|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-81
|
|
|
Ottawa, 2 December 2003
|
|
|
Application by Société en commandite Télébec and NorthernTel Limited Partnership for forbearance from regulation of mobile wireless services
|
|
|
Reference: 8640-T78-01/02
|
|
|
In this decision, the Commission forbears, with some conditions, from regulating mobile wireless services provided by Société en commandite Télébec and NorthernTel Limited Partnership. The Commission retains some powers with respect to the provision of mobile wireless voice services connected to the public switched telephone network.
|
|
|
The Commission received an application under Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, dated 5 July 2002, from Société en commandite Télébec (Télébec), formerly Télébec ltée, and NorthernTel Limited Partnership (NorthernTel), formerly Northern Telephone Limited (collectively, the Companies) requesting that the Commission forbear, pursuant to section 34 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), from regulating the Companies' current and future cellular and personal communications services (PCS) and other mobile wireless services.
|
|
|
O.N.Telcom intervened on 9 August 2002, and the Companies replied on 23 August 2002.
|
|
|
Background
|
|
|
The Commission's power to forbear from regulating a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier originates from section 34 of the Act, which reads as follows:
|
|
|
34. (1) The Commission may make a determination to refrain, in whole or in part and conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 in relation to a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier, where the Commission finds as a question of fact that to refrain would be consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives.
|
|
|
(2) Where the Commission finds as a question of fact that a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier is or will be subject to competition sufficient to protect the interests of users, the Commission shall make a determination to refrain, to the extent that it considers appropriate, conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 in relation to the service or class of services.
|
|
|
(3) The Commission shall not make a determination to refrain under this section in relation to a telecommunications service or class of services if the Commission finds as a question of fact that to refrain would be likely to impair unduly the establishment or continuance of a competitive market for that service or class of services.
|
|
|
(4) The Commission shall declare that sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 do not apply to a Canadian carrier to the extent that those sections are inconsistent with a determination of the Commission under this section.
|
|
|
The Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out at section 7 of the Act include the following:
|
|
|
(c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications;
|
|
|
(f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective;
|
|
|
(h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services.
|
|
|
The Commission established a framework for considering whether or not to forbear in Review of regulatory framework, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, 16 September 1994 (Decision 94-19). In that decision, the Commission noted that the first step in assessing whether it is appropriate to forbear involves defining the relevant market. The relevant market is essentially the smallest group of products and geographic area in which a firm with market power can profitably impose a sustainable price increase.
|
|
|
In Decision 94-19, the Commission established a number of criteria to be examined when determining whether a market was competitive. These criteria include the market shares of the dominant and competing firms, demand and supply conditions, the likelihood of entry into the market, barriers to entry into the market and evidence of rivalrous behaviour.
|
|
|
In Regulation of wireless services, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-15, 12 August 1994 (Decision 94-15) and Regulation of mobile wireless telecommunications services, Telecom Decision CRTC 96-14, 23 December 1996 (Decision 96-14), the Commission found that the market for mobile wireless services in various geographic territories was sufficiently competitive to protect user interests and, accordingly, forbore from the regulation of mobile wireless services that were not provided directly by a regulated telephone company. In Decision 94-15, the Commission stated that it would be appropriate to forbear from the regulation of mobile wireless services provided directly by the regulated telephone companies once the companies had developed and implemented appropriate marketing safeguards and cost separations between their wireless and regulated services.
|
|
|
Subsequently, in the following decisions, the Commission extended forbearance to certain mobile wireless services provided directly by regulated telephone companies that had implemented cost separations between wireless and regulated services:
|
|
|
- paging services provided by Bell Canada in Application by Bell Canada to review and vary Telecom Decision CRTC 96-14, Telecom Decision CRTC 98-15, 2 September 1998 (Decision 98-15);
|
|
|
- cellular and PCS services provided by NBTel Inc., now a part of Aliant Telecom Inc., in NBTel Inc. - Forbearance from regulating cellular and personal communications services, Telecom Decision CRTC 98-18, 2 October 1998 (Decision 98-18);
|
|
|
-
mobile wireless services provided by the municipally owned telephone companies in Forbearance from regulation of mobile wireless services provided by municipally owned telephone companies, Telecom Decision CRTC 98-19, 9 October 1998 (Decision 98-19); and
|
|
|
- all mobile wireless services provided by the former Stentor member companies in Telecom Order CRTC 99-991, 13 October 1999 (Order 99-991).
|
|
|
The Companies' application
|
|
|
The Companies indicated that, for the purposes of their application, mobile wireless services included mobile wireless voice services connected to the public switched telephone network (PSTN), such as cellular and PCS services, specialised mobile radio-telephone services and satellite voice services (public switched mobile voice services) and all other mobile wireless services, including paging and wireless data services (other mobile wireless services), as these terms are defined in Decision 96-14.
|
|
|
In their application, the Companies requested that the Commission refrain from exercising its powers and performing its duties under sections 24 (in part) and 25, subsections 27(1), 27(3) (in part), 27(5) and 27(6), and sections 29 and 31 of the Act in relation to the Companies' current and future public switched mobile voice services. The Companies also requested that the Commission refrain from exercising its powers and performing its duties under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act in relation to other mobile wireless services that the Companies currently offer or may offer in the future.
|
|
|
The Companies indicated that they had previously offered mobile wireless services through separate affiliates, namely Télébec Mobility and NorTel Mobility. The Companies further stated that they had integrated these wireless affiliates within the operations of Télébec and NorthernTel, respectively, in the second trimester of 2002.
|
|
|
The Companies submitted that in Decision 96-14, the Commission extended a greater scope of forbearance to other mobile wireless services than to public switched mobile voice services.
|
|
|
The Companies noted that in Decisions 98-15, 98-18, 98-19, and Order 99-991, the Commission had forborne from regulation of mobile wireless services provided directly by regulated telephone companies after those companies had implemented accounting separations to safeguard against cross-subsidies from regulated utility services to non-regulated competitive services.
|
|
|
The Companies also noted that the Commission's statement in Decision 98-18, regarding its finding in Decision 94-15 that the mobile wireless market was sufficiently competitive to protect user interests, was based upon an examination of general structural features of the market for mobile wireless services, rather than upon a competitive assessment of each geographic market or territory of each provider of mobile wireless services.
|
|
|
The Companies noted further that in Decision 98-18 and in Order 99-991, with respect to the Stentor companies, the Commission stated that the split rate base (SRB) and price cap regulation (introduced respectively in Implementation of regulatory framework − splitting of the rate base and related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-21, 31 October 1995, and Price cap regulation and related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-9, 1 May 1997) limit the incentive for cross-subsidising from the utility to the competitive segments and reduce the ability and, thus, the likelihood of a regulated company pursuing a strategy of anti-competitive cross-subsidy of its competitive mobile wireless services.
|
|
|
The Companies observed that the Commission established a SRB regime for Télébec in Implementation of regulatory framework for Québec-Téléphone and Télébec ltée, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-21, 18 December 1997. Furthermore, the Companies noted that the Commission will implement price cap regulation for Télébec in accordance with Implementation of price cap regulation for Québec-Téléphone and Télébec, Public Notice CRTC 2001-36, 13 March 2001.
|
|
|
O.N.Telcom's intervention
|
|
|
In its intervention, O.N.Telcom questioned whether the Companies had complied with Commission regulation in providing wireless services, whether there was competition for wireless services within the Companies' territories, and whether competitive safeguards would be adequate if NorthernTel were to provide wireless services on a forborne basis in the Companies' joint serving territory.
|
|
|
O.N.Telcom submitted that the Companies did not indicate in which Commission determinations their wireless affiliates were granted forbearance.
|
|
|
O.N.Telcom stated that the Commission had conducted a market analysis of the state of competition in O.N.Telcom's cellular service market during the proceeding which led to CRTC refrains from regulating O.N.Telcom's delivery of mobile wireless services, Order CRTC 2001-501, 29 June 2001, wherein the Commission forbore from regulating mobile wireless services provided by O.N.Telcom. O.N.Telcom argued that the Companies should also submit to a market analysis conducted by the Commission in this proceeding.
|
|
|
With respect to competitive safeguards, O.N.Telcom argued that since NorthernTel was again offering wireless services directly to subscribers, it must demonstrate that it has met the conditions established in Regulatory framework for the independent telephone companies in Québec and Ontario (except Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, Québec-Téléphone and Télébec ltée), Telecom Decision CRTC 96-6, 7 August 1996 (Decision 96-6). In that decision, the Commission required that a company that provides monopoly telephone services and wishes to offer mobile wireless services on a forborne basis, propose the appropriate costing and marketing safeguards, with the option of complying with the joint marketing safeguards implemented in Cellular radio - Adequacy of structural safeguards, Telecom Decision CRTC 87-13, 23 September 1987, and Rogers Cantel Inc. v. Bell Canada − Marketing of cellular service, Telecom Decision CRTC 92-13, 29 June 1992. O.N.Telcom argued that the Companies did not demonstrate that the requisite competitive safeguards for providing wireless services on a forborne basis, consistent with Decision 96-6, were in place in NorthernTel's territory.
|
|
|
Furthermore, while the Companies cited various decisions referring to the SRB as a competitive safeguard, O.N.Telcom submitted that there was no indication by the Companies as to whether NorthernTel has implemented the SRB, as was required for an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) entering the toll market by O.N.Telcom - Implementation of toll competition and related matters, Decision CRTC 2001-583, 13 September 2001, nor whether NorthernTel's SRB manual has been changed to reflect provision of wireless services directly by NorthernTel.
|
|
|
O.N.Telcom also submitted that, to the best of its knowledge, NorthernTel does not have an approved Phase II manual, and thus could not comply with the bundling rules implemented in Joint marketing and bundling, Telecom Decision CRTC 98-4, 24 March 1998 (Decision 98-4).
|
|
|
Further, O.N.Telcom submitted that there is significant potential for cross-subsidisation between the Companies given that Télébec and NorthernTel are affiliates. O.N.Telcom argued that the arrangements between the Companies should therefore be examined and appropriate safeguards against cross-subsidisation should be implemented. O.N.Telecom submitted that, at a minimum, NorthernTel should be required to continue to file intercorporate transactions reports.
|
|
|
Accordingly, O.N.Telcom submitted that the Commission should deny NorthernTel's request for forbearance from regulation of mobile wireless services. O.N.Telcom argued that it would be inappropriate to forbear from regulating NorthernTel's mobile wireless services until such time as issues relating to NorthernTel's SRB, SRB manuals and compliance with the marketing safeguards set out in Decision 96-6 and Decision 98-4 are addressed.
|
|
|
The Companies' reply
|
|
|
In reply, the Companies stated that their mobile wireless services, when provided by separate affiliates, were forborne from regulation pursuant to Decision 94-15, in which, among other things, the Commission forbore from regulating mobile wireless services provided by wireless carriers other than the telephone companies.
|
|
|
In response to Commission interrogatories dated 17 October 2002, the Companies stated that there is competition from Rogers Wireless Inc. (RWI) in approximately 80% of NorthernTel's territory and approximately 30% of Télébec's territory. The Companies also stated that they have signed roaming agreements with Bell Mobility Inc. and TELUS Mobility. Customers of NorthernTel and Télébec may roam with all roaming partners of Bell Mobility Inc. They also indicated that customers of other carriers may roam throughout the Companies' operating territories.
|
|
|
The Companies submitted that in Decision 98-4, the Commission: (a) ended the prohibitions on joint marketing and advertising; (b) determined that the restrictions on customer referrals were not necessary; (c) found that the rules of the carrier services groups and the Companies' Terms of Service provide sufficient protection for customer confidential information; and (d) eliminated separate, specific safeguards against cross-subsidies to wireless services, since, as more telecommunications markets become subject to competition, there are fewer sources of monopoly revenues.
|
|
|
The Companies also noted that, in Decisions 98-15 and 98-18, the Commission expressed the view that the SRB and the price cap regime are sufficient safeguards to prevent cross-subsidisation from utility services to paging services.
|
|
|
The Companies agreed with the Commission's finding in Decision 98-15 that the SRB accounting regime, which has been adopted by the Companies and the price cap regime provide sufficient protection against cross-subsidisation from monopoly to competitive segment services, including mobile wireless services which are or may be offered by the Companies.
|
|
|
The Companies submitted that, in light of Decisions 98-4 and 98-18, separate and additional safeguards such as an approved SRB manual, other than the SRB and price cap regime, are no longer required as preconditions of forbearance from regulating the competitive segment wireless operations of the Companies.
|
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
|
Application of subsections 34(1), (2) and (3) of the Act
|
|
|
The Commission notes that, while subsection 34(1) of the Act provides that the Commission may refrain from regulating a service or class of services when it finds that such forbearance is consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives, subsection 34(2) of the Act requires it to forbear where it finds that the market for the service in question is, or will be, subject to sufficient competition to protect the interests of users. The Commission also notes, however, that subsection34(3) of the Act provides that the Commission shall not forbear if it finds that to do so would be likely to impair unduly the establishment or continuance of a competitive market for that service.
|
|
|
The Commission considers it appropriate, for the purpose of this application, to define the market for mobile wireless services in NorthernTel's territory and Télébec's territory to encompass the Companies' entire service territories, and to include within that market both public switched mobile voice services, such as cellular and PCS services, specialised mobile radio-telephone services and satellite voice services, as well as other mobile wireless services, such as paging and wireless data services.
|
|
|
The Commission notes the Companies' evidence indicates that in about 80% of NorthernTel's territory and 30% of Télébec's territory mobile wireless service customers can choose RWI as an alternate carrier that operates its own facilities, and that all of the Companies' mobile wireless customers may access other carriers through roaming. The Commission also notes that is licensed to provide mobile wireless services throughout the Companies' territories.
|
|
|
The Commission is of the view that this combination of facilities-based and resale competition, and the possibility of additional entry, provides sufficient competition to protect user interests if the Companies provide mobile wireless services on a forborne basis.
|
|
|
The Commission turns next to the issues raised by O.N.Telcom with respect to regulatory compliance and the adequacy of competitive safeguards, considering also the impact of Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34) and Implementation of price regulation for Télébec and TELUS Québec, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-43, 31 July 2002 (Decision 2002-43).
|
|
|
The Commission notes that when the Companies offered mobile wireless services through structurally separate affiliates, the provision of those services was forborne from regulation pursuant to Decisions 94-15 and 96-14. Further, the Companies' forbearance request for public switched mobile voice services and other mobile wireless services is entirely consistent with previous Commission decisions forbearing from regulation of wireless mobile services.
|
|
|
O.N.Telcom also submitted that NorthernTel should comply with Decision 96-6 prior to the Commission granting forbearance from regulation of mobile wireless services. The Commission notes, however, that it ended the requirement to file SRB and Phase III results for the large ILECs, and for Télébec and TELUS Québecin Decision 2002-34 and Decision 2002-43, respectively.
|
|
|
The Commission further notes that in Decision 98-4, the Commission removed the explicit prohibitions against cross-subsidies to mobile wireless services for nearly all Canadian carriers, including Télébec and NorthernTel.
|
|
|
In Decision 98-4, the Commission also removed the joint marketing prohibitions and implemented the bundling rules. The bundling rules require the Companies to file a tariff if they wish to bundle mobile wireless and regulated services. As part of that tariff filing, the Companies would have to demonstrate that the proposed rate or rates for the bundled service or services complies with the Commission's bundling rules, i.e. that the rate or rates recover the appropriate costs incurred in providing the bundled service or services.
|
|
|
Furthermore, in Regulatory framework for the small incumbent telephone companies, Decision CRTC 2001-756, 14 December 2001, the Commission established a regime of price regulation for the small ILECs, including NorthernTel. Like the price cap regulation implemented by the Commission for Télébec in Decision 2002-43, and renewed for the large ILECs in Decision 2002-34, this regime sets limits on the maximum price increases for an ILEC's regulated services.
|
|
|
The Commission also notes that it has discontinued the requirement for carriers to file intercorporate transactions reports.
|
|
|
The Commission recognises that the termination of the SRB accounting requirement for Télébec in Decision 2002-43 raises the issue of whether there remain sufficient safeguards against cross-subsidies from regulated to competitive services absent the SRB accounting requirement.
|
|
|
In this respect, the Commission notes that price regulation does not prevent a regulated company from using profits or cash-flow earned in providing regulated services to subsidise competitive services. However, the Commission stated in Quebecor Média inc. - Alleged anti-competitive cross-subsidization of Bell ExpressVu, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-61, 8 October 2002, that price regulation ensures that rates for regulated services are just and reasonable, and thus the company's profits and cash-flow from regulated services are earned on the basis of just and reasonable rates.
|
|
|
In addition, a cross-subsidy to competitive services offered by the telephone company may be an undue preference to the telephone company, and unjust discrimination against competitors. The Commission notes that in previous decisions forbearing from regulation of public switched mobile voice services, the Commission retained its powers under subsections 27(2), 27(3) (in part) and 27(4) of the Act, in order to be able to deal with allegations of undue preference or unjust discrimination.
|
|
|
Accordingly, and consistent with its findings in respect of mobile wireless services as set out in the decisions noted in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this decision, the Commission finds, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Act, as a question of fact, that the provision of mobile wireless services in the Companies' territories is sufficiently competitive to protect the interests of users so as to warrant forbearance to the extent set out in this decision. In particular, the Commission finds that many users have at least one alternative supplier, and that there could be entry of additional suppliers.
|
|
|
The Commission finds, pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Act, as a question of fact, that refraining from the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties, to the extent specified in this decision, with respect to mobile wireless services in the Companies' territories, is consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives of the Act.
|
|
|
The Commission also finds, pursuant to subsection 34(3) of the Act, as a question of fact, that refraining from regulating mobile wireless services, to the extent specified in this decision, is unlikely to impair unduly the continuance of a competitive market for these services.
|
|
|
In light of these findings, the Commission must determine the extent to which it is appropriate to refrain, in whole or in part, and conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act.
|
|
|
The Commission notes that there are only a few providers of public switched mobile voice services, but numerous providers of other mobile wireless services. Accordingly, the Commission considers it appropriate that the scope of forbearance differ between the two classes of mobile wireless services.
|
|
|
Scope of forbearance: public switched mobile voice services
|
|
|
Section 24
|
|
|
Section 24 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
24. The offering and provision of any telecommunications service by a Canadian carrier are subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission or included in a tariff approved by the Commission.
|
|
|
The Commission considers that it is appropriate to retain its powers pursuant to section 24 of the Act to ensure that the confidentiality of customer information continues to be protected. Because the Companies' Terms of Service, which ensure the confidentiality of customer information for regulated services, do not apply to forborne services, the Commission directsthe Companies, as a condition of providing public switched mobile voice services, toabide by the existing conditions regarding disclosure of confidential customer information to third parties with respect to public switched mobile voice services. The Commission also directs the Companies, on a going forward basis, as a condition of providing public switched mobile voice services, to incorporate, where appropriate, the existing conditions regarding disclosure of confidential customer information to third parties into all contracts and any other arrangements for services forborne from regulation in this decision.
|
|
|
Finally, the Commission considers that it is also appropriate to retain sufficient powers under section 24 of the Act to specify possible future conditions for offering and providing public switched mobile voice services.
|
|
|
Section 25
|
|
|
Section 25 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
25. (1) No Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission that specifies the rate or the maximum or minimum rate, or both, to be charged for the service.
|
|
|
(2) A joint tariff agreed on by two or more Canadian carriers may be filed by any of the carriers with an attestation of the agreement of the other carriers.
|
|
|
(3) A tariff shall be filed and published or otherwise made available for public inspection by a Canadian carrier in the form and manner specified by the Commission and shall include any information required by the Commission to be included.
|
|
|
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commission may ratify the charging of a rate by a Canadian carrier otherwise than in accordance with a tariff approved by the Commission if the Commission is satisfied that the rate:
|
|
|
(a) was charged because of an error or other circumstance that warrants the ratification; or
|
|
|
(b) was imposed in conformity with the laws of a province before the operations of the carrier were regulated under any Act of Parliament.
|
|
|
Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission considers it appropriate that the Companies no longer be required to file and obtain the Commission's approval of tariffs for public switched mobile voice services. Accordingly, the Commission will refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under section 25 with respect to public switched mobile voice services.
|
|
|
Section 27
|
|
|
Section 27 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
27. (1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.
|
|
|
(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.
|
|
|
(3) The Commission may determine in any case, as a question of fact, whether a Canadian carrier has complied with section 25, this section or section 29, or with any decision made under section 24, 25, 29, 34 or 40.
|
|
|
(4) The burden of establishing before the Commission that any discrimination is not unjust or that any preference or disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable is on the Canadian carrier that discriminates, gives the preference or subjects the person to the disadvantage.
|
|
|
(5) In determining whether a rate is just and reasonable, the Commission may adopt any method or technique that it considers appropriate, whether based on a carrier's return on its rate base or otherwise.
|
|
|
(6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a Canadian carrier may provide telecommunications services at no charge or at a reduced rate
|
|
|
(a) to the carrier's directors, officers, employees or former employees; or
|
|
|
(b) with the approval of the Commission, to any charitable organization or disadvantaged person or other person.
|
|
|
The Commission considers that there is no need to apply the regulatory standards for "just and reasonable" rates to rates that are set in a competitive market. Accordingly, the Commission will refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under subsection 27(1) of the Act with respect to public switched mobile voice services.
|
|
|
The Commission notes that the Companies have not requested forbearance from subsection 27(2) of the Act. Consistent with previous decisions in which the Commission forbore from the regulation of public switched mobile voice services, the Commission will retain sufficient power under subsection 27(2) to ensure that the Companies do not give an undue preference or unjustly discriminate with respect to public switched mobile voice services.
|
|
|
The Commission considers it necessary to retain its powers under subsection 27(3) of the Act with respect to compliance with powers and duties not forborne from in this decision.
|
|
|
The Commission notes that the Companies have also not requested forbearance from subsection 27(4) of the Act. Consistent with previous decisions, the Commission considers it necessary to retain its powers under subsection 27(4) in relation to the Companies' provision of public switched mobile voice services, to ensure that the onus continues to rest on the regulated carrier to demonstrate that a preference is not undue, or that discrimination is not unjust.
|
|
|
The Commission will forbear from all of its powers under subsection 27(5) of the Act, since subsection 27(5) relates to subsection 27(1), from which the Commission is forbearing in this decision. The Commission will also forbear from all of its powers under subsection 27(6) of the Act, since the Commission does not wish to limit the pricing of the forborne services.
|
|
|
Section 29
|
|
|
Section 29 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
29. No Canadian carrier shall, without the prior approval of the Commission, give effect to any agreement or arrangement, whether oral or written, with another telecommunications common carrier respecting
|
|
|
(a) the interchange of telecommunications by means of their telecommunications facilities;
|
|
|
(b) the management or operation of either or both of their facilities or any other facilities with which either or both are connected; or
|
|
|
(c) the apportionment of rates or revenues between the carriers.
|
|
|
The Commission considers it appropriate that the Companies no longer be required to obtain the Commission's approval to enter into agreements with other telecommunications common carriers regarding public switched mobile voice services. Accordingly, the Commission will refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under section 29 of the Act with respect to public switched mobile voice services.
|
|
|
Section 31
|
|
|
Section 31 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
31. No limitation of a Canadian carrier's liability in respect of a telecommunications service is effective unless it has been authorized or prescribed by the Commission.
|
|
|
The Commission considers it appropriate that the Companies be able to limit their liability in respect of public switched mobile voice services in the same way as may an unregulated service provider. Accordingly, the Commission will refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under section 31 of the Act with respect to the Companies' public switched mobile voice services.
|
|
|
Scope of forbearance: other mobile wireless services
|
|
|
Since there are numerous providers of other mobile wireless services, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act with respect to the Companies' other mobile wireless services.
|
|
|
Declaration pursuant to subsection 34(4) of the Act
|
|
|
In light of the above, the Commission declares, pursuant to subsection 34(4) of the Act, that effective two weeks from the date of this decision, sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act do not apply to the Companies' public switched mobile voice services, except with respect to:
|
|
|
- the conditions pursuant to section 24 of the Act set out in this decision with respect to the confidentiality of customer information;
|
|
|
- any future condition that the Commission may impose, pursuant to section 24 of the Act;
|
|
|
- subsection 27(2), requiring that carriers do not give an undue preference, or discriminate unjustly;
|
|
|
- the Commission's powers under subsection 27(3) of the Act with respect to compliance with powers and duties not forborne from in this decision; and
|
|
|
- subsection 27(4) of the Act, with respect to the burden of establishing that a carrier does not confer an undue preference or discriminate unjustly.
|
|
|
The Commission further declares, pursuant to subsection 34(4) of the Act, that sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act do not apply to the Companies' other mobile wireless services.
|
|
|
Tariff filings
|
|
|
The Commission directs the Companies to issue forthwith, revised tariff pages, effective two weeks from the date of this decision, deleting the existing tariff provisions relating to mobile wireless services.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca
|
Date Modified: 2003-12-02