ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-139

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 30 January 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-139

Reference: 96-2092

WHEREAS by letter dated 19 March 1996, Optel stated that it wished to revise its original application for contribution exemption dated 30 March 1995, by adding local business line service to the services already provided by Bell Canada (Bell);

WHEREAS in its 19 March 1996 application, Optel provided the previously-filed affidavit dated 31 March 1995 in support of its application and requested an effective date retroactive to 24 January 1995;

WHEREAS by letter dated 25 April 1996, Bell stated that in Telecom Order CRTC 95-701, 15 June 1995 (Order 95-701), Optel was granted an exemption from contribution charges for Centrex services used to provide local services;

WHEREAS Bell noted that, in support of Optel's current application, it received a copy of Optel's previous application, including the affidavit filed 31 March 1995, which refers only to Centrex services;

WHEREAS Bell noted that to satisfy the Commission's evidentiary requirements, a revised affidavit of the same form should be provided, correctly specifying Bell's services provided to Optel, and affirming that no local channels connect these services to a reseller switch, and no interexchange private lines are connected to the system;

WHEREAS Bell stated that, subject to the provision of a revised affidavit, it agreed with the proposed exemption;

WHEREAS by letter dated 17 May 1996, the Commission issued 4 questions asking for: i) the installation date of what appears to be new circuits added to the configuration which was given approval effective 30 March 1995 in Order 95-701; ii) a description of the services provided by Optel using the Centrex services and the local business lines described in its letter of 19 March 1996; iii) justification to support Optel's request for approval retroactive to 24 January 1995; and iv) a new affidavit as suggested by Bell in its letter of 25 April 1996;

WHEREAS by letter dated 23 May 1996, Optel provided its response to the Commission's letter of 17 May 1996;

WHEREAS by letter dated 17 June 1996, Bell noted that Optel did not provide any of the requested information in its response and that Optel's revised affidavit of 23 May 1996 did not identify the specific circuits, telephone numbers, or billing account numbers which are the subject of Optel's application;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that Optel has failed to provide satisfactory evidence to justify its request for exemption and therefore the request should be denied;

WHEREAS by letter dated 29 July 1996, Optel acknowledged that certain parts of the information sought by the Commission in its letter of 17 May 1996 were not provided in the response to the Commission's request for additional information and stated that, by way of this letter and the attached affidavit dated 31 July 1996, it now had provided the requested information;

WHEREAS Optel stated that the contribution exemption being sought relates to the business line services, which were installed subsequent to the Centrex services for which Optel has received an exemption from contribution charges in Order 95-701;

WHEREAS Optel requested contribution exemption for the business line services retroactive to their date(s) of installation;

WHEREAS Optel stated that the services using the Business Line and Centrex services are value-added services providing advanced billing, customer care, and cost optimization capabilities to a selected target market;

WHEREAS Optel stated that the services provided are primarily local exchange services and that it does not provide interexchange services to its customers;

WHEREAS by letter dated 21 August 1996, Bell provided its comments with respect to the additional information provided by Optel: (1) with respect to the Commission's first question, Optel has now provided this information in its new affidavit dated 31 July 1996; (2) with respect to the Commission's second question, Optel has provided little additional detail to make a determination with respect to the validity of the type of service for which Optel is seeking a contribution exemption; a "value added service" has no meaning in the context of a contribution exemption, in that there is no exemption for this category of service; the provision of "primarily local exchange services" does not clearly identify the type of service provided; Optel has failed to comply with the Commission's request for further clarification of its service configuration; (3) with respect to the Commission's third question, Optel has not provided the required justification in its latest reply; (4) with respect to the Commission's fourth question, Optel has filed a revised affidavit dated 31 July 1996; the affidavit indicates that Optel resells Business Line services to its customers; Optel has identified in its affidavit the specific billing telephone numbers which are the subject of its application; Optel had not identified in its affidavit the category of exemption which it is seeking from the Commission; the affidavit is not complete in that it does not clearly identify the type of exemption requested;

WHEREAS based on the above, Bell concluded that Optel has not complied with the Commission's request for further information regarding the configuration which is the subject of Optel's exemption request;

WHEREAS accordingly, Bell submitted that, since Optel has failed to provide satisfactory evidence to justify its request for an exemption, the request should be denied;

WHEREAS by letter dated 5 November 1996, Optel stated that the service offered by it is a local service;

WHEREAS Optel stated that the date of installation is the date on which the request for exemption is based;

WHEREAS Optel stated that all of the dates of installation listed "are subsequent to 24 January 1994" [sic: this should be 1995];

WHEREAS Optel submitted that it is not possible to request an exemption for a service which has not yet been installed;

WHEREAS Optel submitted that, in addition, it was not efficient to make the changes to its application one or two lines at a time;

WHEREAS Optel believed that it acted reasonably in submitting a revised collective application in order to avoid many small requests;

WHEREAS by letter dated 29 November 1996, Bell submitted that the affidavit provided by Optel, dated 31 July 1996, should specify that the Business Line services in question are used by Optel solely to provide local services to Optel's customers;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that contrary to Optel's views, in Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993 the Commission explicitly provided for situations where expedited interim approval could be granted prior to the installation of services;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that in the present case Optel could have sought expedited interim approval by identifying its intent to offer services in the manner now implemented;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that furthermore, in Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26 (PN 95-26) 12 June 1995, the Commission established that "exemptions will generally be granted effective the later of the date of application or the date of installation, absent special circumstances";

WHEREAS Bell submitted that Optel has not identified any special circumstances which would warrant a departure from this guideline;

WHEREAS Bell submitted that Optel's failure to acknowledge and to follow the Commission's established procedures, and to provide information in a timely manner, has been the primary cause for the extended time required to establish the record necessary to dispose of this application;

WHEREAS, Bell submitted that, in accordance with the Commission's established guidelines, and consistent with its disposition of previous applications involving similar situations, the effective date for the requested exemptions should be the date of application (19 March 1996) for services installed prior to or on that date, and the date of installation for services installed later;

WHEREAS with respect to the request that Order 95-701 be made effective on 24 January 1995, the Commission notes that this Order followed the guideline set out in PN 95-26 and made the effective date on the later date, 30 March 1995;

WHEREAS the Commission notes that Optel has filed no new evidence supporting a change;

WHEREAS the Commission agrees with Bell that the Commission's procedures contemplate applications for a ruling prior to ordering facilities;

WHEREAS Optel has not shown why it could not, before 24 January 1995, apply for a ruling before it started to install Centrex facilities;

WHEREAS, with respect to the original configuration covered by Order 95-701, the Commission considers that Optel has not shown any "special circumstances" to warrant a departure from the Commission's policy set out in PN 95-26;

WHEREAS, with respect to the 19 March 1996 application for contribution exemption for local business lines that were installed subsequent to the Centrex services covered by Order 95-701, the Commission notes that Optel has now described its services as local services in its letter of 29 July 1996, but its affidavit dated 31 July 1996 did not provide such a description;

WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that an exemption could be granted subject to the provision of a revised affidavit specifying that the Business Line services in question are used by Optel solely to provide local services to its customers;

WHEREAS the Commission believes that the applicant has met the evidentiary requirements to support its request for exemption of local business lines;

WHEREAS with respect to the effective date for this application, the Commission notes that a total of 30 circuits have been installed over the period 6 February 1995 to 19 July 1996 (15 in 1995 and 15 in 1996);

WHEREAS the Commission notes that Optel has waited over one year to formally apply to the Commission for exemption;

WHEREAS however, as pointed out by Bell, Optel has taken an inordinate amount of time to apply for exemption, as well as causing a lengthy delay in the public process; and

WHEREAS, with respect to the effective date concerning Optel's application for exemption of local business services, the Commission considers that the circumstances do not warrant a departure from the Commission's policy of granting exemption the later of date of application or date of installation of lines in question -

T IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Optel's request for retroactive approval of its original configuration covered in its application dated 30 March 1995 (Order 95-701) back to 24 January 1995 is denied.

2. Optel's application of 19 March 1996 is approved with the effective date for each new circuit being the later of 19 March 1996 or the installation date for each new circuit, subject to the provision of a revised affidavit within 30 days of this Order specifying that the Business Line services in question are used by Optel solely to provide local services to its customers.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General