ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-489

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 10 April 1997
Telecom Order CRTC 97-489
On 18 July 1996, Microcell Connexions Inc. (Microcell) filed an application requesting that the Commission review and vary Telecom Order CRTC 96-687 (Order 96-687) - Interim Trunk-Side Interconnection Regime for Wireless Service Operators.
File No.: 96-2057
1. On 11 July 1995, the Commission issued Implementation of Regulatory Framework - Local Interconnection and Network Component Unbundling, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-36 (PN 95-36) to consider local interconnection and unbundling issues.
2. In Tariff Notices 5723 and 5723A (TNs 5723 and 5723A), Bell Canada (Bell) proposed an interconnection regime that would provide Common Channel Signalling #7 (CCS7) to Cellular Service Operators (CSOs) using trunk-side connection to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).
3. In Tariff Notice 5753 (TN 5753), Bell proposed to extend the interconnection regime provided for in TNs 5723 and 5723A to providers of Personal Communications Services (PCS) under the same terms as CSOs.
4. In Order 96-687 the Commission deferred TNs 5723, 5723A and 5753 and established, effective 1 July 1996, an interim regime for the interconnection of CSOs and providers of PCS (collectively Wireless Service Operators) to the PSTN using trunk-side connection with CCS7 pending disposition of the matters under consideration in PN 95-36.
5. Microcell in its application stated that Order 96-687 should be reviewed and varied because: i) the Commission failed to consider basic principles raised in the proceeding leading to Order 96-687, ii) the Commission erred in fact and in law in arriving at Order 96-687 and iii) there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of Order 96-687 as it applies to Microcell.
6. Microcell alleged that the Commission failed to consider a) the principle that PCS is intended to differ significantly from conventional cellular service and b) that PCS was licensed to provide a competitive alternative to the wireline telephone companies, when it made PCS providers subject to the same tariffs as CSOs.
7. Microcell also submitted that the Commission had erred in fact and that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of its determination in Order 96-687 that PCS providers should be subject to the same interconnection regime as CSOs.
8. Microcell submitted that the absence of a Central Office (CO) code assignment process in Order 96-687 brought into question the substantial correctness of the Order.
9. Microcell submitted that the Commission erred in fact in its Order by failing to outline how a PCS provider is to obtain telephone numbers and by failing to take account of the fact that Microcell had already obtained its own telephone number CO codes and had expended resources on other number of administrative issues.
10. Microcell submitted that the Commission erred in law by imposing on Microcell the terms of a mediation outcome in which Microcell argued it had not participated, and with respect to which it had no knowledge since a complete account of the mediation process was not made part of the record of TN 5753.
11. Microcell stated that the correctness of Order 96-687 was placed into substantial doubt because its implementation made interconnection substantially more expensive than it would have been under TN 5753.
12. The Commission received comments from AIReach Integrated Network Ltd. (AIReach), Clearnet Communications Inc. (Clearnet), Mobility Canada (Mobility), and Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) on behalf of Bell.
13. AIReach and Mobility stated that it was appropriate for the network interconnection to be the same for PCS providers and CSOs, as provided in Order 96-687.
14. AIReach and Clearnet stated that if the Commission were to review Order 96-687, it should take into consideration the comments which they had originally submitted on TN 5723.
15. Stentor submitted that Microcell's submission that the regime applicable for PCS should be different from that applicable to CSOs cannot be justified based on differing network interconnection requirements.
16. Microcell filed reply comments essentially reaffirming its earlier submissions.
17. The Commission notes that in the proceeding leading to Order 96-687, Bell stated that the functionality required to provide CCS7 to CSOs with trunk-side interconnection is the same as that required in the case of PCS providers.
18. In the proceeding leading to Order 96-687, Microcell stated in its response to TN 5753 that interconnection standards similar to IS 01 (interconnection of cellular radio systems and common carrier systems) will be required to interconnect PCS with the PSTN.
19. The Commission considers that Microcell supplied no persuasive evidence to demonstrate that PCS is different from cellular service with regard to interconnection with the PSTN.
20. The Commission notes that Microcell did not supply evidence to support its allegation that it might have difficulty obtaining telephone numbers.
21. In the proceeding leading to Order 96-687, Rogers Cantel Inc. (Cantel), as part of its comments on TN 5753, filed a copy of its proposal to use a modified version of the existing cellular interconnection tariff to allow for trunk-side interconnection with CCS7, that it had earlier filed in response to TN 5723.
22. With respect to Microcell's claim that it was made part of a mediation outcome that was not part of the record of TN 5753, the Commission notes that Cantel's proposal for using an amended version of the existing cellular access tariff as an interim measure to allow for CCS7 functionality was on the record of the TN 5753 proceeding.
23. The Commission does not accept Microcell's claim that the interconnection regime resulting from Order 96-687 is more expensive than would have been the case under TN 5753.
24. Regarding Microcell's request that Order 96-687 be varied to provide PCS operators with transiting service and access to 411, 711, and 911 services, the Commission notes that these features are provided for in Order 96-687.
25. With respect to Microcell's proposals concerning local contribution, mutual compensation, and bill and keep, the Commission notes that these topics are under consideration in the PN 95-36 proceeding and as such were deferred from a ruling in Order 96-687.
26. In light of the above, the Commission considers that Microcell has not demonstrated that i) the Commission failed to consider basic principles raised in the original proceeding leading to Order 96-687, ii) the Commission erred in fact or in law in arriving at Order 96-687 or iii) there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of Order 96-687.
27. In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:
28. The application by Microcell to review and vary Order 96-687 is denied.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: