|
Telecom Public Notice
|
|
Ottawa, 7 March 1986
|
|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 1986-26
|
|
CNCP TELECOMMUNICATIONS - APPLICATION TO REVIEW AND VARY TELECOM DECISION CRTC 85-19
|
The Commission has received an application from CNCP Telecommunications (CNCP), dated 19 December 1985, filed pursuant to s.63 of the National Transportation Act, requesting that the Commission review and vary Interexchange Competition and Related Issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 85-19, 29 August 1985 (Decision 85-19).
|
In particular, CNCP has requested that the Commission rescind that part of Decision 85-19 which denied CNCP's application to provide long distance public telephone service in competition with Bell Canada (Bell) and British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel).
|
|
The approach employed by the Commission in determining whether to review and vary its telecommunications decisions was established in Bell Canada, Request to Review that Part of Telecom Decision CRTC 78-7 of August 10, 1978 Dealing with the Saudi Arabian Telephone Project, Telecom Decision CRTC 79-1, 2 February 1979, which adopted the report of a committee established by the Commission. The report concludes as follows:
|
|
After consideration of the principles set out in the COMSOL case and other
decisions, the Committee has concluded that the criteria to be considered for the exercise of
its powers under s.63 would require that the applicant demonstrate, on a prima facie basis, the
existence of one or more of the following:
|
|
1. an error in law or in fact
|
|
2. a fundamental change in circumstances or facts since the decision
|
|
3. a failure to consider a basic principle which had been raised in the original proceeding
|
|
4. a new principle which has arisen as a result of the decision.
|
|
In addition, notwithstanding the lack of prima facie evidence that any of the above criteria had
been met, it would also be open to the Commission under s.63 to determine that there was
substantial doubt as to the correctness of its original decision and that reappraisal was
accordingly warranted. This is not so much a fifth criterion, however, as it is a statement of the
residual discretion which exists within s.63.
|
In support of its application CNCP submitted that a review of Decision 85-19 is warranted for three reasons. First, CNCP submitted that a new principle has arisen, as a result of Decision 85-19, which is that the total dollar contribution from Message Toll Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS) rates to access costs should be frozen. CNCP stated that this principle will lead to a progressive decline in the per minute contribution derived from long distance public telephone service traffic. According to CNCP, the Commission did not take this into account in Decision 85-19 and in consequence misjudged the financial viability of CNCP's proposal.
|
Second, CNCP submitted that the Commission did not in Decision 85-19 consider a basic principle raised in the proceeding. Specifically, CNCP stated that the Commission failed to consider the principle that monopoly in long distance public telephone service tends to be inconsistent with competition in any long distance telecommunications market.
|
|
Third, CNCP submitted that there are two grounds for substantial doubt as to the correctness of the decision. The first ground raised by CNCP is that in evaluating the financial viability of CNCP's proposal under a full contribution scenario, the Commission used a model premised on line side access. The second ground raised by CNCP is that the decision implicitly appears to require any new entrants in the long distance public telephone market to pay a level of contribution that is inconsistent with effective competition or with sound costing principles.
|
|
Having reviewed a number of comments filed concerning appropriate directions on procedure that the Commission might prescribe, the Commission is establishing, consistent with its previous public notices on applications to review and vary, the following procedure for the consideration of CNCP's application.
|
|
CNCP's application may be examined at any of CNCP's 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 application may be obtained by any interested person upon request directed to CNCP, at the address shown below..
|
|
Any interested person wishing to comment on CNCP's application may do so by writing to the Commission by 9 May 1986, with copies to the applicant, CNCP, and to the respondents, Bell and B.C. Tel. Bell and B.C. Tel may file answers by 12 June 1986. CNCP will have until 18 July 1986 to file its reply.
|
|
Following receipt of these submissions the Commission will determine what, if any, further public process is required. In this regard the Commission gives notice that it will not consider making any determination to permit the introduction of competition in the long distance public telephone service market without first conducting a further public process including evidence, interrogatories and an oral hearing.
|
|
The addresses to be used for submission of documents are the following:
|
|
Mr. Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
CRTC
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
|
|
Mr. A.G. Duncan Director
Regulatory Matters - General
CNCP Telecommunications
Suite 1907, West Tower
3300 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M8X 2W9
|
|
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
|
|
Mr. L.J. Dooling
Vice-President - Revenue Requirements
British Columbia Telephone Company
3777 Kingsway
Burnaby, British Columbia
V5H 3Z7
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
|
|
|