ARCHIVED -  Telecom Public Notice CRTC 1994-24

This page has been archived on the Web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 Public Notice

Ottawa, 29 April 1994
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 94-24
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 directed that BC TEL, Bell Canada (Bell), The Island Telephone Company Limited (Island Tel), Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited (MT&T), The New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited (NBTel) and Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (Newfoundland Tel) were to provide at least two years' notice of any changes in their networks that could affect the interconnection or access arrangements used in the provision of competitive services. In AGT Limited - Interconnection of Interexchange Carriers and Related Resale and Sharing Issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-17, 29 October 1993 (Decision 93-17), AGT Limited (AGT) was directed to provide similar notice. By virtue of Trunk-side Access by Resellers to the Public Switched Telephone Network, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-8, 23 July 1993 (Decision 93-8), notice must also be given to resellers with trunk-side access.
In Telecom Order CRTC 94-260, 16 March 1994 (Order 94-260), the Commission denied Bell Tariff Notice 5028 in which the company proposed the introduction of 7 Digit Single Number Access Service. In the proceeding leading to that Order, Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel) submitted (among other things) that Bell had failed to provide it with the notification of network changes required by Decision 92-12. In Order 94-260, the Commission determined that the proposed service did not constitute a "network change", as contemplated by Decision 92-12. However, the Commission stated that it may be appropriate to broaden the types of changes that require advance notification to include services such as that proposed in Tariff Notice 5028.
In light of the above, the Commission requests comment on:
(1) the types of activities to which the notice period specified in Decision 92-12 should apply; and
(2) whether the two-year notice period is appropriate, or whether some other period would be preferable.
In Decision 92-12, the Commission also directed that the respondent telephone companies establish Joint Technical Committees to negotiate the technical details of interconnection. The telephone companies were directed to file proposed tariffs specifying the relevant technical terms and conditions within 90 days of a request for interconnection. A similar procedure was prescribed with respect to AGT in Decision 93-17. Further, in Decision 93-8, the Commission stated that any specific technical arrangements requested by trunk-side resellers were to be negotiated, and that the telephone companies were to file proposed tariffs with respect to those arrangements within 60 days of a request for trunk-side access.
By letter dated 14 March 1994, Unitel requested clarification as to the types of interconnection requests to which the process described above should apply.
The Commission is of the view that, in general, requests by competing service providers for specific service arrangements should result in the filing of a proposed tariff following a fixed period for negotiation, whether or not negotiations have resulted in complete agreement. The Commission realizes, however, that this may not be appropriate in all situations.
In light of the above, the Commission requests comment on:
(1) the types of service arrangements to which the negotiation periods established in Decision 92-12, Decision 93-17 and Decision 93-8 should apply; and
(2) the appropriate terms and conditions governing the processing of service requests.
1. AGT, BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, Manitoba Telephone System, MT&T, NBTel, Newfoundland Tel and Unitel are made parties to this proceeding.
2. Other persons wishing to participate in this proceeding must notify the Commission of their intention to do so by writing to Mr. Allan J. Darling, Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, fax: 819-953-0795, by 27 May 1994. The Commission will issue a complete list of parties and their mailing addresses.
3. Parties may file comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 10 June 1994.
4. Parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 27 June 1994.
5. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: