-
Order
|
-
Ottawa, 2 August 1996
|
-
Telecom OrderCRTC 96-830
|
-
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Unitel Communications Inc. (now Unitel Communications Company) (Unitel) dated 10 November 1995, requesting an order confirming that: (1) the Canada-USA and Overseas access circuits used for Unitel’s frame relay service qualify for contribution exemption since they comprise a data network that is operated separately from the applicant’s voice network, and (2) Unitel is not liable for contribution payments on the circuits in question commencing from the date such circuits were first put in service.
|
-
Reference: 96-2335
|
-
WHEREAS Unitel enclosed a technical audit report and an affidavit, both dated 7 November 1995, prepared by a registered professional engineer;
|
-
WHEREAS Unitel submitted that the report confirmed that Unitel’s frame relay network is configured as a separate data network and that the Canada-USA and overseas circuits are segregated from Unitel’s other cross-border and overseas access circuits used to carry switched voice traffic;
|
-
WHEREAS in a second affidavit dated 9 November 1995, a Unitel officer attested that Unitel’s frame relay service is and always has been for data-only service applications and that Unitel does not provide for the termination of voice channels on its frame relay switches;
|
-
WHEREAS Unitel submitted that the following points are sufficient to merit a full retroactive contribution exemption: (a) the frame relay network is not interconnected to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and Unitel has, up until now, not permitted public dial access to its frame relay network; (b) the frame relay network is an evolution of Unitel’s X.25 packet network which has been in existence prior to 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, and the nature of frame relay service is such that it is clearly not of the type for which contribution ought to be payable; and (c) the technical audit and affidavits provide sufficient evidence to support Unitel’s request for a full contribution exemption from the date of installation of the above-mentioned circuits;
|
-
WHEREAS Unitel indicated that there are currently 240 cross-border circuits and 24 overseas circuits;
|
-
WHEREAS by letter dated 5 December 1995, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor), on behalf of BC TEL and Bell Canada (Bell), stated that BC TEL and Bell have indicated that they are unable to determine if the circuits in question have been included in the monthly report of Canada-U.S. circuits provided by Unitel and thus are not aware when these circuits were put into service or if contribution has, in the absence of an exemption, ever been paid with respect to these circuits;
|
-
WHEREAS Stentor stated that, at least at the time of the technical audit, Unitel has met the evidentiary requirements for an exemption from contribution with respect to data services;
|
-
WHEREAS Stentor questioned whether an affidavit was sufficient to establish historical facts with respect to the effective date for exemption, and was concerned that a precedent may be set by accepting such information, leading to a disincentive for parties to submit timely exemption claims, and the possibility of applicants "rewriting history";
|
-
WHEREAS by letter dated 15 December 1995, Unitel disagreed with Stentor’s claim that an officer’s affidavit is not acceptable evidence for past periods and stated that, up until the issuance of Forbearance-Services Provided by Non-Dominant Canadian Carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-19, 8 September 1995, the provision of frame relay service by Unitel was governed by tariffs approved by the Commission;
|
-
WHEREAS Unitel noted that those tariffs clearly specified that Unitel’s frame relay network was for the purpose of data communications and that access was restricted to dedicated access connections from the customer premises, either at the 56 kbps or DS-1 access rate;
|
-
WHEREAS Unitel stated that at no point did it ever provide public dial access or even dedicated voice access connections through to Unitel’s frame relay network as part of its frame relay tariff;
|
-
WHEREAS Unitel submitted that such access would have required changes to Unitel’s Tariffs and Commission approval;
|
-
WHEREAS the Commission considers that Unitel has provided a technical audit which meets the evidentiary requirements for an exemption commencing the date of application;
|
-
WHEREAS in Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995, the Commission stated that, absent special circumstances, contribution exemptions should generally not be made effective back to the date when the circuits were first installed (if this is prior to the application date) in order to avoid the evidentiary problem of establishing historical facts;
|
-
WHEREAS the Commission also stated that it will determine on a case-by-case basis whether particular contribution exemptions warrant other effective dates;
|
-
WHEREAS, based on the nature of the network, the Commission is of the view that it is unlikely that voice traffic from the PSTN could have been carried over the frame relay network in question, since public dial access was not permitted and since special voice equipment would have been required at both the switch and customer site;
|
-
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that in the particular circumstances of this case, an exemption is warranted commencing the date of installation;
|
-
WHEREAS the Commission notes that Unitel has not indicated the installation date for the network in question; and
|
-
WHEREAS the Commission notes that, while Unitel’s affidavit indicates that Unitel’s frame relay service is, and has always been, for data-only service applications, it does not state that the circuits in question were, at all material times, terminated solely on frame relay switches -
|
-
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
-
Unitel’s application is granted approval effective the date of installation, subject to the receipt of a revised affidavit, within 30 days of this Order, indicating the date of installation and stating that the circuits in question were, at all material times, terminated solely on frame relay switches.
|
-
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|