Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-932

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

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.

PDF version

Ottawa, 10 December 2010

Saskatchewan Telecommunications – Application to exclude competition-related quality of service indicator 2.10 results from the rate rebate plan for competitors for September 2010

File number: 8660-S22-201015412

Introduction

1.         The Commission received an application by Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), dated 8 October 2010, requesting the exclusion of the competitor quality of service (Q of S) results related to indicator 2.10 – Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) – CDN [competitor digital network] Services and Type C Loops (indicator 2.10) from its rate rebate plan for competitors for Bell Canada for September 2010.

2.         SaskTel submitted that in September 2010 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, a construction subcontractor not under its control drove a steel beam through an underground concrete duct structure, damaging 1,650 pairs of cables and resulting in a CDN service interruption to Bell Canada. SaskTel also submitted that it had tried to minimize the risk of cable cuts by conducting weekly meetings with the project contractor and that it had provided the cable location to the contractor. SaskTel further submitted that the cut occurred because of a communication gap between the contractor and the subcontractor.

3.         SaskTel noted that its actual September 2010 competitor Q of S performance results for service to Bell Canada were below the set standard for indicator 2.10. However, SaskTel provided evidence that if the trouble reports related to the above-noted adverse event were excluded, its September 2010 results for indicator 2.10 for Bell Canada would have been within the accepted standard.

4.         The Commission received no comments regarding this application. The public record of this proceeding is available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca under “Public Proceedings” or by using the file number provided above.

Commission’s analysis and determinations

5.         In Telecom Decision 2005-20, the Commission created a mechanism for considering possible exclusions from competitor Q of S results when circumstances beyond the control of an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) might have caused it to fail to meet a performance standard.

6.         In Telecom Decision 2007-102, the Commission adopted a force majeure clause that provided, among other things, that no rate rebates would apply in a month where failure to meet a competitor Q of S standard was caused in that month by events beyond the reasonable control of the ILEC. The Commission considers that, based on the evidence filed, the cable damage in question qualifies as an incident that was beyond the reasonable control of SaskTel and thus triggers the force majeure clause.

7.         The Commission also considers that SaskTel has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the cable cut caused the below-standard results for indicator 2.10 for Bell Canada in September 2010.

8.         In Telecom Decision 2007-14, the Commission concluded that if a competitor Q of S indicator has been met for the three months prior or for at least six out of the twelve months prior to an adverse event, it is reasonable to conclude that an ILEC would likely have met its competitor Q of S obligations without the adverse event.

9.         After reviewing SaskTel’s evidence and verifying that SaskTel exceeded the standard for indicator 2.10 for all its competitors, including Bell Canada, for the three consecutive months prior to the 20 September 2010 incident, the Commission considers it reasonable to conclude that SaskTel would have met its competitor Q of S obligations without the adverse event.

10.     In light of the above, the Commission approves SaskTel’s request to exclude below-standard results for indicator 2.10 for September 2010 in the calculation of the amounts due to Bell Canada under the rate rebate plan for competitors.

Secretary General

Related documents

  • Retail quality of service rate adjustment plan and competitor quality of service rate rebate plan – Adverse events, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-102, 31 October 2007
  • TELUS Communications Company – Application to exclude certain competition-related quality of service results from the rate rebate plan for competitors for July 2005, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-14, 28 February 2007
  • Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20, 31 March 2005