In the weeks before Passover, traditional homes undergo a massive cleaning effort, getting rid of morsels of any leavened products. Perhaps this ancient tradition is one of the origins of Spring cleaning.
I noticed a CRTC order on Monday that may be an indication that the season is helping clear some old files to make for a fresh start, coinciding with the first flowers starting to bloom in the yard.
More than two and a half years ago, TELUS filed tariff applications for a hosted IP-centrex service, IP-Evolution. While the CRTC granted interim approval for the service about two months later, it has taken until this week for a final determination.
Since the time of that filing, the CRTC issued new procedural guidelines, under which it is supposed to respond to tariff filings within 10 business days.
The CRTC is supposed to issue either:
- an order granting the application interim approval,
- a letter stating that it intended to dispose of the application within 45 business days of receipt of the application, setting out the reasons why interim approval was not granted,
- a letter either with interrogatories included or confirmation that interrogatories were to follow within 5 business days, and an indication that it still intended to dispose of the application within 45 business days, or
- a letter indicating that the file was being closed due to deficiencies in the application, identifying the specific deficiencies.
So check out the response the CRTC sent to Cochrane Telecom last week:
The Commission has received no comments relating to the application. Consequenlty, the Commission will not be able to render a decision within 10 business days of the date of receipt of the application.
If there were no comments, I wonder why interim approval wasn’t granted. If there were comments, would it have been easier to render a decision? It sounds a little bit like ‘the dog ate my homework.’ OK – you can have an extension.
Spring is in the air!
Update: [March 30, 11:20 am]
More files are percolating up. Today’s decisions included a file from 2001 where the record closed in 2003.
Update: [March 30, 1:20 pm]
We have learned that there had been an error on the website. The proper version of the letter to Cochrane is now there, indicating that there were comments filed, which is what required the longer review process. The link above will connect to the corrected version.
Technorati Tags:
CRTC