ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8638-C12-59/02 - Filing dates for information and comments

Letter

Ottawa, 8 May 2003

Our file: 8638-C12-59/02

BY E-MAIL

Parties and Interested Parties listed in Appendix A
Other Parties listed in Appendix B

A. Filing dates for information and comments

The Commission received a letter dated 16 April 2003 from O.N.Telcom concerning a Commission staff letter and proposal dated 4 April 2003 relating to direct toll rates for the small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).  O.N.Telcom noted that the date for parties to provide comments for 5 May 2003 coincided with the date parties were scheduled to provide updated information to correct any inaccuracies currently on the record.  O.N.Telcom requested that the filing of comments be delayed until 16 may 2003, to afford parties sufficient time to consider any new evidence resulting from updated information, prior to providing comments.  O.N.Telcom also indicated the filing requirement for reply comments could also be adjusted accordingly.

In a letter dated 23 April 2003, NorthernTel Limited Partnership (NorthernTel) supported O.N.Telcom's request.

In a joint letter dated 25 April 2003, the Canadian Alliance of Publicly-Owned Telecommunications Systems (CAPTS), the Ontario Telecommunications Association (OTA), and the Société d'administration des tarifs d'accès des télécommunicateurs (SATAT), collectively "the Associations", requested an extension to the filing of comments and related information to 30 June 2003.

The Associations cited a requirement to review the current status of trunks, circuits, points of interconnection (POI), and V/H mileage data and methodologies for accuracy and completeness with the IXCs in order to fully evaluate the real impact of the Commission staff proposal.  The Associations indicated some of the data requiring verification are in various stages of update, as revisions have not occurred since 1993/1994.  The associations requested an extension from 5 may 2003 to 30 June 2003 to allow both the IXCs and small ILECs enough time to gather accurate information and to develop and validate the information requirements as detailed in the Commission staff letter of 4 April 2003.  The Associations also indicated that the timing for reply comments could be revised for the consideration of any new material placed on the public record.

In a letter dated 29 April 2003, Bell Canada (Bell), as the principal IXC involved in the verification of data for the Associations, supported the request for an extension from 5 May 2003 to 30 June 2003.  Bell proposed a schedule to accommodate the extension requested by the Associations and to provide additional time for parties to comment on information updates as requested by O.N.Telcom.  Bell proposed a date of 30 June 2003 for verification and updates of data, 15 July 2003 for comments by parties, and 22 July 2003 for reply comments by parties.

Commission staff is of the view that while the extension requested is considerable, staff is cognisant of the importance of the outcome to all parties involved and the need to proceed based on the most accurate information available.  However, while the dates for filing of information requirements and comments have been revised as indicated below, Commission staff considers that all parties should endeavour to avoid any further delays in the proceeding.

The following references to appendices and filing of information requirements are as taken from the Commission staff letter dated 4 April 2003 which provided proposals for DT and NA.  Filing dates outlined in the 4 April 2003 letter have been modified according to the following paragraphs in recognition of requests by parties for extensions.

Attachments 1 to 5 of Appendix B contain the preliminary supporting data used by Commission staff to develop the proposals outlined in Appendix A.  Parties are requested to review the information provided in relation to DT and where parties do not agree with the data, they are to provide revised numbers along with detailed supporting rationale for any changes to the Commission, serving a copy on all parties, by 23 June 2003.

Parties are also requested in part D of Appendix A to provide additional data pertaining to network access to the Commission, serving a copy on all parties, by 23 June 2003.

Parties may file comments with the Commission related to the staff proposal and any revised information filed by the 23 June 2003, serving a copy on all parties by 9 July 2003.

Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving a copy on all parties by 23 July 2003.

B. Filing date for unapproved agreements or arrangements

In Part C of the Commission staff letter concerning proposals for direct toll and network access cost recovery, dated 4 April 2003, specific requirements pertaining to interconnection agreements were noted.  In that letter, Commission staff proposed that new or revised interconnection agreements would be required according to the following circumstances:

     a)  parties would be required to continue with, or undertake negotiations, to update and/or prepare new interconnection agreements to be filed within six months of a final decision to reflect the final determinations for the treatment of DC/EA and Trunking during the transition period;

     b)   parties with NA tariffs would be required to undertake negotiations and file new or revised interconnection agreements within six months of a final decision to reflect the determinations for the treatment of network access services; and

     c)    parties with existing unapproved agreements or arrangements, which do not conform to the requirements of Section 29 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), and which would not be revised because of part a) or b) above, would be required to file such agreements or arrangements by 1 June 2003, requesting that they be approved by the Commission.

Commission staff has received several requests for clarification concerning the meaning and intent of item c) above.  Accordingly, Commission staff is providing the following in relation to item c) above, noting that the intent is to ensure that companies are not operating with agreements or arrangements which have not been properly approved by the Commission according to Section 29 of the Act.  Where a company has unapproved agreements or arrangements that meet the criteria noted below under Section 29 agreements, then these agreements or arrangements are to be filed by 1 June 2003, requesting the necessary Commission approval.

Agreements requiring Commission approval

1.      Section 29 agreements

Agreements or arrangements must be approved by the Commission pursuant to section 29 of the Act as follows:

 "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 following are considered agreements pursuant to Section 29 of the Act:

• agreement specifying the procedures of the interexchange carrier group;
• interconnection agreement between local exchange carriers (also referred to as Master agreement for interconnection between local exchange carriers (MALI)).
• local exchange carrier - interexchange carrier interconnection agreement;
• 9-1-1 interconnection agreement;
• message relay service (MRS) interconnection agreement; and
• any other interconnection agreement (e.g., interconnection through transit services)

2. Standard form master agreements not considered Section 29 agreements

Standard form agreements, and amendments to these agreements, are generally associated with a particular tariff.  In some cases, standard form agreements have been developed through the CISC process.

The Commission approves the unsigned standard master agreement, and amendments to these agreements.  Signed agreements do not require Commission approval.

Examples of this type of agreement include the following:

•      billing and collection services agreement;
•      directory file service (DFS) agreement
•      basic listing interchange file (BLIF) agreement; and
•      standard 9-1-1 agreement between the ILEC and a municipality or between a CLEC and a municipality.

C. General

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.

Parties can file their submissions electronically or on paper.  Where the submission is filed by electronic means, the line ***End of document*** should be entered following the last paragraph of the document as an indication that the document has not been damaged during electronic transmission.  Each paragraph of your submission should be numbered.

Please note that only those submissions electronically filed will be available on the Commission's web site and only in the official language and format in which they are submitted.

Should you have questions or require further clarification on any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact Donna Malliff at (819) 997-9253.

Yours sincerely,

Scott Hutton
Director, Contribution and Costing
Telecommunications
(819) 997-4573

Attachments:  Appendix A, List of Parties and Interested Parties
 Appendix B, List of Other parties