ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 96-625
This page has been archived on the Web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, 21 June 1996
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 96-625
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Municipal Telecommunications Company (Municipal Tel) dated 6 February 1995, for exemption from contribution charges.
|
|
WHEREAS in its application of 6 February 1995, Municipal Tel stated that it is a Centrex reseller whose services are limited to single-hop and administrative purposes;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 26 April 1995, Municipal Tel stated that interconnecting circuits are being added which are exempt from contribution;
|
|
WHEREAS in an attached affidavit dated 11 May 1995, Municipal Tel attested that its Centrex services are limited to local or single-hop services;
|
|
WHEREAS by fax dated 17 July 1995, Municipal Tel sent an additional affidavit concerning its Centrex services which was not signed or sworn;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 25 July 1995, Municipal Tel submitted an affidavit dated 20 July 1995 which listed Centrex Services in Bell Canada (Bell) exchanges in Lynden, Galt, Kitchener, Hespeler, Hamilton, Burlington and Oakville;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 25 August 1995, Bell submitted that the evidence received in respect of the Centrex systems noted in the 25 July 1995 letter met the Commission's evidentiary requirements, but that for the 60 dedicated data circuits identified in the 26 April 1995 submission, no evidence to support an exemption had been provided;
|
|
WHEREAS in a letter dated 28 September 1995, Bell stated that upon further review of Municipal Tel's network configuration, it wished to withdraw its previous agreement with respect to Municipal Tel's application;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell stated that (i) contrary to the statements in its affidavit, Municipal Tel does have an interexchange private line service connected to one of the Centrex systems for which Municipal Tel is seeking a contribution exemption, and accordingly, the affidavit filed by Municipal Tel is not valid, and (ii) Municipal Tel provides both single-hop and multiple-hop services on many of the Centrex systems which are the subject of Municipal Tel's exemption application;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that since it does not have control over the routing of traffic through the circuit groups of the Centrex systems, and that such routing control resides in Municipal Tel's equipment, Municipal Tel's application for contribution exemption should be deferred pending receipt of an independent technical audit and the filing of Bell's reply comments;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 6 October 1995, Municipal Tel applied for interim exemption from the original application date and included an affidavit dated 11 October 1995;
|
|
WHEREAS the affidavit included 10 exchange numbers (7 of which appear to be new), including 5 in Hespeler, and one each in Waterloo, Kitchener, Milton, Oakville and Burlington, and indicated that all exchanges are used for single-hop calling only except for one exchange in Hespeler (a dedicated circuit for data only);
|
|
WHEREAS Municipal Tel submitted 4 additional affidavits sworn on 11 October 1995, for single-hop service in Hespeler, Galt, and two systems in Lynden and stated that the same services will be subject to contribution charges;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 31 October 1995, Bell noted that the four affidavits dealing with double-hop services are not completely accurate with respect to service quantities, and are contradictory in that they affirm that no private line services exist, while at the same time they identify that a T-1 system (a private line service) is accessed from the systems;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that all of Municipal Tel's Centrex systems should be subject to a technical audit to verify the configurations and to specifically determine which locations, or which public switched telephone network connections at each location, are restricted to single-hop service and therefore may qualify for an exemption from contribution charges;
|
|
WHEREAS by fax dated 10 January 1996, Municipal Tel filed a letter dated 20 November 1995 signed by a network consultant (not identified as a professional engineer as
required by Commission evidentiary requirements), wherein the consultant stated that he has examined Municipal Tel's Centrex locations and has provided a list indicating those locations that should be charged for contribution and those that are contribution exempt; |
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 26 March 1996, Municipal Tel filed two revised affidavits plus a technical audit conducted by a professional engineer;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 4 April 1996, Bell stated that it considers that the Commission's evidentiary requirements have been met by the technical audit and affidavits and submitted that the possibility of future random audits should be considered by the Commission;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that (i) the auditor has confirmed that the applicant's system correctly routes calls subject to contribution charges and calls which qualify for an exemption and (ii) that there are control procedures and audit trails in place to record the processing of calls, to ensure that calls continue to be routed correctly, and to reflect any future changes made to the applicant's network configuration;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that Municipal Tel has met the Commission's evidentiary requirements as set out in Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993 (technical audit and affidavits); and
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission also agrees with Bell's submission that the configuration should be subject to the possibility of future random audits -
|
|
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
|
1. Municipal Tel's application is approved effective 6 February 1996.
|
|
2. The configuration is subject to the possibility of future random audits.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: