|
Telecom Public Notice
|
|
Ottawa, 25 October 1984
|
|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 1984-55
|
|
CELLULAR RADIO SERVICE
|
|
BACKGROUND
|
On 22 March 1984, the Commission issued Radio Common Carrier Interconnection with Federally Regulated Telephone Companies, Telecom Decision CRTC 84-10 (Decision 84-10), wherein it determined that the interconnection of cellular radio systems to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) of federally regulated telephone companies was in the public interest. In Decision 84-10, the Commission directed Bell Canada (Bell) and British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel) to negotiate with the Cantel Cellular Radio Group Inc. (Cantel) and, where relevant, their affiliate licensed to provide cellular radio service within their operating territory (telephone company affiliate), to develop the terms and conditions for the interconnection of their cellular systems to the PSTN.
|
This public notice follows-up on three aspects of Decision 84-10: the regulation of cellular radio service providers; the results of the negotiation process between Bell and Cantel; and the proposed tariffs for interconnection.
|
|
REGULATION OF CELLULAR RADIO SERVICE PROVIDERS
|
|
One of the issues in the proceeding which led to Decision 84-10 concerned the extent, if any, to which providers of cellular radio service should be regulated. In the opinion of the Commission, Cantel and any telephone company affiliate, as defined above, are companies" within the definition in section 320(1) of the Railway Act and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
|
|
However, the Commission considers that as a matter of regulatory policy it is neither necessary nor desirable, at this time, that Cantel or an arms' length telephone company affiliate be required to file tariffs for the provision of cellular service to the public. This conclusion is based on the Commission's opinion that the benefits which users may derive from this innovative service are likely to be greater if the terms of its provision are governed, as much as possible, by market forces rather than by regulation. In the case of telephone company affiliates, this conclusion is also conditional on there being adequate safeguards to ensure that their cellular activities are at arms' length from, and are not cross-subsidized by revenues from, regulated telephone company activities. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to section 320(3) of the Railway Act, both Cantel and any arms' length telephone company affiliate may charge tolls to the public for cellular radio service for which tariffs have not been filed.
|
|
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN BELL AND CANTEL
|
In Decision 84-10, Bell and B.C. Tel were directed to file written reports with the Commission, on or before 23 July 1984, describing the status of negotiations with Cantel and, where applicable, the telephone company affiliates.
|
|
On 23 July 1984, B.C. Tel advised the Commission that it and Cantel had reached an impasse in their negotiations, and that it believed Bell and Cantel had reached a similar impasse and would be approaching the Commission to mediate that impasse. B.C. Tel requested the opportunity to comment further at that time.
|
|
On 16 July 1984 both Bell and Cantel had filed reports with the Commission on the status of their negotiations. Included in their reports was a joint statement outlining points of agreement, points believed resolvable and the following two points of difference.
|
|
Point 1. Costs of Interconnection
|
|
Cantel's position is that the costs of the facilities and services provided to achieve interconnection between the parties' respective systems should be borne by each party.
|
|
Bell's position is that all costs of its facilities and services provided to achieve interconnection between the parties' respective systems should be recovered through tariffs charged to Cantel. Costs incurred by Cantel to achieve such interconnection should be borne by Cantel.
|
|
Point 2. Central Office Codes
|
|
Cantel's position is that it has the right, independent of Bell, to one or more discrete central office (NXX) codes in each Bell Rate Centre where interconnection occurs.
|
|
Bell's position is that Cantel should be allocated NXX codes only in Wire Centres where forecasts of its requirements so warrant. Telephone numbers in other Wire Centres should be allocated in blocks of 100
|
|
Supporting Argument of Parties
|
|
Cantel takes the position that it is telephone company under the Railway Act and is authorized to provide public voice telephone service in specific locations in Bell territory. As a telephone company, Cantel considers that it should be treated by Bell in a manner similar to the arrangements between Bell and independent telephone companies. In particular:
|
|
(1) interconnection arrangements should be based on agreements for the interchange of traffic
between Bell and independent telephone companies; and
|
|
(2) Cantel should have exclusive rights to telephone numbers.
|
|
In essence, Cantel believes that the costs of interconnection should reflect the reciprocal nature of two telephone companies interchanging traffic rather than one party allowing another the privilege of accessing its network. Cantel would prefer that each party assume its own costs associated with interchanging traffic rather than be faced with the inconvenience of a lengthy process in which each party files interconnection tariffs. Further, Cantel asserts that, as a telephone company, it should not have to pay another telephone company for telephone numbers since it has as much right to these numbers as other telephone companies.
|
|
Bell does not agree that Cantel is similar to a provincially regulated independent telephone company that operates exclusively within a particular geographic territory and provides basic telephone service. In its opinion, these companies normally connect at Bell's exchange boundaries in order to provide basic local and MTS services between systems, Cantel, on the other hand, is not licensed to provide an exclusive telephone service within a geographic area, but rather to provide cellular radio service within Bell's operating territory, and is therefore dependent on its interconnection with Bell. If Bell were to provide interconnection services and facilities at no charge to Cantel, Bell's subscribers would be required to bear the costs of interconnecting Cantel's competitive service. On this basis Bell suggests that:
|
|
(1) Cantel should be charged tariffed rates for interconnecting services and facilities as set out in
accordance with Decision 84-10, including rates for telephone numbers; and
|
|
(2) all costs incurred by Cantel within its own system as a result of interconnection should be borne
by Cantel.
|
|
With regard to the assignment of telephone numbers, Bell takes the position that Cantel has no right to NXX codes, and points out that these are a finite resource that require efficient administration and allocation and that impose a cost on the telephone system, especially where an NXX is put into service.
|
|
PROPOSED INTERCONNECTION TARIFFS
|
|
In letters dated 10 August 1984 to Bell and Cantel, the Commission indicated that it considered the issues raised in the 16 July reports to be of broad regulatory significance warranting comment from other interested parties. The Commission stated that, in its view, these issues could best be resolved after reviewing the particulars of the tariffs for interconnection facilities proposed to be filed by Bell and B.C. Tel.
|
|
Accordingly, the Commission advised that, following receipt of the tariffs which Decision 84-10 required to be filed by 17 September 1984, it intended to issue a public notice inviting comments on the tariffs filed by Bell and B.C. Tel and the issues raised by Bell and Cantel.
|
|
On 17 August 1984, Cantel replied that it did not see the relevance of the tariffs to the points of principle in dispute and that the Commission appeared to have ruled implicitly on whether or not the actual filing of tariffs was necessary. Cantel indicated that on 17 September the Commission would only have Bell and B.C. Tel tariffs before it, as those of Cantel would not be available at that time.
|
|
On 17 September 1984, under Tariff Notice 1373, BelL filed proposed tariff revisions providing for the introduction of Cellular Access Service, which would permit the interconnection of cellular mobile systems with the PSTN. Similarly, on 17 September 1984, under Tariff Notice 988, B.C. Tel filed proposed tariff revisions providing for the interconnection of public mobile radio systems, including cellular systems, with the PSTN. The Commission has called for comments on these proposed tariff revisions as they pertain to public mobile systems other than cellular in CRTC Telecom Public Notice 1984-56, dated 25 October 1984.
|
|
On 17 September 1984, Cantel informed the Commission that, as indicated in its letter of 17 August 1984, Cantel tariffs would not be available for filing on 17 September 1984. On 2 October 1984, the Commission advised Cantel that, should it desire to have its proposed filing included for comment at the same time as Bell's and B.C. Tel's tariffs, such filing should be made by 15 October 1984. On 15 October 1984, under Tariff Notice 1, Cantel filed proposed tariffs for the introduction of Wireline Access Service.
|
|
PROCEDURE
|
|
Documentation submitted by Bell may be examined at any of its business offices or at the offices of the CRTC, Room 561, Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec or Complex Guy Favreau, East Tower, 200 Dorchester Blvd. West, 6th floor, Montreal, Quebec. A copy of the documentation may be obtained by any interested party upon request directed to Bell addressed to: Mr. E.E. Saunders, Q.C., c/o Mr. Peter J. Knowlton, Assistant General Counsel, Bell Canada, 25 Eddy Street, 4th floor, Hull, Quebec, J8Y 6N4.
|
|
Documentation submitted by B.C. Tel may be examined at any of its business offices or at the offices of the CRTC, Room 561, Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec or 700 West Georgia Street, Suite 1130, Vancouver, British Columbia. A copy of the documentation may be obtained by any interested party, upon request directed to B.C. Tel addressed to: Mr. K.D.A. Morrison, Secretary, British Columbia Telephone Company, 3777 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5H 3Z7.
|
|
Documentation submitted by Cantel may be examined at any of the offices of the CRTC, Room 561, Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec. A copy of the documentation may be obtained by any interested party, upon request directed to Cantel addressed to: Mr. Charles M. Dalfen, Secretary, Cantel Radio Group Inc., Suite 1500, 275 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H7.
|
|
The Commission invites comment on the two points of difference which exist between Bell and Cantel and on the proposed tariffs for interconnection of cellular radio systems with the PSTN submitted by Bell, B.C. Tel and Cantel. Any person wishing to comment on these matters should file notice of their intention to do so with the Commission by 12 November 1984. The Commission will then issue a list of interested parties, along with their mailing addresses, to each party appearing on the list. Comments must be filed with the Commission, with copies to the listed interested parties, by 23 November 1984. All parties may reply to these comments by 3 December 1984, after which time the Commission will determine what further action it considers appropriate.
|
|
All documents are to be actually filed and served by the dates set out above, not merely mailed by those dates.
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
|
|
|