ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-1405

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 1 October 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-1405

By fax transmitted on 4 June 1997, Econolink requested an exemption from contribution charges for services used for administrative purposes and for facsimile services. Econolink provided an affidavit dated 13 November 1996 affirming that the business lines in question are used solely for administrative calls and for its facsimile services. By letter dated 4 July 1997, Econolink identified an additional 16 lines which are also used for facsimile services.

File No.: 8626-E7-01/97

1. By letter dated 8 July 1997, Bell Canada (Bell) stated that with respect to the lines used for administrative purposes, the number of such services appears to be reasonable and the affidavit provided appears to satisfy the Commission's evidentiary requirements for contribution exemptions in such cases. Accordingly, Bell agreed with this requested exemption.

2. Bell stated that with respect to the circuits used for a facsimile service, the information provided does not describe: (1) how the network is configured; (2) whether or not it involves the use of local or interexchange private lines; and (3) which category of exemption is requested, although Bell assumed that, since the services provided by Econolink are facsimile services, the type of exemption required is for data use only. In light of this, Bell submitted that the application does not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for an exemption wherein the applicant is required to provide such information to substantiate the request.

3. Accordingly, Bell submitted that prior to rendering a decision with respect to Econolink's application for a contribution exemption for its facsimile services, Econolink should be required to further clarify the network configuration and confirm the category of contribution exemption that is being sought.

4. Bell stated that with respect to the appropriate effective date of a contribution exemption for the circuits associated with the facsimile services, it noted that the affidavit provided by Econolink is dated 13 November 1996 but the application was not received by the Commission until 4 July 1997. Bell also noted that it has been the Commission's practice to generally accept the earlier of the date of application or the date of the affidavit for the effective date, as long as there is no substantial difference between those two dates. Bell submitted that since the date of the affidavit predates the date of receipt of the application by more than six and one-half months, in this case, the effective date should coincide with the date of receipt of the application.

5. By letter dated 23 July 1997, Econolink provided clarification for: (1) its network configuration; (2) the category of exemption requested; and (3) the appropriate effective date of contribution exemption.

6. Econolink stated that it has no network connected to the lines in question. Econolink stated that its fax systems are stand-alone, are used for local service, and long distance service is purchased through Bell or an equal access 1+ reseller such as fONOROLA Inc. (fONOROLA).

7. Econolink also stated that the category of exemption required is for local service. Econolink stated that the lines in question are used for local purposes and any long distance calling is completed using 1+ equal access arrangements.

8. Econolink requested contribution exemption retroactive to the date of installation of all lines listed in its affidavit and any subsequent lines installed thereafter. Econolink stated that it had forwarded copies of the affidavit dated 13 November 1996 to both the Commission and Bell within a few days of the affidavit being notarized. Econolink stated that the copy sent to Bell was sent to its Carrier Services Group and that Bell had confirmed receipt of this affidavit during the above stated time period. Econolink stated that unfortunately the copy sent to the Commission was not received and thus the lengthy delay regarding this matter.

9. By letter dated 30 July 1997, Bell noted that Econolink has provided the requested further clarification of its application and agreed with the requested exemption.

10. Bell stated that it has reviewed its records within the Carrier Services Group and can confirm that a copy of the affidavit was forwarded to this Group at or around the time indicated by Econolink in its submission. Accordingly, Bell agreed that the appropriate effective date of a contribution exemption, should one be granted by the Commission, would appear to be 13 November 1996.

11. By letters dated 26 August and 3 September 1997, Econolink stated that its concern is the effective date for the exemption. Econolink stated that the sixteen lines in question were installed 22 October 1996 and that it was requesting that the exemption be back-dated to the date of installation and not the date of the affidavit for the following reasons: (1) the period of time between which lines were installed and the affidavit was signed was only 3 weeks due to administration delays resulting from: a) its company not being familiar with the timely procedures regarding contribution exemption applications; b) Bell not providing it with sufficient information and a sample affidavit in a timely manner; and c) arrangements having to be made to have the affidavit notarized by its lawyer; and (2) starting as early as 25 October 1996 these lines were being used to make 1+ long distance calls through its long distance carrier Bell at retail rates. Econolink stated that the Bell call detail records and invoices are in its possession to demonstrate this claim. Econolink stated that Bell would have this information on record.

12. The Commission is of the view that Econolink's evidence satisfies its evidentiary requirements for the administrative and fax lines, and notes that Bell agrees with the exemption.

13. The Commission is of the view that, consistent with Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995, the application with respect to administrative lines should be approved effective the date of installation.

14. The Commission considers that with respect to the circuits used for facsimile services, special circumstances exist to warrant the exemption being effective on the date of installation (22 October 1996). These circumstances are that, absent an effective date of installation, the applicant would be effectively paying contribution twice, given that the rates they have been paying for the Bell and fONOROLA 1+ circuits include contribution.

15. Accordingly, based on the above, Econolink's application is approved effective the date of installation.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.