BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PAGE: 1 of 6
BETWEEN: THE INDEPENDENT MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNET PROVIDERS ApplicantsAND
BELL CANADA Respondent
REPLY 1. The following constitutes the Reply of the Independent members of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers ("CAIP" or the "Applicants") to an Answer filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC" or "Commission") by Bell Canada with respect to an Application made by CAIP to the CRTC on February 10, 2000 pursuant to sections 24, 25, 48, 51, 60, 61 and 63 of the Telecommunications Act (the "Act") and Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, requesting various orders, on an urgent and expedited basis, directing the Respondent, Bell Canada, to immediately cease and desist from engaging in a practice of refusing to provision requests for Limited Distance Data Service ("LDDS") circuits for Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") and other persons that have been permitted to order these circuits in the past.
I. background
2. On February 10, 2000, the Independent members of CAIP filed an Application with the Commission pursuant to sections 24, 25, 48, 51, 60, 61 and 63 of the Telecommunications Act (the "Act") and Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure requesting an order, on an urgent and expedited basis, that the Commission direct the Respondent, Bell Canada, to immediately cease and desist from engaging in a practice that it has engaged in since at least January 17, 2000 of refusing to provision requests for LDDS circuits for ISPs and other customers.
3. The Applicants also sought a declaratory order stating that a Bell Canada policy (the "LDDS policy"), which was posted on the Respondent's web site on an unspecified date in January and provides details on the Respondent's policy of refusing to provision requests for LDDS circuits, is without force and effect.
4. The Applicants also requested in their Application that the Commission register each of the foregoing orders with the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to the procedures set out in section 63 of the Act.
5. Finally, owing to the direct, serious and irreparable harm which was, and currently is, being experienced by the Applicant's members as a result of the Respondent's refusal to provide LDDS circuits, the Applicants requested that the Commission grant the orders requested in paragraphs 2 and 3 above on an urgent and expedited basis.
6. On February 11, 2000, in response to several complaints received from a variety of parties, the Commission issued a letter to the Respondent which provides in significant part as follows:
Commission staff considers that these channels should continue to be provided by the company, unless a determination is made by the Commission that they should not be made available. Please advise forthwith that the channels will continue to be made available.
If the company continues to be of the view that service should be discontinued, it is invited to submit tariff revisions for consideration by the Commission. (emphasis added)
7. On February 15, 2000, the Respondent provided a response to the Commission's letter stating that it "appreciates the efforts of the Staff to expedite resolution of the differences of view that may exist between these parties and Bell Canada without direct Commission involvement." The Respondent also stated that it "appreciates that the Staff opinion was expressed in response to specific customer complaints and, as is customarily the process, the Company would like the opportunity to place its position on the public record."
8. The Respondent then proceeded to indicate that it had received CAIP's February 10, 2000 Part VII Application and that it intended to provide its Answer to that Application on February 18, 2000. In the meantime, however, the Respondent stated that it wished to "express its views as to the requirement for a tariff revision."
9. What then follows is a brief recitation by the Respondent of the alleged historical use of LDDS channels and the Respondent's decision to prohibit the "permissive use" of these channels for the attachment of LDDS or xDSL equipment.
10. The Respondent then states at paragraph 5 of its February 15, 2000 letter that "it has not contravened any of its tariffs by its decision" and that the channels in question, "including those providing for metallic continuity, continue to be provided under the precise terms and conditions specified in the current tariff."
11. At no time did the Respondent indicate in its letter of February 15, 2000 that it would comply with the directive contained in the Commission's letter of February 11, 2000, namely to advise the Commission "forthwith that the channels will continue to be made available." In fact, as of today's date, the Respondent is continuing to turn down customer requests for LDDS circuits.
Return to: Internet Issues contents | Infrastructure & Access contents
Retour à Enjeux Internet | Retour à Infrastructure et accès
