ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 96-329

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 4 April 1996

Telecom Order CRTC 96-329

IN THE MATTER OF various applications by Advanced Network, a reseller of Centrex III Service (Centrex), 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 by letter dated 10 March 1995, Advanced Network submitted an application for exemption from the date of installation for single-hop services at Jarvis and Burlington;

 WHEREAS by letter dated 24 March 1995, Advanced Network submitted a signed affidavit which added single-hop services at Hagersville and Hamilton to the 10 March 1995 application, requesting exemption from the date of installation;

 WHEREAS by letter dated 17 May 1995, Advanced Network stated that the Hagersville location was reconfigured to allow call forwarding, to which contribution is applicable, and Direct Inward System Access (DISA) paths, used for single-hop applications only, which are exempt from contribution;

 WHEREAS Advanced Network submitted that the delay in applying (apparently with regard to all its applications) was caused by two factors: i) Bell Canada (Bell) sent an incorrect form to an incorrect address, even though Advanced Network had asked that all correspondence be sent to Ad-Tel Communications, and ii) Advanced Network was not billed for contribution until 18 January 1995, at which time a meeting was requested with the Bell Carrier Services Group (BCSG);

 WHEREAS Advanced Network stated it was unaware that contribution was applicable for simultaneous inbound and outbound connections to the public switched telephone network (PSTN);

 WHEREAS by letter dated 28 July 1995, Bell stated that the Commission had requested Advanced Network, through Ad-Tel Communications, to submit an affidavit within 15 days to satisfy the evidence requirements to support its original application dated 8 September 1994;

 WHEREAS Bell stated that when no affidavit was submitted on the record, Advanced Network's application was denied in Telecom Order CRTC 95-481 dated 20 April 1995 (Order 95-481);

 WHEREAS Bell stated that it considers that the Jarvis and Hagersville systems are used for single-hop services but noted that Advanced Network indicated that it provides double-hop and single-hop services at the Hagersville location;

 WHEREAS Bell stated that the Burlington system was no longer in service and the Hamilton system, operating with a different telephone number, was then being used for double-hop services;

 WHEREAS Bell submitted that Advanced Network has satisfied the requirements for an exemption with respect to the Jarvis Centrex system only, and the exemptions requested for the other systems should be denied;

 WHEREAS with respect to Advanced Network's comments regarding problems of communications with BCSG, and the alleged failure to provide details regarding charges billed, Bell stated that, at various times, the primary contact for Advanced Network had been identified as Ad-Tel Communications, Niagara Connections, or Advanced Network itself;

 WHEREAS Bell submitted that it has faithfully notified the designated customer contact of relevant current events and service-related matters, but it has no control over the communication between these parties;

 WHEREAS by letter dated 21 August 1995, Advanced Network submitted that exemption should be granted for single-hop service at Hamilton from the date of implementation until 26 January 1995, the date of reconfiguration to double-hop service;

 WHEREAS Advanced Network stated that, while the virtual facilities group (VFG) at Hagersville was changed on 6 April 1995 to allow for double-hop services, it is still requesting exemption for past and present use on the single-hop portion of the VFG;

 WHEREAS Advanced Network noted that service was cancelled at the Burlington location on 16 May 1995, but exemption should be granted for the period in operation;

 WHEREAS, addressing the problems of communication, Advanced Network reiterated that Bell failed to provide details regarding charges billed and stated it even has the first bills showing no contribution charged;

 WHEREAS Advanced Network noted that there has been some confusion including reconfigurations and cancellations of service, a mix up in billing numbers and changes in the affidavit;

 WHEREAS Advanced Network submitted that it has followed the guidelines and deserves to be exempt from paying contribution where appropriate;

 WHEREAS by letter dated 29 September 1995, Bell stated that, upon a review of its records during the time when the system was in service, it is of the view that the Burlington system appears to have been configured with a single-hop arrangement;

 WHEREAS Bell stated that Advanced Network has satisfied the requirements for an exemption with respect to the Jarvis and Burlington Centrex systems;

 WHEREAS with regards to the Hamilton and Hagersville locations, Bell noted that it does not control the routing of single-hop and multiple-hop calls over the circuit groups of these Centrex systems since the routing control resides in equipment which Advanced Network controls and maintains;

 WHEREAS Bell submitted that Advanced Network should be required to provide an independent technical audit of its network configuration for the Hamilton and Hagersville systems;

 WHEREAS Bell submitted that Advanced Network's application with respect to these systems should be deferred pending receipt of the audit and the filing of Bell's reply comments;

 WHEREAS Advanced Network submitted an affidavit dated 15 September 1995 that stated Advanced Network is currently paying contribution at Hamilton, Beamsville, and Grimsby (new exchange numbers) and that a separate VFG has been created for only single-hop circuits to which Advanced Network is seeking approval for exemption;

 WHEREAS, by letter dated 26 October 1995, Bell noted that it would appear that the new locations have been used by Advanced Network for double-hop services, and that Advanced Network is now requesting that they be used for both double-hop and single-hop services;

 WHEREAS Bell stated that routing of calls to either contribution-paying or the proposed exempt group is controlled by Advanced Network in its equipment;

 WHEREAS Bell submitted that a technical audit is required to confirm that calls are correctly directed to either contribution-bearing or contribution-exempt PSTN connections as appropriate, and that adequate controls are in place to ensure that the systems will remain appropriately configured;

 WHEREAS the Commission considers that Advanced Network's claim that Bell sent the wrong form to the wrong address does not explain a six month delay in applying to the Commission for exemption on the other circuits in question (Hagersville, Burlington and Jarvis);

 WHEREAS the Commission considers that it would appear that Advanced Network may be partly to blame for not receiving the appropriate form, having told Bell to send it to Ad-Tel Communications and not Advanced Network;

 WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that if Advanced Network filed an exemption application for some of its alleged single-hop circuits in September 1994, it knew or should have known that contribution was payable on the other circuits in question, absent an exemption (regardless of whether Advanced Network was billed for it or not);

 WHEREAS the Commission notes that granting retroactive exemption to October 1994 would be inconsistent with Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995;

 WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that Advanced Network has not made out a case to warrant granting the retroactive exemptions;

 WHEREAS, in light of the above comments, the Commission considers that Advanced Network's application for contribution exemption at all locations should be considered on a going-forward basis only, commencing the date of the application for that location;

 WHEREAS the Commission finds the evidence submitted with respect to Burlington to the acceptable for granting exemption for the period 10 March 1995 until 16 May 1995;

 WHEREAS the Commission finds the evidence submitted with respect to Jarvis to be acceptable for granting exemption for the period commencing 10 March 1995;

 WHEREAS the Commission notes that Advanced Network was denied exemption from contribution for its Hamilton location in Order 95-481;

 WHEREAS the Commission notes that as of 26 January 1995, the Hamilton system was reconfigured to a double-hop system, to which contribution is applicable;

 WHEREAS the Commission considers that an exemption for Hamilton for any period prior to the date of application would require a review and variance of Order 95-481;

 WHEREAS the Commission considers that for exemption to be granted for Hamilton on a going-forward basis from 24 March 1995 (the date of application), a technical audit would have to be provided to verify the correct routing of single-hop and double-hop services;

 WHEREAS the Commission considers that the evidence submitted with respect to Hagersville to be acceptable for granting exemption for the period 24 March 1995 to 6 April 1995, and for granting interim approval beyond 6 April 1995 subject to receipt of a technical audit required to verify correct routing of single-hop and double-hop services; and

 WHEREAS the Commission considers that the evidence submitted with respect to Beamsville and Grimsby to be acceptable for granting interim approval effective 15 September 1995 subject to the receipt of a technical audit required to verify correct routing of single-hop and double-hop services -

 IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.  A contribution exemption is granted for the Burlington configuration for the period 10 March 1995 until 16 May 1995 (date of disconnection).

2.  A contribution exemption is granted for the Jarvis configuration effective 10 March 1995.

3.  Interim approval of the application for a contribution exemption for the Hamilton configuration is granted commencing 24 March 1995, subject to receipt of a technical audit to verify correct routing of single-hop and double-hop services.

4.  A contribution exemption is granted for the Hagersville configuration for the period 24 March 1995 until 6 April 1995 (14 days) and interim approval of contribution exemption is granted for Hagersville beyond 6 April 1995, subject to receipt of a technical audit to verify correct routing of single-hop and double hop services.

5.  Interim approval of the application for a contribution exemption for the Beamsville configuration is granted commencing 15 September 1995, subject to receipt of a technical audit to verify correct routing of single-hop and double-hop services.

6.  Interim approval of the application for a contribution exemption for the Grimsby configuration is granted commencing 15 September 1995, subject to receipt of a technical audit to verify correct routing of single-hop and double-hop services.

7.  The technical audits referred to herein must verify the usage and separation of administrative, single-hop, and double-hop services. The auditor must verify the accuracy of the switching data in the software tables, to determine the existence of, as well as the nature of, any controls in place to ensure the continued compliance of the configuration to the conditions on which the exemption is based, and to provide a sworn affidavit affirming that the service configuration has been accurately described by the applicant and that the information provided in the report accurately reflects the results of the audit.

8.  Failure to file the required technical audits within 60 days of this Order may result in the denial of the applications in question.

 Allan J. Darling
 Secretary General