 19 June 2002 from
Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) for clarification of, and
certain procedural changes to, the follow-up proceedings initiated
in Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom
Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision
2002-34) in connection
with the competitor-Digital Network Access (CDNA) service.
|
2. |
In Decision 2002-34, the Commission required Aliant Telecom Inc.
(Aliant Telecom), Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) and
Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) (collectively, the
Companies) and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) to develop a CDNA
service. The Commission found that competitors using Type A-5 loops
to provision Digital Network Access (DNA) service are at a
disadvantage relative to these incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).
The Commission also considered that introducing the CDNA service
would foster facilities-based competition.
|
3. |
In Decision 2002-34, the Commission described the ILECs' DNA
service as having four components: access, link, intra-exchange
channels and a channelizing feature. The Commission found that the
access and link components of the ILECs' DNA tariff should be
included in the CDNA service. The Commission stated that the access
component of the CDNA service is to provide a transmission facility
at DS-0, DS-1, DS-3, OC-3 and OC-12 transmission speeds from an
end-customer premise to a competitor's switch within the same ILEC
serving wire centre area or to the ILEC serving wire centre, in
which case it must terminate on the competitor's co-located
equipment. The Commission further stated that the link component of
the CDNA service is to allow for connection at transmission speeds
up to the OC-12 level. The Commission considered that the record of
the proceeding that led to Decision 2002-34 (the price cap
proceeding) was insufficient to determine whether the intra-exchange
component of the ILECs' DNA service and the access and link
components of that service, when used in circumstances other than
described above, should form part of the CDNA service. The
Commission stated it did not consider that the channelizing feature
should be included in a CDNA service.
|
4. |
The Commission directed each ILEC to issue an interim CDNA tariff
no later than 14 June 2002. The Commission also initiated two
follow-up proceedings with respect to the CDNA service. The
Commission directed the ILECs to file proposed tariffs for final
consideration and related cost studies by 13 September 2002 (the
tariff proceeding). The Commission also invited parties to comment
on whether the ILECs should make the intra-exchange channel
component of the DNA service and the access component of that
service, when used in circumstances other than those described in
Decision 2002-34, available to competitors as part of the CDNA
service. Comments are due 13 September 2002 and reply comments are
due 15 October 2002 (the policy proceeding). |
5. |
By letters dated 12 and 19 June 2002, Call-Net requested that the
Commission: |
|
· clarify that parties may
make submissions in the policy and tariff proceedings with respect
to the channelizing feature, including rates for that feature; |
|
· amend its procedures in
respect of the policy and tariff proceedings to permit parties to
comment on whether digital inter-exchange transport services and
associated links used by competitors to serve Extended Area Service
(EAS) and metropolitan areas should form part of the CDNA service;
and |
|
· amend and expedite its
process of the tariff and policy proceedings. |
6. |
On 27 June 2002, AT&T Canada, the Competition Bureau, the
Companies, Futureway Communications Inc. (Futureway), GT Group
Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom), Microcell Telecommunications
Inc. (Microcell), Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus
Canada), Rogers Wireless Inc. (RWI) and TELUS commented on
Call-Net's requests. Call-Net submitted reply comments on 2 July
2002.
|
|
The channelizing feature
|
|
Positions of parties
|
7. |
Call-Net requested that the Commission clarify that parties may
make submissions in the policy and tariff proceedings with respect
to the channelizing feature. Call-Net argued that the channelizing
feature is an intrinsic feature of the CDNA service. It further
argued that a competitor could not use one of the two configurations
in which the CDNA service is available in any practical way unless
it also acquired the channelizing feature from the ILEC.
|
8. |
AT&T Canada, Futureway, Microcell, Primus Canada and RWI
supported Call-Net's request. AT&T Canada submitted that the
Commission did not have sufficient information on the competitors'
use of each DNA service component when it made its determinations
with respect to the CDNA service. AT&T Canada argued that the
policy proceeding should therefore provide an opportunity to fully
examine the competitors' use of the DNA and CDNA services.
|
9. |
The Companies, Group Telecom and TELUS argued that Call-Net's
request to include the channelizing feature of DNA service in the
policy and tariff proceedings is an application to review and vary
Decision 2002-34 that should have been made under section 62 of the Telecommunications
Act (the Act).
|
10. |
The Companies, Group Telecom and TELUS argued that Decision
2002-34 did not contemplate including the channelizing feature in
the CDNA service and referred to paragraph 187 of the decision where
the Commission stated that it did "not consider that the
channelizing feature should be included in a competitor-DNA
service". These parties argued that Decision 2002-34 defined
the scope of the CDNA service and the issues on which the Commission
sought comment. They further argued that Call-Net had not addressed
the criteria set out in Guidelines for review and vary
applications, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-6, 20 March 1998
(Public Notice 98-6) and had failed to demonstrate that there is
substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Commission's findings
in Decision 2002-34. TELUS argued that Call-Net's application was a
collateral attack on the Commission's determination in
Decision 2002-34.
|
11. |
In reply, Call-Net rejected the arguments that its request to
include the channelizing feature was an application to review and
vary Decision 2002-34. Call-Net characterized its request as
procedural in nature in that its request addressed the process of
the policy and tariff proceedings and not the issue of the
components that should be included in the CDNA tariff. Call-Net
asked the Commission to take into account the fundamental policy
objectives addressed in Decision 2002-34. In this regard, Call-Net
noted that the Commission's rationale for establishing the CDNA
service was to enhance competition and submitted that the Commission
could not reasonably have been expected to develop a CDNA service
that, in practice, is not useful to competitors.
|
12. |
Call-Net further requested that, if the Commission were to
consider that Call-Net's request was a request to review and vary
Decision 2002-34, the Commission vary on its own motion its
determination to exclude the channelizing feature from the CDNA
service.
|
|
Commission determination
|
13. |
The Commission notes that the proposals made by AT&T Canada
and Call-Net in the price cap proceeding highlighted these
competitors' concerns with regard to the terms of various ILEC
services used by competitors to provide services. During the price
cap proceeding, the Commission examined these concerns from a
regulatory policy perspective and focused on whether either proposal
would foster facilities-based competition. As noted in Decision 2002-34, submissions in the price cap proceeding did not provide the
Commission with complete information on the competitors' use of the
components of the DNA service.
|
14. |
The Commission has considered the record of this proceeding in
light of the criteria set out in Public Notice 98-6, and agrees that
Call-Net's application amounts to a request to review and vary
aspects of Decision 2002-34. In light of information on the record
of this proceeding regarding the relationship between the
channelizing feature and the CDNA service and the implications of
excluding this feature, the Commission considers that there is
substantial doubt as to the correctness of its decision to exclude
the channelizing feature. Accordingly, as suggested by Call-Net, the
Commission considers it appropriate to review and vary this aspect
of Decision 2002-34 of its own motion, pursuant to section 62
of the Act.
|
15. |
The Commission considers that it should have as much information
as possible regarding competitors' use of the channelizing feature.
The Commission therefore invites parties to comment on the
channelizing feature of the DNA service in relation to the CDNA
service, including rates for that feature, in the context of the
policy and tariff proceedings.
|
|
Digital inter-exchange transport services and associated links
|
|
Positions of parties
|
16. |
Call-Net requested that the Commission amend its process for the
policy and tariff proceedings to permit parties to comment on
whether the CDNA service should include digital inter-exchange
transport services and associated links used by competitors to
originate and terminate traffic within local markets. Call-Net
argued that these services provide the same functionality as the
intra-exchange component of the ILECs' DNA service.
|
17. |
In support of its request, Call-Net also stated that competitive
local exchange carriers use inter-exchange facilities extensively
within EAS and metropolitan areas to backhaul traffic to their
switches. Call-Net also argued that, where there is a competitive
supply of these inter-exchange facilities, it is generally not
carrier grade. It further noted that the ILECs' tariffs for
inter-exchange channel service cross-reference the ILECs' tariffs
for DNA service.
|
18. |
Call-Net noted that Decision 2002-34 established an additional
follow-up proceeding to consider the Commission's assignment of the
ILECs' services, including inter-exchange services, to various price
cap baskets. Call-Net argued, however, that the policy and tariff
proceedings relating to the CDNA service would be the most
appropriate proceedings in which to consider the treatment of
digital inter-exchange services and associated links that
competitors use to provide services in metropolitan and EAS areas.
|
19. |
AT&T Canada, Microcell and RWI supported Call-Net's request.
The Companies, Group Telecom and TELUS argued that Call-Net's
request should be denied on the basis that it is a request to review
and vary Decision 2002-34 that should have been made under section
62 of the Act. These parties further argued that Call-Net had not
demonstrated that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness
of the Commission's determinations with respect to the CDNA service.
TELUS also submitted that Decision 2002-34 provided no basis on
which to conclude that the Commission intended the CDNA service to
have an inter-exchange component.
|
20. |
In reply, Call-Net rejected the arguments that its request to
amend the process to include consideration of digital inter-exchange
transport services and associated links was an application to review
and vary Decision 2002-34. Call-Net characterized its request as
procedural in nature, arguing that its request addressed the process
of the policy and tariff proceedings and not the issue of whether
digital inter-exchange transport services and associated links
should be included in the tariff for the CDNA service. Call-Net
requested that the Commission take into account its objective of
fostering competition when making its determination.
|
21. |
Call-Net further requested that, if the Commission were to
consider that Call-Net's request was a request to review and vary
Decision 2002-34, the Commission vary its determination on its own
motion.
|
|
Commission determination
|
22. |
The Commission notes that, in Call-Net's submission in the price
cap proceeding, Call-Net requested that the Commission re-assign and
re-price many ILEC services that competitive carriers use to provide
services. In particular, the Commission notes that Call-Net included
the ILECs' digital inter-exchange transport services and link
services on its proposed list of "Carrier Segment" or
competitor services.
|
23. |
In Decision 2002-34, the Commission examined Call-Net's proposal
from a regulatory policy perspective and concluded that it would not
foster facilities-based competition. Accordingly, the Commission did
not adopt Call-Net's proposal in that decision, except as discussed
with regard to DNA service. The Commission notes that, when it
rejected Call-Net's Carrier Segment proposal, it also rejected
Call-Net's proposal to treat the ILECs' digital inter-exchange
transport services and associated links as a Competitor Service.
|
24. |
The Commission has considered the record of this proceeding in
light of the criteria set out in Public Notice 98-6 and agrees that
Call-Net's application amounts to a request to review and vary
aspects of Decision 2002-34. In light of information on the record
of this proceeding with respect to the competitors' use of the ILECs'
digital inter-exchange transport services and associated links in
metropolitan and EAS areas, the Commission finds that there is
substantial doubt as to the correctness of its decision to exclude
digital inter-exchange transport services and associated links.
Accordingly, as suggested by Call-Net, the Commission considers it
appropriate to review and vary this aspect of Decision 2002-34 of
its own motion, pursuant to section 62 of the Act.
|
25. |
The Commission considers that it would be more appropriate to
consider competitors' use of digital inter-exchange transport
services and associated links in the context of the CDNA service,
rather than in the follow-up proceeding relating to service
assignment. In the Commission's view, this would permit a more
comprehensive consideration of the issues, including the
relationship between intra-exchange and inter-exchange services.
|
26. |
The Commission considers that it should have as much information
as possible regarding competitors' use of the ILECs' digital
inter-exchange services to provide services in metropolitan and EAS
areas. The Commission therefore invites parties to comment on
digital inter-exchange transport services and associated links in
metropolitan and EAS areas in relation to the CDNA service,
including rates for these services, in the context of the policy and
tariff proceedings.
|
|
Need for further process
|
|
Positions of parties
|
27. |
In its 12 June 2002 letter, Call-Net requested that the
Commission amend the process established in Decision 2002-34 in
order to allow the Commission to complete the policy proceeding
before the ILECs file final CDNA tariffs and supporting cost studies
in the context of the tariff proceeding. Call-Net proposed an
alternative schedule, arguing that its proposed approach would be
more expeditious than the approach set out in Decision 2002-34.
|
28. |
Most of the parties to the proceeding supported Call-Net's
proposal that the Commission should complete the policy proceeding
before requiring the ILECs to file final CDNA tariffs and supporting
cost studies. As regards Call-Net's alternative schedule, while many
parties supported Call-Net's request for an expeditious process,
AT&T Canada and the Companies submitted that Call-Net's proposed
schedule was unrealistic.
|
|
Commission determination
|
29. |
The Commission agrees that it would be appropriate to address
policy issues relating to the CDNA service before the ILECs file
final tariffs in respect of that service. The ILECs will therefore
not be required to submit final tariffs for the CDNA service on
13 September 2002, as directed in Decision 2002-34.
|
30. |
The Commission considers, however, that it is appropriate to
maintain 13 September 2002 as the date by which the ILECs submit
cost studies for the access and link components of the CDNA service
as defined in Decision 2002-34 and as directed in paragraph 247 of
that decision. The Commission also notes that, as directed in
paragraph 248 of Decision 2002-34, the ILECs are to file modified
DNA tariffs that identify the band to which each wire centre or
exchange is assigned within the same time period. The Commission
acknowledges that further cost studies will be required if the
Commission includes additional service components in the final CDNA
tariffs or permits the use of the access and link components in
circumstances other than those described in Decision 2002-34. The
Commission considers that any such cost studies may be based on
information included in the cost studies to be submitted by 13
September 2002.
|
31. |
Further, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to
combine the policy and tariff proceedings into one proceeding,
comprised of a policy portion and tariff portion. The Commission
maintains 13 September 2002, the date established in Decision 2002-34, as the date by which parties may file their comments in the
policy portion of the proceeding. The complete process and other
associated dates for the proceeding are set out below in the
Procedure section. The Commission will set the date for the filing
of final CDNA tariffs and any additional cost studies that may be
required at the conclusion of this proceeding. |
|
Other matters
|
|
Clarification of the term "competitor"
|
32. |
Primus Canada submitted that Decision 2002-34 was vague as to the
telecommunications service providers that could use the CDNA service
and requested that the Commission clarify the meaning of
"competitor".
|
33. |
The Commission clarifies that the term "competitor"
when used in relation to the CDNA service refers to resellers and
Canadian carriers.
|
34. |
The Commission notes that the interim CDNA tariff issued by TELUS
on 14 June 2002 provides that the CDNA service will be available to
a customer that is a competing Canadian carrier. The Commission
therefore directs TELUS to amend its interim CDNA tariff to include
resellers.
|
|
Wireless
|
35. |
Microcell and RWI argued that the CDNA service described in
Decision 2002-34 is not technologically neutral. These parties
submitted that, while wireless service providers (WSPs) use the DNA
service to interconnect their networks with those of the ILECs, a
WSP does not use the DNA service to provide access between an
end-customer premise and its switch.
|
36. |
The Commission notes that in Decision 2002-34, it did not exclude
competitors that use wireless technology from the competitors that
may use the CDNA service. The Commission therefore considers that
the use of the CDNA service by wireless carriers is within the scope
of the proceeding.
|
|
Simple resale prohibition
|
37. |
Microcell stated that it intended to request that the Commission
clarify the application of the prohibition on simple resale of the
CDNA service and requested that the Commission confirm that this
matter is within the scope of the proceeding. |
38. |
The Commission notes that, in Decision 2002-34, it stated that in
order to avoid distortions in the retail market for the DNA service,
a competitor may not engage in simple resale of the CDNA service.
The Commission notes that it did not have complete information on
competitors' use of each component of the DNA service when it made
its determinations. The Commission therefore concludes that parties
may make submissions with respect to the application of the simple
resale prohibition.
|
|
Network configurations
|
39. |
Primus Canada argued that the Commission should permit
competitors to use the CDNA service in network configurations other
than those described in Decision 2002-34. |
40. |
Consistent with its other determinations in this Public Notice,
the Commission finds that all competitors may make submissions with
respect to the network configurations in which they use the ILECs'
digital inter-exchange transport services and associated links or
components of the ILECs' DNA service.
|
|
Bell Canada tariff notice 6621
|
41. |
In Bell Canada Tariff notice 6621, 18 October 2001, Bell Canada
proposed to add an item titled "Optical Links
Arrangements" to its Access Services Tariff. Bell Canada stated
that this item would make optical central office connecting link
arrangements available to co-locating Canadian carriers and Digital
Subscriber Line Service Providers. This would provide transmission
paths, at the OC-3 and OC-12 levels, between an interconnecting
competitor's co-located central office building space and Bell
Canada's fibre management system in the same central office.
|
42. |
Futureway objected to Bell Canada's proposal on the basis that
the optical links would lead only to Bell Canada's own network.
Futureway proposed that the tariff should also permit co-located
carriers to access another co-located carrier's optical fibre
transport network in the same central office.
|
43. |
In reply, Bell Canada stated that it considered Futureway's
request was distinct from TN 6621 and should be addressed
separately.
|
|
Commission determination
|
44. |
The Commission notes that the interim CDNA tariffs issued by the
ILECs on 14 June 2002 do not include the link component that a
co-located competitor uses to connect its equipment with Bell
Canada's equipment. The Commission also notes that the DS-1 and DS-3
interconnection service that is used for this purpose is contained
in other sections of the ILECs' tariffs.
|
45. |
The Commission further notes that the optical link component that
would permit co-located competitors to connect their equipment with
Bell Canada's equipment at OC-3 and OC-12 transmission speeds was
proposed by Bell Canada in TN 6621. Co-located competitors in Bell
Canada's territory could use this link in conjunction with Bell
Canada's DNA service and other Bell Canada services to which they
connect.
|
46. |
In the Commission's view, Futureway's request to permit
competitors to use Bell Canada's proposed service to connect to non-ILEC
facilities in the same central office could involve matters
addressed by the Commission's co-location framework and, as such, is
beyond the scope of the CDNA proceeding. However, given the
relevance of Bell Canada's proposed tariff to the definition of the
final CDNA service, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to
provide parties with the opportunity to comment on Bell Canada's
proposal in the context of the CDNA proceeding.
|
|
Call for comments
|
47. |
The Commission invites all parties commenting in the policy
portion of the proceeding to include, with reasons, their views on:
|
|
a) whether they anticipate
that Phase II costs would differ for the access component and link
component of the CDNA service depending on whether the channelizing
feature, the intra-exchange component of the DNA service and digital
inter-exchange transport services and associated links in EAS and
metropolitan areas are included in the final tariff or depending on
whether the access and link components of the DNA service are
included in that tariff for use in circumstances other than those
described in Decision 2002-34; |
|
b) the appropriate definition
of a metropolitan area if digital inter-exchange transport services
and associated links in metropolitan and EAS areas were made
available as part of the CDNA service; |
|
c) the appropriateness of
defining a metropolitan area with reference to the bands determined
in Restructured bands, revised loop rates and related issues,
Decision CRTC 2001-238, 27 April 2001, including the appropriateness
of defining a metropolitan area as an area designated as Band A or B
and areas within all other bands that have free local calling to
Network Access Service located in that band; |
|
d) the appropriateness of
retaining a distinction in the tariff between the intra-exchange
component of the DNA service and digital inter-exchange services if
the intra-exchange component of the DNA service and digital
inter-exchange transport services and associated links in
metropolitan and EAS areas were made available as part of the CDNA
service; and |
|
e) whether any intra-exchange
component of the DNA service and any inter-exchange services that
may be made available at reduced rates within metropolitan and EAS
areas should be rated on a band sensitive, distance sensitive or
other basis, having regard to the different technologies used to
provision these services and their associated costs. |
48. |
The Commission further invites:
|
|
a) competitors to include, as
appropriate, diagrams of the network configurations in which they
use the access, intra-exchange or link components of DNA service or
digital inter-exchange transport services and associated links; |
|
b) parties commenting on the
use of wireless technology to include, as appropriate, diagrams of
the network configurations in which the components of the DNA
service or digital inter-exchange transport services and associated
links are used in conjunction with wireless technology; and |
|
c) parties commenting on the
application of the simple resale prohibition to include, as
appropriate, network configuration diagrams that indicate, in the
context of the overall network configuration, the components of the
CDNA service. |
49. |
In each case, parties are also invited to identify services they
provide using the network configurations in question.
|
50. |
The Commission reminds parties that make submissions with respect
to whether the CDNA service should include digital inter-exchange
transport services and associated links or components of the DNA
service, in circumstances other than those set out in paragraph 192
of Decision 2002-34, to include a discussion of the factors
influencing the competitive supply of these facilities by non-ILECs
as well as competitors' ability to self-supply those facilities.
|
|
Procedure
|
51. |
Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, MTS, SaskTel and TELUS (the ILECs)
are made parties to this proceeding. The Commission will issue a
complete list of interested parties as soon as possible.
|
52. |
All parties may file with the Commission, serving a copy on all
other parties, their comments on matters in the policy portion of
the proceeding by 13 September 2002.
|
53. |
The ILECs are to file cost studies as directed in Decision 2002-34, including the associated rates determined based on the rate
structure set out in paragraph 247 of that decision, by 13
September 2002.
|
54. |
Parties may address interrogatories to the ILECs with respect to
their cost studies. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the
Commission and served on the ILEC in question by 11 October 2002.
|
55. |
Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving a
copy on all other parties, on all issues within the policy portion
of the proceeding by 15 October 2002.
|
56. |
The ILECs' responses to interrogatories addressed pursuant to
paragraph 54 are to be filed with the Commission and served on all
parties by 12 November 2002.
|
57. |
Parties' requests for further responses to their interrogatories,
specifying in each case why a further response is both relevant and
necessary, and requests for public disclosure of information for
which confidentiality has been claimed, setting out in each case the
reasons for disclosure, must be filed with the Commission and served
on all parties by 22 November 2002.
|
58. |
Written responses to requests for further responses to
interrogatories and for public disclosure must be filed with the
Commission and served on all parties by 29 November 2002.
|
59. |
A determination will be issued with respect to requests for
further information and public disclosure as soon as possible, and
it is expected that any information to be provided pursuant to that
determination will be filed with the Commission and served on all
parties by 8 January 2003.
|
60. |
Parties may file comments with the Commission, serving a copy on
all other parties, with respect to the cost studies filed by the
ILECs on 13 September 2002 by 29 January 2003. |
61. |
Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving a
copy on all other parties, with respect to the ILECs' 13 September
2002 cost studies by 10 February 2003. |
62. |
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.
|
63. |
Parties can file their submissions on paper or electronically.
Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.
|
64. |
Submissions filed in electronic form should be in the HTML
format. As an alternative, those making submissions may use
Microsoft Word for text and Microsoft Excel for spreadsheets.
|
65. |
Please number each paragraph of your submission.
In addition, please enter the line
***End of document*** following the last paragraph. This
will help the Commission verify that the document has not been
damaged during transmission.
|
66. |
Only those submissions filed in electronic form will be placed on
the Commission's web site at www.crtc.gc.ca,
and only in the official language and format in which they are
submitted.
|
67. |
The Commission also encourages interested parties to monitor the
public record of this proceeding (and/or the Commission's web site)
for additional information that they may find useful when preparing
their submissions.
|
|
Locations of CRTC offices
|
68. |
The record of this proceeding may be examined, or will be made
available promptly upon request, at the Commission's offices during
normal business hours:
|
|
Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage, Room G-5
Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2
Tel: (819) 997-2429 - TDD: 994-0423
Fax: (819) 994-0218
|
|
Bank of Commerce Building
1809 Barrington Street
Suite 1007
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8
Tel: (902) 426-7997 - TDD: 426-6997
Fax: (902) 426-2721
|
|
405 de Maisonneuve Blvd. East
2nd Floor, Suite B2300
Montréal, Quebec H2L 4J5
Tel: (514) 283-6607 - TDD: 283-8316
Fax: (514) 283-3689
|
|
55 St. Clair Avenue East
Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2
Tel: (416) 952-9096
Fax: (416) 954-6343
|
|
Kensington Building
275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3
Tel: (204) 983-6306 - TDD: 983-8274
Fax: (204) 983-6317
|
|
Cornwall Professional Building
2125 - 11th Avenue
Room 103
Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3
Tel: (306) 780-3422
Fax: (306) 780-3319
|
|
10405 Jasper Avenue,
Suite 520
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4
Tel: (780) 495-3224
Fax: (780) 495-3214
|
|
530-580 Hornby Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6
Tel: (604) 666-2111 - TDD: 666-0778
Fax: (604) 666-8322
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request,
and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|