|
Telecom Decision
|
|
Ottawa, 18 January 1984
|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 84-6
|
|
Radio Service Engineers Limited v. British Columbia Telephone Company
|
|
I Background
|
|
On 9 November 1982, Radio Service Engineers Limited (RSEL, the Applicant) applied to the Commission for an order requiring British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel, the Company) to establish just and reasonable tolls for the connection of certain subscriber-provided multi-line terminal equipment to B.C. Tel's network. RSEL submitted that B.C. Tel charged PBX system rates for all Mitel Super-10 electronic systems (Mitel Super-10) connected to central office circuits whereas some Mitel Super-10's were so configured that key telephone system rates were appropriate. RSEL contended that, in so doing, B.C. Tel was granting itself an undue preference and unjustly discriminating against the interconnect subscribers of the Company, a Canadian terminal equipment manufacturer and certain terminal equipment suppliers contrary to section 321 of the Railway Act.
|
|
Noting that key telephone system rates were being charged in the case of the AEL Microtel Microcom 816 (Microcom 816), a system distributed exclusively by B.C. Tel's subsidiary, AEL Microtel Limited, RSEL contended that the Microcom 816 was similar in features to the Mitel Super-10 and that, as key telephone system rates were being applied to the former, they should also be applied to Mitel Super-10's configured as key telephone systems. RSEL emphasized that, in Vancouver, the difference between the rates charged for the connection of key systems and PBX systems is $20.25 per line per month.
|
|
II Position of the Parties
|
|
It was RSEL's position in its application that, in Canada, using the definition of key telephone system developed by the Terminal Attachment Program Advisory Committee (TAPAC), which is based on the method used to process both incoming and outgoing calls, neither the Microcom 816 nor the Mitel Super-10 could properly be defined as key telephone systems. In the United States, however, where Federal Communications Commission (FCC) registration of key telephone systems is based on the method used to process outgoing calls only, the Microcom 816 is registered as a key telephone system while the Mitel Super-10 is registered as a hybrid or multi-function system that can be configured as either a key telephone system or a PBX.
|
|
RSEL pointed out that FCC standards were accepted for purposes of the Commission's decision in British Columbia Telephone Company - Interim terms and conditions regarding the attachment of subscriber-provided terminal equipment, Telecom Decision CRTC 81-19, 22 October 1981, and that these were in effect at the time of its application. RSEL therefore took the position that the FCC definition of a key telephone system should be utilized by the Company for purposes of determining whether a Mitel Super-10 should be treated as a key telephone system or PBX system.
|
|
In its answer to RSEL's application, dated 9 December 1982, B.C. Tel indicated that it is its policy to classify a subscriber-provided system as a key telephone system and to charge the rates applicable for such systems if a special agreement is signed containing the following attestation:
|
|
This system is configured in such a way that each telephone in the system has direct access
to one or more central office lines for outgoing and incoming calls; i.e., manual selection on a
non-random basis by the station initiating the outgoing calls consoleless operation on
incoming calls.
|
|
B.C. Tel was of the view, however, that the Mitel Super-10 could not be configured to meet this requirement and that, accordingly, PBX trunk line rates should appropriately be charged for its connection. The Company contended that, since its policy is applied uniformly to all equipment, irrespective of the supplier, it is not contrary to section 321 of the Railway Act.
|
|
On 6 January 1983, RSEL replied to the Company's answer by reiterating its previous position.
|
|
After learning that the Department of Communications (DOC) had certified the Mitel Super-10 as both a Category 24 system (key telephone systems) and a Category 25 system (PBX telephone systems), B.C. Tel amended its 9 December 1982 answer to RSEL's application on 18 January 1983 by withdrawing its statement that the Mitel Super-10 could only be configured as a PBX.
|
|
On 27 January 1983, RSEL replied to B.C. Tel objecting to the Company's position that consoleless operation on incoming calls is a requirement of a key telephone system. This requirement, RSEL argued, would so constrain the answering of incoming calls that it would be impossible to conceive of anyone desiring such a system. RSEL reiterated its request that the Commission direct B.C. Tel to allow the Mitel Super-10 to be connected at the rates applicable to key telephone systems when it is so configured. It requested further that the Commission direct the Company to issue rebates on the monthly line charges to those Mitel Super-10 customers who configured their systems as key systems but who were charged rates applicable to PBX systems.
|
|
III Conclusions
|
|
Having considered the record of this proceeding, the Commission has concluded that, for systems such as the Mitel Super-10, which the Commission is satisfied can be configured on installation to function as either a PBX or a key telephone system, subscribers should have the flexibility to configure them in whatever manner most suits their needs and that such subscribers should not be obliged to pay inappropriate line rates as a consequence. At the same time, however, the Commission considers, that, if subscribers are to have this flexibility, the Company should be afforded the means of assuring itself that the rates charged for a given installation are indeed appropriate. For the purpose of determining whether a specific installation functions as a PBX or key telephone system, the Commission considers that the definitions contained in DOC's Certification Standard CS-03(CS-03) are appropriate and sufficient.
|
|
In light of the above findings, the Commission has concluded that B.C. Tel's tariff should include a provision that, in cases of dispute between the Company and a subscriber as to the rates which should apply for a particular installation of subscriber-provided multi-line terminal equipment, individual or overline tariff rates will only be applied if the subscriber provides attestation that the system is or will be configured so as to meet the CS-03 definition of a key telephone system. Similarly, the tariff should state that systems leased by B.C. Tel must also be configured so as to meet the CS-03 definition of a key telephone system in order to be charged at the individual or overline tariff rates. Accordingly, B.C. Tel is directed to submit tariff revisions to implement these requirements within 30 days of the date of this decision.
|
|
In RSEL's final reply, it requested for the first time that B.C. Tel be directed to issue rebates to subscribers who have been charged PBX trunk rates for the connection of Mitel Super-10's configured as key systems. As a result, the Commission lacks the necessary evidence to make a determination on this matter. Accordingly, B.C. Tel is directed to file, within 60 days of the date of this decision, its comments on the issue of rebates indicating how subscribers who have configured their Mitel Super-10 terminal as a key system can be identified, the administrative steps required to make such rebates, the number of subscribers involved and the total amount of money to be remitted to them. B.C. Tel will forward a copy of its comments to RSEL who may reply within 10 days with a copy to B.C. Tel.
|
|
Following receipt of the above submissions, the Commission will make its determination on this matter and issue its decision.
|
|
J.G. Patenaude
Secretary General
|
|
|