ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-1443

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 8 October 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-1443

By letter dated 27 June 1997, Teledebit One Inc. (Teledebit) filed an application seeking a contribution exemption with respect to Bell Canada (Bell) and other carrier-supplied lines that access the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Teledebit stated that its "long distance capacity is furnished solely by means of various Bell-supplied and other carrier MTS and WATS service (including 800 Service)".

File No.: 8626-T24-01/97

1. By letter dated 15 July 1997, Bell noted that Teledebit had not identified what specific services or accounts are the subject of its application. Accordingly, Bell stated that it does not know which services might require an exemption.

2. Bell stated that Teledebit also indicated in its application that it is eligible for an exemption on the basis that it operates a single switch with no interexchange services other than MTS/WATS, and that it does not utilize private line circuits. Bell stated that in this respect, it agreed that such configurations can be eligible for a contribution exemption. However, Bell stated that, pursuant to the evidentiary requirements as set out in Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993 (Decision 93-2) such configurations require that the reseller provide a satisfactory affidavit to the Commission.

3. Bell stated that in one configuration identified in Decision 93-2, a competitor had access to both MTS/WATS and local services from a switch, but had no interexchange private lines connected to the switch. Bell noted the Commission's statement in Decision 93-2 that since in this configuration competitors did not have an interexchange private line network, they should not be required to pay contribution on the local access channels and applications for exemptions for this configuration were to be supported by an affidavit by the applicant attesting to the fact that there are no interexchange private lines connected to the switch.

4. In light of the above, Bell submitted that prior to the Commission rendering a decision, Teledebit should be directed to file an affidavit with the Commission and Bell specifying which services are the subject of its application and affirming that no local or interexchange private lines, whether provided by a carrier or reseller, are connected to the resold services which are the subject of Teledebit's application. Bell stated that it reserved the right to comment after receipt of clarification and further evidence from Teledebit.

5. In an affidavit dated 6 August 1997, Teledebit stated that it subscribes to 24 telephone lines which are classified as interconnecting circuits pursuant to Bell's tariffs (details of which were provided in confidence to the Commission and Bell).

6. Teledebit stated that no interexchange private line service or local private line services, whether provided by Bell or any other supplier, are connected to its telephone switching equipment.

7. Teledebit stated that the use of the facilities are for a debit card platform whereby users access the platform from anywhere in Canada using an 800 number. Teledebit stated that the 800 service includes contribution charges and hence it is exempt from charges on this Megalink facility.

8. By letter dated 9 September 1997, Bell noted that Teledebit had provided the further clarification requested by it and accordingly, agreed with the requested exemption.

9. The Commission is of the view that Teledebit has met the evidentiary requirements. With reference to Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995, the Commission is of the view that there are special circumstances in this case whereby, absent an effective date from the date of installation, Teledebit would be required to pay contribution twice on the circuits in question for the period between the date of installation and the date of application, since contribution charges are included in the services which it uses. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the date of installation would be appropriate in this case.

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

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.