ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 96-942

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 27 August 1996

Telecom Order CRTC 96-942

IN THE MATTER OF an application by City Access Telecom Inc. (City Access) dated 15 September 1994, received by the Commission in December 1994, for an exemption from contribution with respect to certain circuits used in its Aurora, Ontario switch configuration.

Reference: 95-1271

WHEREAS City Access stated that in July 1993, after discussion with Bell Canada (Bell) representatives, and a Commission representative, it altered its Aurora switch configuration to restrict access to the foreign exchange (FX) lines to 8 incoming Aurora lines;

WHEREAS City Access stated that this change in configuration made contribution payable on 8 access lines and 8 egress lines;

WHEREAS City Access stated that the remaining Aurora lines are used solely to provide local extended area service expansion services (single-hop Centrex service) and as such should be contribution exempt;

WHEREAS City Access stated that Bell has not been charging contribution on 14 incoming Aurora lines, and that it is also seeking Commission approval to close out this service as billed;

WHEREAS by letter dated 21 December 1994, Bell stated that it had no knowledge of a reconfiguration of City Access' service in July 1993;

WHEREAS Bell noted that City Access' original application for exemption for this arrangement was denied in Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993 (Decision 93-2);

WHEREAS prior to Decision 93-2, Bell stated that it had not applied contribution charges to the circuits that were the subject of the application, consistent with its treatment of all applications filed prior to 31 August 1992;

WHEREAS Bell stated that subsequent to Decision 93-2, it modified its billing and billed contribution charges for the configuration in accordance with Decision 93-2;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that if the service was reconfigured in July 1993 as indicated by City Access, an application should properly have been made at that time to seek an exemption for the revised service configuration;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that while the Commission has made specific provisions for advance approval and interim approval of proposed exemptions from contribution charges, there is no basis on which to exempt a service configuration retroactively as proposed by City Access;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that it is correct in requiring contribution charges to be paid as billed;

WHEREAS Bell noted that in September 1994, City Access reconfigured its services by having the FX services and some access lines removed, and by adding Centrex systems in additional locations;

WHEREAS Bell stated that the original customer provided equipment (CPE) system is still in service with no Bell-provided private line services, and presumably is now used only for single-hop services;

WHEREAS Bell stated that City Access has made no application to have the system exempted from contribution charges based on the September revision to its configuration;

WHEREAS Bell maintained that: (a) contribution charges associated with the CPE service configuration remain applicable up to September 1994, as billed; (b) contribution charges on the reconfigured system are applicable from September 1994 forward; and (c) should City Access wish to obtain an exemption from contribution charges on the reconfigured system, a new application to the Commission is required, supported by suitable evidence in the form of an affidavit attesting that no private lines, either local or interexchange, are connected to the system and that such an exemption, if granted, would apply only on a going-forward basis;

WHEREAS accordingly, Bell submitted that City Access' application should be denied;

WHEREAS City Access stated that it wrote to the Commission on 25 May 1993, asking the Commission to re-evaluate Decision 93-2 due to the difference between City Access' simple configuration (all services supplied by Bell), versus Unitel's larger configuration, which it alleged served as the basis for the Commission's decision;

WHEREAS City Access stated that no response has ever been received to this letter, and after some months, City Access decided to reconfigure, rather than face the possibility of a retroactive negative decision;

WHEREAS City Access stated that it discussed configuration changes with its Bell sales representative, and carrier services group engineer in July 1993;

WHEREAS City Access stated that it then contacted a Commission representative to discuss options, as the proposed reconfiguration was not as effective for City Access, as the then current configuration;

WHEREAS City Access stated that at that point it made the configuration change, which did not require any changes to be made on Bell's part, other than to begin charging contribution on the 8 access lines and the 8 FX lines, which Bell did;

WHEREAS City Access stated that it was not invoiced for contribution on its remaining lines as Bell's letter indicates;

WHEREAS City Access stated that Bell did bill City Access for contribution on its other lines retroactively to August 1993 in September of 1994 (received in October), after City Access' letter to the Commission dated 15 September 1994;

WHEREAS City Access stated that the Commission was notified of the configuration change on 23 July 1993 in a letter to the Commission representative;

WHEREAS City Access stated that as far as both it and its Bell representatives were concerned, City Access was paying contribution appropriately;

WHEREAS City Access disagreed with Bell's implication that City Access did not make an application;

WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that although City Access' letter dated 23 July 1993 was not properly addressed to the Commission and was not served on Bell, it can be considered as an application;

WHEREAS normally, a technical audit or carrier verification would be required to ensure that access to the FX lines was limited to the 8 incoming and 8 outgoing lines;

WHEREAS subsequently, in September 1994, City Access reconfigured its services by having the FX services and some access lines removed, and by adding Centrex systems in additional locations, exemption applications for which were dealt with in Telecom Order CRTC 95-481 dated 20 April 1995;

WHEREAS the Commission considers that City Access' current situation can be attributed to: (a) a relatively inexperience applicant; (b) an exemption process occurring during a period of changing evidentiary requirements; (c) apparent inconsistent messages from Bell; and (d) misdirection by City Access of correspondence to the Commission; and

WHEREAS in these particular circumstances, the Commission considers that it would be appropriate to approve the application of City Access, but require a revised affidavit for a going-forward exemption on single-hop circuits attesting that no private lines, either local or interexchange, are connected to its reconfigured Aurora system -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

City Access' application is approved effective 23 July 1993, subject to receipt of a revised affidavit for the Aurora system, within 30 days of this Order.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General