Ten days after our submission to Industry Canada, we received this response from Tony Clement.

 

Dear Mr. Fletcher:        

Thank you for your email, regarding wholesale access to broadband facilities and regulation by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).        

 First, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your 15 years of providing Internet access in Alberta.  I understand that you are concerned with TELUS’ General Tariff Item 522 and gaining access to unconditioned local copper channels.  This matter was subject to your Part VII application filing with the CRTC, ongoing negotiations, and the current dispute regarding TELUS’ tariff application to withdraw Item 522.  As this issue is currently before the Commission, the independent regulator, it would be inappropriate for me as the Minister responsible for telecommunications policy to comment.       

As you are aware, wholesale access was also the subject of three petitions to the Governor in Council filed last year, each appealing certain decisions of the CRTC.  MTS Allstream Inc. appealed Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-118 and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-34 and sought more stringent wholesale rules.  Bell and TELUS both appealed Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-117 and Telecom Order CRTC 2009-111, requesting that certain wholesale obligations be removed.                 

On December 10, 2009, the Governor in Council let the decisions appealed by MTS Allstream stand and asked the CRTC to re-examine the determinations appealed by Bell and TELUS.  The Commission has since incorporated its reconsideration into the proceeding launched by Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-261.  It is my understanding that the Internet Centre is a party to the proceeding.  The purpose of the Government of Canada’s order to re-examine these wholesale rules is to ensure that the regulatory regime is coherent and effective, provides the right incentives for investment and innovation while also protecting consumers, and is based on a thorough examination of the evidence submitted.       

 Once again, thank you for writing and please accept my best wishes. 
                                                                                       

Yours sincerely,                                                

Tony Clement