|
|
|
Ottawa, 3 September 1993
|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 93-13
|
|
TELROUTE COMMUNICATIONS INC. - INTERCONNECTION WITH BELL CANADA
|
|
I BACKGROUND
|
In Competition in the Provision of Public Long Distance Voice Telephone Services and Related Resale and Sharing Issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 92-12, 12 June 1992 (Decision 92-12), the Commission approved the application of Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel) for interconnection with the public switched telephone networks (PSTNs) of BC TEL, Bell Canada (Bell), The Island Telephone Company Limited, Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited, The New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited and Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (the telephone companies) for the purposes of providing public switched interexchange voice services.
|
|
In the proceeding leading to that Decision, the Commission also considered the application of B.C Rail Telecommunications and Lightel Inc. (BCRL) for interconnection with BC TEL, Bell and Unitel. The Commission stated that it would order BC TEL, Bell and Unitel to issue tariff pages providing for the interconnection of BCRL, once BCRL had constituted itself a legal entity subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. The Commission also stated that it would be predisposed to approve similar applications for entry by facilities-based interexchange carriers (IXCs), should such service providers be willing to abide by the terms and conditions established in the Decision.
|
|
On 22 December 1992, the Commission received an application from TelRoute Communications Inc. (TelRoute) for interconnection of its facilities with the facilities of Bell for the purposes of providing message toll services. TelRoute's application is the first such application received subsequent to Decision 92-12.
|
|
TelRoute proposes to build microwave facilities in southern Ontario and to extend those facilities to Quebec and the United States. TelRoute indicated that its facilities would be constructed in stages and that, even after completion of those facilities, its network would largely comprise facilities leased from the telephone companies.
|
|
Upon receipt of TelRoute's application, Bell took the position that it would be appropriate under the circumstances for the parties to attempt to negotiate an agreement and only approach the Commission should such negotiations fail. At TelRoute's request, the Commission suspended its consideration of TelRoute's application pending the outcome of negotiations with Bell.
|
|
By letter to TelRoute dated 25 June 1993, Bell indicated that it was satisfied that the Commission had specified the general terms and conditions for the requested interconnection in Decision 92-12. Bell stated that, while further negotiations would likely be necessary on such matters as ordering, network planning and the technical aspects of interconnection, those negotiations would more appropriately take place following the Commission's determination with respect to TelRoute's application. On 15 July 1993, TelRoute asked that the Commission reactivate its application.
|
|
Bell's answer to TelRoute's application was filed on 13 August 1993. Bell stated that, upon appropriate recognition by the Commission of TelRoute as a hybrid facilities-based interexchange carrier, the company would be prepared to proceed with execution of the appropriate interconnection agreements with TelRoute, consistent with the terms and conditions specified in Decision 92-12.
|
|
II CONCLUSIONS
|
|
TelRoute's application is very similar to the application by BCRL considered by the Commission in the proceeding leading to Decision 92-12. Accordingly, the Commission considers it appropriate to approve the application under the terms and conditions established in Decision 92-12 for the interconnection of facilities-based carriers. The Commission notes that some of those terms and conditions were established, in part, on the basis that the IXC is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction and thus is required to file tariffs for the Commission's approval.
|
As indicated above, TelRoute's facilities are not yet in place. However, the Commission considers it appropriate that Bell proceed at this time with the filing of tariffs that will provide for TelRoute's interconnection once its facilities are in place. The technical issues associated with the interconnection are to be handled in the manner specified for Unitel in Decision 92-12, and, more specifically, as set out for trunk-side access by resellers in Trunk-side Access by Resellers to the Public Switched Telephone Network, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-8, 23 July 1993.
|
|
In light of the above, the Commission directs Bell to file, by 17 September 1993 proposed tariffs providing for the interconnection of TelRoute. Those tariffs are to be the same as those currently providing for the interconnection of Unitel, with the exception that, consistent with Decision 92-12, the contribution charges for line-side access and for Canada/U.S and Canada/overseas circuits are to be those applicable to resellers.
|
|
The Commission expects that other service providers will soon be building facilities and seeking interconnection with Unitel and/or the telephone companies. While the details of the required interconnection arrangements may vary from those of BCRL or Telroute, the Commission's preliminary view is that all of the required terms and conditions can be included in a comprehensive interconnection tariff that will obviate the need for specific interconnection applications. Unitel and the telephone companies are invited to provide the Commission with any comments they may have on this approach by 4 October 1993.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
|
|