ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2000-59

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Order CRTC 2000-59

Ottawa, 31 January 2000

Aliant AC granted contribution waiver for data services

File No.: 8626-A53-01/99
The Commission approves a contribution exemption for Aliant Advanced Communications Inc., a subsidiary of Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant AC), with respect to services and facilities it intends to purchase from various vendors for resale purposes.
1. Aliant AC attached an affidavit dated 1 October 1999 affirming that the services will only be used for the purpose of providing dedicated data services to Aliant AC's customers. The affidavit also affirmed that Aliant AC will not offer switched voice services or other services that attract contribution charges to its customers.
2. By letter dated 28 October 1999, Bell Canada responded on behalf of itself, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc. (collectively, the telephone companies). The telephone companies stated that the Aliant AC application would best be characterized as a request for advance approval of a contribution exemption, considering that no services are yet in place.
3. In this respect, the telephone companies stated that the affidavit provides evidence for advance approval of an exemption, in cases where the reseller does not offer any services that would be subject to contribution charges.
4. The telephone companies submitted that, should the Commission grant advance approval of a contribution exemption for Aliant AC, such approval should be conditional upon receipt of a revised affidavit affirming that the services are used solely to carry dedicated data traffic, after the first of such services is installed.
5. By letter dated 29 October 1999, TELUS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. (collectively, the TELUS companies) noted that based on the affidavit, Aliant AC is requesting advance approval for contribution exemption.
6. The TELUS companies stated that in practice, however, such exemption is subject to the provision of satisfactory evidence relating to underlying service configuration and circuit information for establishing the dedicated-data nature of the services involved. The TELUS companies considered that there is no basis for the Commission to grant a blanket exemption for all of Aliant AC's future services based solely on the very general undertaking contained in the affidavit attached to the application.
7. In light of the current contribution regime, the TELUS companies submitted that contribution exemption for each dedicated data service to be provided by Aliant AC should only be granted upon the filing of the appropriate evidence relating to the specific data service configuration and circuit information involved, at the time such particulars are available.
8. By letter dated 15 November 1999, Aliant AC submitted that in its application it clearly identified that it has no plans to offer any services that would attract contribution. Aliant AC stated that under the circumstances, the provision of an affidavit is consistent with the evidentiary requirement as established and accepted by the Commission from other parties who have filed and received approval for applications involving similar circumstances. Aliant AC also recognized that if in future it implements any different kind of configuration which would also be eligible for an exemption, a new application would be necessary to satisfy evidence requirements associated with that new type of configuration.
9. Aliant AC submitted that the TELUS companies' suggestion that it is necessary to file specific detail for each and every circuit is not warranted, and amounts to an excessive evidence requirement in situations where no services are to be provided that would attract contribution charges. Aliant AC requested that the Commission grant advance approval of its application subject only to the provision of a revised confirming affidavit when the first of its dedicated data services is installed.
10. The Commission is of the view that the application can be characterized as a request for advance approval of a contribution exemption for dedicated data services. The Commission finds that the affidavit satisfies the evidentiary requirements for such an advance approval pursuant to Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2 dated 1 April 1993, and accordingly grants Aliant AC's application advance approval.
11. The Commission notes the TELUS companies' argument that there is no basis for the Commission to grant a blanket exemption for future services based solely on a general undertaking contained in an affidavit. Contrary to the TELUS companies' argument, the Commission notes that it has already granted such exemptions as pointed out by Aliant AC in the orders cited in its application.
12. By way of example, the Commission notes that in Telecom Orders CRTC 99-97 dated 2 February 1999 and 98-886 dated 3 September 1998, the Commission attempted to decrease its own and Call-Net Communications Inc.'s regulatory burden. It allowed Call-Net to group dedicated Canada-U.S. facility contribution exemption applications.
13. Based on this example, and pursuant to its goal of relieving regulatory burden, the Commission is of the view that it would be appropriate to grant approval to a plan similar to that of Call-Net's.
14. The Commission notes that, where grouping has been allowed, the industry practice has been to execute an affidavit with (or very soon after) the installation of the circuits for which exemption is claimed. Within the next several months, the party claiming exemption has been permitted to group the affidavits together and file them with the Commission and carrier in question. In allowing grouping, in the present case, the Commission expects Aliant AC to follow the practice described above.
15. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that Aliant AC's application is approved subject to the requirement that a revised affidavit be submitted to the Commission and the various companies shortly after the installation of the services.
16. Aliant AC may submit future exemption applications for similar circuits by grouping the supporting affidavits, as long as the affidavits are executed with (or very soon after) the installation of the circuits for which exemption is claimed, and such affidavits are submitted within 120 days of the dates of their execution.
Secretary General
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

Date Modified: 2000-01-31

Date modified: