OTTAWA – The CRTC has rejected a request to stay its recent decisions on introducing local phone and broadband competition in areas served by small independent phone companies.
The Commission said Friday that the request made by the Ontario Telecom Association (OTA) and Association des companies de telephone du Québec (ACTQ) failed to demonstrate that their member companies will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of being granted their stay requests, and that “the balance of convenience favours not granting the stay requests”. The Commission also asked the small ILECs to track and maintain a record of all relevant costs associated with the implementation of local competition in their territories, which it said will assist in the event of a variance of the Commission’s determinations by the Governor in Council.
As Cartt.ca reported, 30 OTA and ACTQ member companies (who together represent about 150,000 service lines), also filed a petition to Cabinet asking that the subsidy mechanism that was in place prior to the CRTC's Obligation to Serve decision be maintained, and for changes to the local competition regime. The Governor in Council has yet to rule on the appeal.
Commissioner Suzanne Lamarre disagreed with the decision, noting that the CRTC’s analysis contained “significant deficiencies, leading to an erroneous finding”.
After offering her own review of the three criteria used as a test in these matters – the serious question, irreparable harm, and the balance of inconvenience, Commissioner Lamarre said that they were met in support of the applicants and the stays should therefore have been granted.
“Granting stays while waiting for the Governor in Council’s decision will ensure that competition will indeed be established in an orderly manner, since whatever rules there are will then be known and final”, reads her dissenting opinion. “Conversely, denying the stays automatically creates uncertainty regarding the nature, scope, duration and benefits of this competition while waiting for the Governor in Council’s decision (emphasis appears in the decision).
“How will this uncertainty, and the impact it will have on customers, be communicated to the consumers parties will want to serve during that waiting period? What will happen to those customers and the service conditions to which they agreed if the rules of competition are changed a few months after competition is implemented? No mention of this by anyone. I am greatly concerned by this.”
