|
|
|
Ottawa, 3 April 1992
|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 92-5
|
|
BELL CANADA - INTRODUCTION OF MEGALINK SERVICE
|
|
I INTRODUCTION
|
|
On 28 November 1990, Bell Canada (Bell) filed Tariff Notice 3782 covering tariff revisions providing for the introduction of Megalink Service. Bell stated that Megalink would be its Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) Primary Rate Interface (PRI) offering.
|
|
The Association of Competitive Telecommunications Suppliers (ACTS) filed preliminary comments on 11 December 1990. Bell filed a reply on 20 December 1990, attaching copies of various documents, including its Interface Disclosure ID-0005: Megalink User-to-Network Specification, dated December 1990.
|
On 8 January 1991, the Commission issued CRTC Telecom Public Notice 1991-4, calling for comments on Bell's application. Interrogatories were addressed to Bell by the Commission, ACTS, Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance (CBTA), Telecommunications Consulting Services (TCS) and Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel). Bell filed its responses on 26 February 1991.
|
|
On 8 March 1991, ACTS and Unitel filed requests for further responses and for disclosure of information for which Bell had claimed confidentiality. Bell filed its answer to those requests on 20 March 1991. By letter dated 28 May 1991, the Commission directed Bell to file further responses by 12 June 1991, permitting parties to comment by 27 June 1991 and directing Bell to file a reply by 15 July 1991.
|
|
By letter dated 28 May 1991, TCS informed the Commission that Bell Communications Research Inc. (Bellcore), the research and technical services body owned by the regional Bell operating companies in the United States (the RBOCs), had introduced an ISDN standard, called National ISDN-1 (ISDN-1), which had been endorsed by the RBOCs and by many other companies, including American Telephone & Telegraph, Siemens, Northern Telecom Ltd. (Northern Telecom) and 18 other terminal equipment manufacturers. TCS submitted that the Megalink specification diverges substantially from ISDN-1 and that Bell should be asked whether it intends to amend the Megalink specification or to withdraw the application entirely.
|
|
On 12 June 1991, Bell filed supplemental interrogatory responses pursuant to the Commission's letter of 28 May 1991. On 20 June 1991, the Commission wrote to Bell and, referring to ISDN-1 and to indications of its wide acceptance, asked Bell to respond to further interrogatories by 26 June 1991. The Commission also extended the dates for comment and reply to 9 July 1991 and 19 July 1991, respectively.
|
|
On 15 July 1991, following the filing of comments, Bell wrote to the Commission requesting public disclosure of information for which ACTS had claimed confidentiality. Noting that ACTS would require time to respond to its request, Bell asked that the Commission extend the date for the filing of its reply until 31 July 1991. By letter dated 17 July 1991, the Commission granted Bell's request for an extension, stating that it would address the request for disclosure during the week of 22 July 1991.
|
|
ACTS replied to Bell's request for disclosure on 15 July 1991. On 24 July 1991, the Commission directed ACTS to make partial disclosure by 26 July 1991. In view of the fact that no parties other than Bell would be prejudiced by further delay, Bell was permitted to take whatever time it needed to file its reply. Bell's reply was filed on 31 August 1991.
|
|
On 20 September 1991, ACTS filed further comment on Bell's reply. By letter to Bell dated 9 October 1991, the Commission stated that, ordinarily, the filing of reply completes the public record. The Commission noted, however, that ACTS' submission addressed important and contentious issues. The Commission concluded that it was in the public interest that Bell file a reply addressing those issues. As directed in the Commission's letter, Bell filed a reply on 28 October 1991.
|
|
On 5 December 1991, ACTS filed further correspondence, to which it attached a copy of a report from the Steering Committee on Telecommunications (SCOT), a committee of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), entitled the Report of the Executive Coordinator for New Standards Projects, 19 November 1991 (the SCOT Report). ACTS referred in particular to the section of the Report dealing with what was referred to as the Megalink fibre U-interface, submitting that it constitutes further evidence that Megalink would be introduced on a proprietary basis. On 20 December 1991, Bell submitted a reply to ACTS' letter.
|
|
II THE APPLICATION
|
|
In its application, Bell stated that Megalink is based on the ISDN PRI standard, as defined by the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT), and would provide the customer with a minimum of 23 64 kbps bearer (B) channels and a 64 kbps delta (D) signalling channel (23B+D). Bell stated that Megalink is designed to provide digital access to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) and to switched and dedicated network services. Rate components are described below.
|
|
(1) Access: A 23B+D minimum would be provided under a one, three or five year contract. Rates would vary according to contract term and the rate group in which the access was provided. To start with, Megalink would be provided in selected areas in rate group nine and up. Bell stated that location selection has been based on anticipated demand.
|
|
(2) Link: For B channel connection to the PSTN and services such as dial-up Digital Channel Service or Dataroute, a rate-group-sensitive PSTN connectivity rate would apply. Links to other services, such as Wide Area Telephone Service, 800 Service and private line, would not be rate group sensitive.
|
|
(3) Options: Each feature, such as Calling Line Identification (CLID) or Link Optimization, would have its own rate. Link Optimization is described as an option intended to reduce the number of PSTN connectivities needed by the customer.
|
|
(4) Service Charges: A $9,000 construction charge would apply for a customer who has not previously paid such a charge for Megaroute access. Other service charges would also apply.
|
|
In its economic study, Bell stated that the proposed Megalink rates are designed to encourage migration to Megalink (and, more generally, from local analogue to digital technology), to reflect costs and value of service and to maximize contribution. The Bell study projects demand of 51 access systems in year one, growing to over 4600 by year ten, and shows a net present value of $25 million. Bell submitted that, at proposed rates, Megalink would be viable.
|
|
Interveners opposed the Megalink application as filed because, in their view, it fails to adhere to national user/network interface standards and does not provide for connection to competing carrier services. In addition, there was opposition to basing the rate structure on rate groups.
|
|
III STANDARDS ISSUES
|
|
A. Positions of Parties
|
|
ACTS submitted that the Commission has consistently found that carrier services must be free of proprietary specifications that confer any undue preference. ACTS, CBTA and Unitel noted that the Department of Communications' Report on ISDN Implementation in Canada (the Lawrence Report) recommended that ISDN be implemented on the basis of national standards. It was ACTS' position, supported by Unitel, that the Megalink specification is, at best, loosely based on ISDN standards. ACTS set out the Bellcore documentary references for PRI definition, found in the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for ISDN-1, arguing that these PRI requirements are sufficiently well defined that Megalink could conform. However, ACTS argued, Bell's responses to interrogatories demonstrate that the Megalink specification is proprietary to Northern Telecom, thus foreclosing the market to other equipment suppliers and conferring an undue preference on Bell.
|
|
ACTS took issue with Bell's statement (in response to interrogatory Bell(CRTC)20June91-44 ISDN Supplemental) that Megalink conforms to ISDN-1 to the extent that ISDN-1 defines PRI. ACTS stated that CCITT and ANSI documents do not distinguish between Basic Rate Interface (BRI) (i.e., 2B+D) features and PRI features. ACTS submitted that the documentary evidence shows that Bellcore PRI requirements are closely aligned with the BRI requirements. However, ACTS stated, a comparison of the Megalink specification with the ISDN-1 BRI feature definitions shows incompatibility between the two, with the result that terminal equipment designed for ISDN-1 will not work with Megalink.
|
|
ACTS referred to section 2.1.8 of the SCOT Report, which states that "the Megalink fibre U-interface ... employs a proprietary and unique specification [that] is not compatible with any existing or proposed CCITT or ANSI standards." ACTS contended that this demonstrates the danger of approving a service to be introduced on a proprietary basis. ACTS also stated that Bell is including some NT-1 (network termination 1) functions in its fibre multiplexer and others in the Service Interface Jack. ACTS' position is that the NT-1 is properly Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), so that Bell's approach amounts to a foreclosure of the ISDN CPE market.
|
|
In reply, Bell submitted that ISDN-1 is directed at BRI and does not define PRI in any detail. Referring to its response to interrogatory Bell(CRTC)20June91-44 ISDN Supplemental, Bell submitted that Bellcore has indicated that PRI requirements are not fully defined and that PRI requirements generally in agreement with current ISDN-1 specifications are acceptable. Bell added that the Bellcore ISDN-1 documents on requirements for PRI and BRI differ significantly, to the extent that BRI cannot be used as a proxy for PRI.
|
|
Bell stated that Bellcore PRI requirements are at the preliminary stage only. Bell cited specific Bellcore Technical Advisories for PRI, and noted that these Advisories are not to be found in ISDN-1. Bell stated that Bellcore has indicated publicly that standardized PRI requirements will not be fully covered until ISDN-2, and that Bellcore's goal for terminal vendor conformity with ISDN-2, to cover PRI and enhanced BRI requirements, is 1993.
|
|
Bell disputed ACTS' submission regarding the fibre interface. It stated that this interface connects the fibre multiplexer to the fibre transmission system and has nothing to do with the ISDN user interface. Bell submitted that the Megalink user interface is copper-based and conforms with the ANSI T1.408 and CSA T540 standards. Bell stated further that the American Standards Committee T1E1 and the CSA ISDN Technical Committee have both concluded that the copper-based interface is appropriate for ISDN PRI services. In support of its position, Bell attached minutes of the CSA Technical Committee on ISDN, dated 30 May 1991, in which the Committee stated that PRI based on a fibre version of CSA T540 would be inconsistent with action being taken by the ANSI T1 Committee in the U.S.
|
|
Bell stated that Megalink Service Interface Jack functions conform to Smart Jack (i.e., interface) functions set out in Bellcore documentation for PRI, so that no NT-1 functions are included. Bell submitted that ACTS simply made allegations without providing evidence to show which NT-1 features are in the Service Interface Jack or the fibre multiplexer.
|
|
Bell indicated that the Megalink technical specification was publicly disclosed pursuant to procedures established by the Terminal Attachment Program Advisory Committee (TAPAC), as a result of which competitive supply of terminal equipment should not be threatened.
|
|
ACTS referred to the Lawrence Report's recommendation that consideration should be given to delaying commercial ISDN implementation until publicly accepted standards are available. ACTS questioned the validity of Bell's argument that introducing Megalink now is a response to customer demand. It submitted that customers will be cautious about acquiring a proprietary ISDN service, if ISDN-1 is to be available in July 1992, unless Bell will commit to cover ISDN customers' risk of stranded investment.
|
|
CBTA, too, submitted that PRI standards have not yet been adopted in Canada. CBTA noted Bell's statement that Megalink complies with ISDN-1's PRI requirements as currently defined, but submitted that compliance with ISDN-1's partially defined standard does not equate to full compliance with an agreed Canadian standard. CBTA submitted that PRI implementation should await acceptance of Canadian standards.
|
|
Bell replied that there are public standards for Layer 1 (i.e., standards relating to the physical characteristics of the interface, for example, the electrical characteristics), given that CSA is adopting the ANSI Layer 1 standards. Bell further indicated that TAPAC's public disclosure process for network interfaces is consistent with the "phased approach" described in the Lawrence Report (whereby carriers disclose the technical characteristics of the interface prior to the availability of standards). Bell stated that it complied with Megalink interface disclosures in December 1989 and December 1990. Bell stated further that demand is substantial and that it has requests for service from a number of market sectors.
|
|
B. Conclusions
|
|
The Commission agrees with ACTS that services must be free of proprietary specifications that would confer any undue preference. In the Commission's view, the submissions in this proceeding demonstrate that it is by no means clear that full and final North American PRI standards exist to which Megalink could conform entirely. However, the fact that the service does not completely conform with an established set of standards does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that its specification gives rise to any undue preference in respect of standards. In this regard, the Commission also notes that the Megalink specification has been disclosed, so that terminal equipment vendors can build to it.
|
|
Interveners suggest that Megalink's introduction is premature and refer to the Lawrence Report's conclusion that a delay in the commercial introduction of ISDN until standards are accepted should be considered. The Commission is of the view, however, that this conclusion relates specifically to the establishment of standards for the U-interface so that "the customer [could either own] the NT-1 or [obtain] it from the carriers ...." Further, this conclusion flowed from the Lawrence Report's "standards first approach", under which "there would be no commercial introduction of ISDN services until Canadian standards for the U-interface are in place (thereby allowing competition from day one)." In the Commission's view, Megalink's adherence to CSA T540 and ANSI T1.408 in the provision of a copper-based U-interface satisfies the essence of the Lawrence Report's recommendation for a "standards first" approach that would permit customer ownership of the NT-1.
|
|
Furthermore, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to delay the introduction of Megalink until there are publicly accepted standards in all respects. There is evidence that demand for Megalink exists now. Furthermore, as noted above, the Megalink specification has been disclosed and terminal equipment suppliers can therefore build to it.
|
|
The Commission notes Bell's submission that Megalink adheres to accepted standards for the copper U-interface, and the CSA finding that no standards currently exist, or are soon expected, for a fibre U-interface. Under these circumstances, the Commission considers that the proprietary nature of the Megalink fibre interface, which connects the fibre multiplexer to the fibre transmission system, does not confer any undue preference or result in any unjust discrimination in respect of terminal attachment to Megalink.
|
|
IV CONNECTION TO COMPETING CARRIER SERVICES
|
|
A. Positions of Parties
|
|
Interveners objected to the fact that the proposed tariffs do not provide for connection via Megalink to the services of competing carriers. Unitel and CBTA submitted that this would force Unitel customers either to acquire local accesses specifically for Unitel's competing services or to replace Unitel services with Bell competitive network services. Unitel submitted that approval of the application under such conditions would confer on Bell the benefit of early market entry and would result in the exclusion of Unitel.
|
|
Unitel further submitted that the market in question is substantial. In support of its submission, it noted Bell's response to interrogatory Bell(ACTS)5Feb91-6 ISDN Supplemental, in which the company stated that demand would be 51 DS-1's in 1991 and 186 DS-1's in 1992.
|
|
Unitel submitted that, in an ISDN environment, Common Channel Signalling (CCS) 7 interconnection is essential. It stated that, without CCS 7 interconnection, its competitive switched data services (such as Facsroute) would be disadvantaged as they could not include features such as CLID and Network Ring Again (NRAG), available with ISDN. Unitel noted the Lawrence Report's statement that CSS 7 and Digital Signalling System 1 are vital to the ISDN structure. It submitted that approval of the current application would result in the re-monopolization of competitive services. Unitel therefore submitted that approval of the service should be only partial, with Megalink connection to Bell's competitive network services prohibited until there is also provision for Megalink connection to the services of competing carriers.
|
|
In reply, Bell stated that it had sought to reach agreement with Unitel on connection to competing services. Bell submitted that, until mid-1990, both of them had considered an approach consistent with current Bell/Unitel interconnection arrangements to be acceptable. Bell stated that it was generally agreed that issues related to CCS 7 would be addressed in the longer term and that they need not be resolved before Megalink was introduced.
|
|
Bell stated that Unitel informed it on 1 June 1990 that CCS 7 interconnection would be required for Megalink. Bell stated that it informed Unitel that it could not comply, because CCS 7 interconnection is an issue in the proceeding on competition in the provision of public long distance voice telephone services and because Bell does not consider it possible to limit CCS 7 connection with Unitel solely to Megalink. The company stated that, nonetheless, in its responses of 20 March 1991 to Unitel interrogatories, it had offered to discuss CCS 7 interconnection for the purpose of providing services via Megalink, as long as broader issues related to the public long distance competition proceeding would be excluded. Bell submitted that, in the four months since, it had not received an acknowledgement of this offer.
|
|
Bell rejected Unitel's suggestion of partial approval of Megalink pending the provision of access to the services of competing carriers. Bell submitted that, if full approval of the current application would give rise to an undue preference, approval with amendments to provide for connection to the services of competing carriers and to its own competitive network services, without access to CCS 7, would be appropriate. Bell noted that its comparable competitive services would not provide CLID and NRAG under such an approach. Bell also noted that this approach would provide customers with integrated access to all services, including those of competing carriers.
|
|
Bell stated that a draft memorandum of understanding exists for non-CCS 7 interconnection and that, if final agreement could be reached quickly, tariff revisions could be filed soon thereafter.
|
|
B. Conclusions
|
|
Section 340(2) of the Railway Act states as follows:
A company shall not, in respect of tolls or any services or facilities provided by the company as a telegraph or telephone company,
|
|
(a) make any unjust discrimination against any person or company,
|
|
(b) make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to or in favour of any particular person or company or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatever, or
|
|
(c) subject any particularperson or company or any particular description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage, in any respect whatever,
|
|
and where it is shown that the company makes any discrimination or gives any preference or advantage, the burden of proving that the discrimination is not unjust or that the preference is not undue or unreasonable lies on the company.
|
|
Section 340(3) of the Railway Act states that the Commission may determine, as questions of fact, whether there would be undue preference or unjust discrimination.
|
|
The Commission established its approach to section 340(2) in Challenge Communications Ltd. v. Bell Canada, Telecom Decision CRTC 77-16, 23 December 1977. In that Decision, the Commission noted that two essential elements must exist in order to found a successful claim pursuant to this section: (1) discrimination, preference, advantage, prejudice or disadvantage; and (2) the absence of justification therefor.
|
|
The Commission considers that, by providing for access via Megalink to its own competitive network services, without permitting similar access to the comparable services of competing carriers that have requested such access, Bell would confer a preference on itself and discriminate against those competing carriers.
|
|
|
|
The proposed Megalink tariffs, as presently structured, would force Megalink customers wishing to lease services from Unitel to acquire separate accesses. By contrast, Megalink customers leasing Bell services that compete with those of Unitel would not have to lease separate accesses. In the Commission's view, therefore, the proposed Megalink tariff would put Unitel at a substantial disadvantage in the market. In this regard, the Commission notes the demand forecast filed by Bell, and further notes Unitel's argument that Bell's own evidence appears to indicate that the market would be substantial at the outset and has the potential for appreciable growth.
|
|
Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission finds that it would be in the public interest that the Megalink tariff permit access to the services of those competing carriers that request such access, under the same conditions as it is provided to Bell's competitive services, and that anything that is not provided with respect to such competing carrier services should not be provided with respect to Bell's comparable services. Further, the Commission finds that, without amendments to the proposed tariffs to implement such an approach, Megalink Service would confer an undue preference on Bell and discriminate unjustly against competing carriers wishing Megalink connection to their competitive services.
|
|
With regard to the issue of CCS 7 interconnection in the context of Megalink Service, the Commission considers that there would be no violation of section 340 if Bell did not provide CCS 7 connection to either Unitel's services or to its own comparable services.
|
|
V RATING ISSUES
|
|
A. Construction Charges
|
|
Unitel noted that, in response to interrogatory Bell(Unitel)5Feb91-8 ISDN, Bell stated that it would not apply the $9,000 construction charge if a customer had already paid the charge in order to obtain Megaroute Service. Unitel submitted that, where Megalink is replacing a copper-based Megaroute Service, Bell would have to upgrade the copper to fibre and would incur costs without off-setting revenues. Unitel submitted that this would not be appropriate and that, where copper must be upgraded to fibre, the construction charge should apply.
|
|
Bell replied that a construction charge applies at each customer location to provide a DS-1 based service. Bell stated that the majority of Megaroute customers are already served by fibre. It noted that, where copper was used, the decision was Bell's, and not that of the customer. Bell submitted that it would therefore be unfair to force a customer to pay a second time in order to upgrade to fibre, given that other customers received fibre at the outset.
|
|
The Commission notes Bell's submission that it is a company decision as to whether copper or fibre is placed for Megaroute access. The Commission considers that it would be unreasonable to require customers to pay a second construction charge when copper facilities must be replaced with fibre in order to provide Megalink Service. Accordingly, the Commission finds the company's proposed approach appropriate.
|
|
B. Link Optimization
|
|
ACTS and TCS submitted that Bell failed to explain the Link Optimization feature. TCS contended that the feature should be denied until it is clearly defined. Bell replied that, in response to interrogatory Bell(CRTC)5Feb91-28 ISDN Supplemental, it had explained the feature, its application to a customer's rating calculations and its potential to lower a customer's charges.
|
|
The Commission notes Bell's explanations of Link Optimization in responses to interrogatories Bell(CRTC)5Feb91-28 ISDN and Bell(CRTC)28May91-40 ISDN Supplemental. In the latter, Bell stated that "bi-directional paths will allow calls in both directions (i.e. both inward and outward calls). The bi-directional capability combined with the potential to reduce (i.e. optimize) the total number of PSTN connectivities is referred to as Link Optimization." Bell added that the number of PSTN connectivity paths comes from the customer's traffic needs and what the customer states to be the required number of connectivities "as a subscription parameter."
|
|
The Commission agrees with ACTS and TCS that it is not clear how Link Optimization would apply or what it is that the customer would be charged for. If, for example, Bell intends to offer what are essentially periodic traffic studies, as a result of which the number of connectivities would be optimized, the tariffs should reflect this fact.
|
|
The Commission considers that the Link Optimization charge should not be approved until a clearer explanation of the feature and its function is provided.
|
|
C. Rate Group Pricing
|
|
ACTS and Unitel both objected to Bell's rate-group pricing approach. They submitted that the element of value of service pricing in the rate-group approach militates against cost-based rating. ACTS submitted that the Lawrence Report (at page 41) called for cost-based rates. Unitel noted that the Lawrence Report (at page vii) stated that "ISDN rates should be cost-based and unbundled."
|
|
Unitel noted the response to interrogatory Bell(CRTC)28May91-37 ISDN Supplemental, in which Bell stated that it would file a report on changes in the tariff structure for PBX trunks and business central office lines in the fourth quarter of 1991. Bell stated that, based on the results of the report, it would examine the effects on Megalink rates of recognizing any new rate relationships. Unitel submitted that, if such changes are expected within the next six months, the proposed Megalink rates should not be approved.
|
|
Bell replied that, as indicated in its response to interrogatory Bell(CRTC)5Feb91-3(c) ISDN, it expects most Megalink B channels to be configured as digital PBX trunks. Therefore, it requires a pricing approach such as that proposed for Megalink's access elements in order to encourage migration from current PBX trunk service. Bell also submitted that the pricing approach is appropriate, in view of the expected use of most B channels as digital PBX trunks.
|
|
In reply to ACTS' reference to page 41 of the Lawrence Report, Bell noted that, in the same section, the Committee stated that it had no mandate to reach conclusions on rating principles or tariffs.
|
|
Bell disagreed with Unitel's position that its pricing approach should not be approved, given the expected report on the tariffing of primary exchange services. Noting that its report would not include tariff filings, Bell submitted that deferral of the disposition of its Megalink application, pending action on the report, would entail an unreasonably long delay.
|
|
The Commission disagrees with interveners'characterization of the Lawrence Report as being in favour of cost-based rates. The Commission notes that the statement that ISDN rates should be cost-based is identified in the paragraph on page vii, cited by Unitel, as one of "a number of key considerations, some conflicting, to be taken into account in determining rating principles and tariffs related to the introduction of ISDN." Further, the Commission notes that the Lawrence Report did not, as ACTS and Unitel suggested, reach conclusions on appropriate rating approaches. Rather, it stated (at page 41) that rating principles and tariffs are properly matters for the regulatory authorities.
|
|
In the Commission's view, Bell's objective of encouraging migration to Megalink from current exchange services is appropriate. Furthermore, a reasonable approach to accomplishing this objective is to use a rating structure that reflects the structure of the service from which migration is to be encouraged. Therefore, while Bell's report on rates for central office lines and PBX trunks may ultimately result in a substantially different tariff for primary exchange services, the Commission is of the view that the proposed Megalink rating approach is reasonable at this time.
|
|
D. Contract Renewal
|
|
The Commission notes that Article 2 of the Megalink contract provides for automatic renewal at the end of the original minimum contract period (MCP) unless the customer terminates service 30 or more days before the expiry of the contract. Article 5 provides that service added in the last six months of the contract period is charged at non-contract rates, unless the customer signs a new contract, in which case, the additional service is charged at original MCP rates.
|
|
In response to interrogatory Bell(CRTC)5Feb91-9 ISDN, Bell stated that automatic renewal is not intended to operate when new service is added in the last six months. Rather, when the service is added, the customer would be asked to sign a new contract. If the customer does not sign, non-contract rates would apply for the additional service. Furthermore, if the customer did not provide notice of termination pursuant to Article 2, Bell would require the customer to sign a new contract covering all existing service for the last month of the original contract period.
|
|
The Commission considers that Articles 2 and 5 do not clearly set out the customer's position with respect to automatic renewal when new service is added in the last six months. However, the Commission notes Bell's statement that the automatic renewal provision is not intended to operate when service is added in the last six months. The Commission considers that amending Article 2 to reflect this statement would sufficiently clarify the proposed contract.
|
|
VI DISPOSITION OF THE APPLICATION
|
|
In light of the Commission's finding that Megalink Service, as proposed, would confer an undue preference on Bell and unjustly discriminate against Unitel, Tariff Notice 3782 is denied. However, the Commission invites Bell to file revised proposed tariffs that provide for Megalink access to Unitel's network services under the same conditions, including technical conditions, as those that apply for Megalink access to comparable Bell services.
|
|
The Commission directs Bell to include in any revised application a clear description of what is to be provided under the Link Optimization Feature, including a clear explanation of the feature, its purpose and how it functions, as well as proposed tariff revisions that reflect clearly what is being proposed. Finally, the Commission directs Bell to file, at the same time, amendments to Article 2 of the Megalink contract specifying that a customer adding service in the last six months of an MCP is not subject to the automatic renewal provisions.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
|
|