ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 96-828
This page has been archived on the Web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, 2 August 1996
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 96-828
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Unitel Communications Inc. (now Unitel Communications Company) (Unitel) dated 18 October 1995, for contribution exemption for one Canada-USA cross-border trunk group and one overseas access circuit trunk group which form a fixed connection in Unitel's Vancouver switch, such that the two circuit groups may only be used for the carriage of transit traffic from the USA to international destinations via Teleglobe Canada Inc. (Teleglobe).
|
|
Reference: 96-2357
|
|
WHEREAS Unitel submitted that the configuration of the transit facilities qualifies for a contribution exemption based on the fact that these facilities are configured exclusively for the transport of transit traffic from the USA to international destinations via Teleglobe, and that Unitel should not be liable for contribution on the transit circuits from the date such circuits were first put in service;
|
|
WHEREAS Unitel submitted that the facilities in question are configured such that no traffic originating from these facilities can egress onto the Canadian Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) via Unitel's switch and that it is not transferring domestic traffic onto these facilities;
|
|
WHEREAS Unitel provided a technical audit of the configuration in support of its application and also provided an affidavit from a Unitel officer which, in its view, confirms that the facilities in question were configured solely for the carriage of international transit traffic during the period of time prior to the technical audit;
|
|
WHEREAS in addition, Unitel provided a copy of a letter from its customer WorldxChange Communications (WorlxChange) dated 13 October 1995, which, in Unitel's view, provides the same confirmation that the facilities in question have been used exclusively for handling international transit traffic from November 1994;
|
|
WHEREAS Unitel stated that the facilities in question were originally put in service, in the present configuration, on 28 October 1994;
|
|
WHEREAS Unitel submitted that notwithstanding the failure to request contribution exemption on a timely basis, the facilities in question have been used strictly for the carriage of transit traffic since they were installed;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 31 October 1995, BC TEL stated that at least at the time of Unitel's technical audit, it did not appear that the circuits in question were connected to BC TEL's PSTN, and accordingly that Unitel had met the evidentiary requirements for an exemption from contribution payments in respect to transit traffic, and as such an exemption should be granted;
|
|
WHEREAS BC TEL voiced concern as to the retroactive aspect of Unitel's application;
|
|
WHEREAS BC TEL submitted that it is inappropriate and contrary to Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995 to grant retroactive exemption based on the technical audit;
|
|
WHEREAS by letter dated 10 November 1995, Unitel maintained that its evidence supported a retroactive exemption;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that Unitel has met the Commission's evidentiary requirements for contribution exemption on a going-forward basis (submission of a satisfactory technical audit);
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that the WorldxChange document submitted by Unitel is only a letter, not one of the four types of evidence required by Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993, and the Unitel affidavit is based on belief only;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is generally of the view that an applicant affidavit is insufficient to support an application for transit traffic where that applicant also offers other services (i.e., PSTN access); and
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that no special circumstances exist which would warrant granting the exemption in question on a retroactive basis -
|
|
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
|
Unitel's application is approved effective the date of its application (18 October 1995).
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: