ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-1126

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 18 August 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-1126

The Commission received a letter dated 15 October 1996 from ACC TelEnterprises Ltd. (ACC), on behalf of Metrotelepol Services, a division of 839286 Ontario Limited (Metrotelepol), pursuant to Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, Applications for Contribution Exemptions, 1 April 1993, applying for exemption from contribution charges on four individual business lines (1FL's) that provide dedicated local service. ACC stated that the NXXs for the four circuits (with the associated exchange provided in brackets) are the following: (519) 638-3322 (Drayton); (519) 343-4692 (Palmerston); (519) 695-5739 (Bothwell); and (519) 287-5207 (Glencoe).

File No.: 96-2445

1. By letter dated 23 October 1996, Bell Canada (Bell) noted that the application requested a contribution exemption on the basis that the lines are used to provide dedicated local service. Bell noted that it is unclear from the application how the services are provisioned as dedicated. Accordingly, Bell submitted that further clarification of the service configuration is required before it can comment on the merits of the application. Bell noted that the evidentiary requirements normally include an affidavit, a request for carrier verification, or the submission of a technical audit. Bell noted that none of these evidentiary requirements have been provided in the letter filed by ACC. In light of the above, Bell submitted that Metrotelepol's application be deferred pending the provision of satisfactory information and appropriate evidence.

2. By letter dated 26 February 1997, ACC (on behalf of Metrotelepol) replied enclosing a sworn affidavit dated 10 February 1997 affirming that the lines in question are used to provide dedicated local service and are not used for toll calling.

3. By letter dated 7 April 1997, Bell noted that no information has been provided to indicate that access to toll calling is prevented, nor has the applicant clarified any aspect of the service configuration. Bell noted that typically, the Commission has required a sworn affidavit affirming that the service is not connected to and is unable to access any interexchange private line services, or any local private line services or channels that are connected to a reseller switch. In this case, Bell submitted that the affidavit provided by Metrotelepol fails to satisfy such evidentiary requirements, assuming that the services are restricted from accessing such interexchange networks. Accordingly, Bell submitted that the requested exemption should continue to be deferred, and Metrotelepol should be directed to provide an adequate description of the service arrangements and satisfactory evidence.

4. By letter dated 23 June 1997, ACC responded that the individual business lines in question are used exclusively to provide dedicated local data transmission and the service provided is not connected to and is unable to access any interexchange private line services, or any local private line services or channels that are connected to a reseller switch. ACC, on behalf of Metrotelepol, filed an affidavit attesting to the facts noted above.

5. By letter dated 15 July 1997, Bell noted that Metrotelepol has clarified the situation. Accordingly, Bell submitted that the configuration in question satisfies the requirements for a contribution exemption for cases where MTS/WATS and local access is possible but where the applicant does not have access to an interexchange private line network.

6. The Commission is of the view that Metrotelepol's evidence satisfies the relevant evidentiary requirements.

7. Based on the foregoing, the Commission orders that Metrotelepol's application is approved effective the date of application15 October 1996.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.