ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 96-507

This page has been archived on the Web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, 29 May 1996
Telecom Order CRTC 96-507
IN THE MATTER OF four applications from resellers 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 affidavits dated 13 November 1995, Niagara Telecomm (Niagara) filed three applications for exemption from contribution charges for two Centrex systems in St. Catherines (905-682-6426 and 905-685-3315), and for administrative lines;
WHEREAS the Commission previously granted Niagara a contribution exemption in respect of its Centrex system in the 905-682 exchange in Telecom Order CRTC 94-1339 dated 16 November 1994;
WHEREAS, in letters dated 20 December 1995 and 9 February 1996 respectively, Bell Canada (Bell) noted that both single and double-hop calling are provided on these Centrex systems, and that Bell does not control the routing of calls over these systems;
WHEREAS Bell submitted that a technical audit is therefore required in respect of these applications;
WHEREAS Bell stated that it agreed with Niagara's request for exemption for administrative circuits;
WHEREAS the Commission granted an exemption from contribution to Telelink Canada (Telelink) in Telecom Order CRTC 96-74, 30 January 1996, in respect of single-hop services in Orangeville, Caledon East, Brampton and Toronto;
WHEREAS in an application dated 4 December 1995, TeleLink indicated that it now wishes to provide double-hop services on the same systems;
WHEREAS by letter dated 20 December 1995, Bell noted that the classification and routing of calls on these systems is controlled by Telelink and that accordingly, a technical audit is required; and
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that technical audits are required for the Niagara and TeleLink applications cited above -
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.  Niagara is granted interim approval for the Centrex system on the 905-682 exchange, effective from the date of installation of double-hop circuits, with final approval subject to receipt of a satisfactory technical audit to verify usage and separation of administrative, single-hop, and double-hop circuits.
2.  Niagara is granted interim approval for the Centrex system on the 905-685 exchange effective 13 November 1995, with final approval subject to receipt of a satisfactory technical audit to verify usage and separation of administrative, single-hop, and double-hop circuits.
3.  Niagara's application for exemption from contribution for administrative circuits is approved effective the date of installation.
4.  TeleLink's application is granted interim approval effective from the date of installation of double-hop circuits, with final approval subject to receipt of a satisfactory technical audit to verify usage and separation of single-hop and double-hop circuits.
5.  The Commission reminds the applicants that technical audits should verify the usage and separation of administrative, single-hop, and double-hop services. The audit should also 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. The audit should also provide a sworn affidavit affirming that the information provided in the report accurately reflects the results of the audit, and that the service configuration has been accurately described by the applicant.
6.  Technical audits are to be provided within 60 days or the application may be denied.

Date modified: