Search

ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 95-574

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 19 May 1995
Telecom Order CRTC 95-574
IN THE MATTER OF a direction in Telecom Order CRTC 94-302 dated 29 March 1994 (Order 94-302) regarding the submission of tariffs for the provision of Multi-Carrier Selection Capability (MCSC) for 800 service access by AGT Limited (AGT), BC TEL, Bell Canada (Bell), The Island Telephone Company Limited (Island Tel), Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (MT&T), The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited (NBTel) and Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (Newfoundland Telephone) (collectively, the companies).
WHEREAS on 30 May 1994 the following Tariff Notices were submitted: AGT Tariff Notice 512; BC TEL Tariff Notice 3109; Bell Tariff Notice 5208; Island Tel Tariff Notice 329; MT&T Tariff Notice 458; NBTel Tariff Notice 360; and Newfoundland Telephone Tariff Notice 381;
WHEREAS the proposals in the above mentioned Tariff Notices included the seven MCSC features required in Order 94-302;
WHEREAS on 17 June 1994 Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) filed an alternative proposal on behalf of the companies that did not include the MCSC feature for ten digit routing;
WHEREAS in Telecom Public Notice CRTC 94-34 dated 28 July 1994, the Commission invited comments on the companies' proposals and on Stentor's alternative proposal;
WHEREAS comments were filed by Smart Talk Network, fONOROLA Inc., Westel Telecommunications Ltd., Sprint Canada Inc. (Sprint), and Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel);
WHEREAS Stentor´s estimated cost for the development of MCSC without the ten digit routing option was significantly lower than the estimate where the feature was included;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that its information was that there was little demand for ten digit routing in the United States;
WHEREAS Sprint and Unitel considered that there was a lack of demand for ten digit routing and Sprint considered that the alternative without this feature should be pursued;
WHEREAS Stentor´s estimate for the development of MCSC is based on quotes received from its supplier;
WHEREAS interveners expressed concerns with the costs suggesting that they could be lower if development work was tendered and that it would be preferable to acquire a system compliant with industry standards;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that its developer´s familiarity with the system would tend to keep costs lower;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that though industry standards for interfaces are available, standards for databases themselves are not available;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the development avenues selected are appropriate;
WHEREAS the rate structure proposed contains provisions for the recovery of development costs through one-time payments or monthly payments for one, three or five years;
WHEREAS Stentor proposed that thec one-time payment would be applicable to each alternate carrier and that Stentor should be considered as being one carrier for the payment of the development charge;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that each Stentor member telephone company should be treated individually for payment of the development charge;
WHEREAS Stentor submitted that cost recovery through one-time charges is necessary because of the uncertainty of demand for MCSC and the heightened risk to cost recovery if a usage sensitive method is employed;
WHEREAS interveners considered that recovery of development costs by the use of a one-time charge would be a deterrent to the use of MCSC and the development of competition in 800 services;
WHEREAS interveners suggested that recovery of development costs could be based on MCSC queries, total calls or through the Carrier Access Tariff on a per-minute basis;
WHEREAS Stentor noted that Order 94-302 states that recovery of MCSC costs should be from users of the feature and that cost recovery methods other than MCSC usage would not be consistent with this provision;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that MCSC may stimulate greater subscriber choice in the 800 service market and may contribute to a higher degree of competition;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that usage based charges would facilitate the implementation and use of MCSC;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that since all 800 subscribers may benefit from greater choice and competition, MCSC development cost recovery based on all 800 service calls is reasonable;
WHEREAS there was no dispute regarding the structure of other rate elements in the proposed tariff with the exception that the proposed rates include a mark-up;
WHEREAS interveners noted that in Order 94-302 the Commission stated that MCSC was a bottleneck service and therefore a mark-up was not appropriate;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that in Order 94-302 the Commission considered MCSC a vertical 800 access feature and that vertical features as such were not explicitly considered in the Commission´s determinations 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;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that MCSC should be treated in the same way as other bottleneck services and that the rates should not include a mark-up;
WHEREAS Stentor indicated that an order for MCSC from an alternate service provider would be made to the CSG, which would then pass the order to a new group tasked with the administration of MCSC;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that telephone company orders would go directly from the Stentor Business Office to the MCSC administration group;
WHEREAS Unitel considered that Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) should have equal and direct access to the Canadian Service Management System (SMS);
WHEREAS Stentor noted that Unitel did not request this type of access in the application which led to the current proceeding;
WHEREAS the Commission notes Stentor's statement that it is amenable to exploring and costing the implementation of an alternate automated method of direct RespOrg access assuming that demand warrants the implementation of such an enhancement and that a suitable cost recovery mechanism can be developed; and
WHEREAS the Commission considers that such a development would be beneficial -
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The companies are to undertake the development of MCSC with the features required by Order 94-302, with the exception of routing by originating telephone number (ten digit routing), and to have development and testing with interested alternate carriers complete within nine months of this Order.
2. The companies are to issue tariff pages within 90 days, to give interim approval to rates as follows:
a) for MCSC development, a rate with no mark-up, for the recovery of costs for MCSC without ten digit routing, based on a charge payable for each 800 carrier identification query based on a six year cost recovery period and on the total 800 query demand for the six year study period as reflected in the response to the Commission´s request for information of March 7, 1995; and
b) for other items, rates as proposed but with the mark-up removed.
3. The companies are to provide the Commission with the actual costs incurred for the development of MCSC as soon as the costs are known, and to submit revised tariffs based on actual costs.
4. The companies are to initiate an issue in the CILC to examine the requirements for direct access to the Canadian SMS by RespOrgs.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: