ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 94-816

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 18 July 1994
Telecom Order CRTC 94-816
IN THE MATTER OF applications from resellers requesting exemptions from the contribution charges specified 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).
WHEREAS, in Decision 92-12 and in Applications For Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993 (Decision 93-2), the Commission set out procedures, criteria and a general framework for obtaining an exemption from contribution payments;
WHEREAS the Commission finds that certain of the applications conform to the criteria for exemption from contribution payments established in Decisions 92-12 and 93-2 and should therefore be granted final approval;
WHEREAS the Commission finds that certain of the applications seek exemptions for circuits that are properly subject to contribution, and should therefore be denied;
WHEREAS the Commission finds that further evidence or information is required with respect to certain of the applications and that such applications should therefore be deferred pending the filing of the required evidence or information;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that certain of these applications should be the subject of advance rulings to clarify the exemption status of proposed network configurations;
WHEREAS, in its application of 5 April 1994, ALTEL Canada Limited (ALTEL) proposed that the transfer of calls from a Centrex system in one exchange to a Centrex system in a second exchange to gain access to a different EAS calling area, thereby providing an interexchange service (Centrex double-hop service), be permitted where the service provider pays contribution on the local connections to the PSTN;
WHEREAS, in its reply of 9 May 1994, Bell Canada (Bell) disagreed, submitting that the use of call forwarding between Centrex systems to provide services beyond a single-hop EAS arrangement is not permitted, consistent with past Commission decisions and with the current resale and sharing rules;
WHEREAS Bell stated that even with contribution payments, ALTEL's configuration poses other problems, such as adding to the company's local service costs, when in fact the costs of carrying increased traffic from ALTEL's customers are caused by the provision of interexchange services;
WHEREAS, in reply, ALTEL submitted that Bell's comments did apply prior to 30 March 1994, as under the old tariff structure for Centrex, resellers did not have specific tariffed PSTN connections for Centrex use that increased as reseller customer traffic increased;
WHEREAS the Commission notes that Bell received approval in Telecom Order CRTC 93-1141 for a restructuring of its Centrex service rates, such that Centrex rates for PSTN connectivity are now usage-based and that if there are additional local network costs, Bell will receive additional revenues;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that Bell's concerns about overloading of the local network are addressed by Article 22.1(e) of the company's Terms of Service, concerning fair and proportionate use of the network by all customers;
WHEREAS the Commission considers it appropriate to permit the interexchange configuration proposed by ALTEL, provided that contribution is payed on all local PSTN connections on each switch;
WHEREAS, with respect to a number of the applications before the Commission, Bell proposed that random audits be conducted, as a way of ensuring that exempt configurations that received their exemption based on technical audits filed by the reseller retain their exempt status;
WHEREAS, in Decision 93-2, the Commission indicated that random audits may be appropriate in certain circumstances as a means of ensuring compliance with any rules governing a contribution exemption, and that it would decide on the use of random audits on a case-by-case basis;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that this approach continues to be appropriate at this time;
WHEREAS, in Decision 93-2, the Commission provided for a simple method for a competitor to extend an exemption where additions or deletions are made to an exempted configuration;
WHEREAS, in the current set of applications for contribution exemption, Sprint Canada Inc. (Sprint Canada) has sought to extend its 2 March 1994 application for exemption for data services provided on Sprint Canada's segregated facsimile network in the operating territories of Bell and BC TEL to Alberta (letter of 2 May 1994) and Manitoba (letter of 17 May 1994);
WHEREAS the Commission is generally of the view that the telephone company in whose operating territory the circuits are located should have an opportunity to comment when a competitor introduces an exempt configuration from another telephone company's operating territory into its operating territory;
WHEREAS the Commission notes that in the process leading to Telecom Order CRTC 94-494, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) submitted that there may be administrative options which may be more efficient for resellers while at the same time maintaining the intent of the current contribution regime;
WHEREAS the Commission also notes that, by way of example, Stentor submitted that rather than making separate applications for each telephone company serving area, a reseller could make a single application containing supporting information for all areas, providing a copy to Stentor, and that the comments on such an application could be coordinated by Stentor and submitted to the Commission on behalf of the affected Stentor owners;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the process suggested by Stentor is consistent with the material characteristics of the current process, and therefore acceptable;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that neither the current contribution process nor the process proposed by Stentor are so onerous as to warrant, at this time, the implementation of the blanket approval process proposed by Sprint Canada; and
WHEREAS the Appendix to this Order provides the Commission's rulings with respect to both the individual applications that were deferred as well as certain new applications filed with the Commission -
1. The individual applications that are the subject of this Order are determined in accordance
with the rulings set out for each such application in the Appendix.
2. Sprint Canada is to file further evidence by 16 September 1994 serving copies on AGT Limited, Bell, BC TEL, Manitoba Telephone System, Stentor, Unitel Communications Inc. and Teleglobe Canada Inc. These companies may file any comments by 3 October 1994, and Sprint Canada may reply to any such comments by 18 October 1994.
3. Smart Talk Network (STN) is to file further evidence by 16 September 1994 serving copies on Bell, and BC TEL. These companies may file any comments by 3 October 1994, and STN may reply to any such comments by 18 October 1994.
4. Bell is directed to file proposed tariff pages that would remove the prohibition on the resale or sharing of local services to provide an interexchange service, so as to permit the configuration proposed by ALTEL.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: