ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-1572

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 29 October 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-1572

On 23 June 1997, Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell) filed an application pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to review and vary part of Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 (Decision 97-8), requiring, at paragraph 23, that "a CLEC must obtain at least one NXX for each ILEC's exchange area in which it provides services". On 31 July 1997, ACC TelEnterprises Ltd., Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), Rogers Cantel Inc., the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA), the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, Clearnet Communications Inc. (Clearnet), fONOROLA Inc., MetroNet Communications Corp. (MetroNet), Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada, The Island Telephone Company Limited, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS NetCom Inc., The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited, NewTel Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc., and Vidéotron Télécom ltée filed comments in response to Microcell's application. Microcell and Stentor filed reply comments on 7 August 1997.

File No.: 8662-M16-01/97

1. In its application, Microcell submits that paragraph 23 of Decision 97-8 should be varied on three grounds. Firstly, Microcell maintains that paragraph 23 failed to consider basic principles raised in the proceeding leading to Decision 97-8. In Microcell's view, the determination will lead to premature number exhaust, thus effectively limiting competitive entry and growth in the telecommunications marketplace. Furthermore, the determination is not equitable or technology neutral because it favours incumbent local exchange carriers' (ILECs) fixed network architecture. By doing so, it precludes carriers whose networks permit mobility from fully exploiting their network capabilities. It also forces those carriers to re-assign customers' telephone numbers to comply with the requirement of having a unique NXX (the three digit telephone number prefix) for each ILEC exchange area.

2. Secondly, Microcell submits that the determination contains a significant error in fact in erroneously assuming that the current ILEC system of assigning a unique NXX to an ILEC exchange is best able to maintain the integrity of the current toll contribution scheme, to ensure the provision of equal access to Interexchange Carriers and to accommodate number portability for all competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), wireline or wireless.

3. Thirdly, Microcell argues that the grounds stated above, taken together, cast substantial doubt as to the correctness of the determination.

4. Instead of requiring that CLECs obtain at least one NXX for each ILEC's exchange area in which they provide services, Microcell proposes that CLECs obtain at least one NXX per ILEC local service area in which they provide service.

5. MetroNet recommends that Microcell's proposal only apply to mobile wireless local exchange carriers (LECs). Other LECs would be permitted to use, where they so choose, less than a full NXX per exchange, while maintaining the association of one NXX with a single exchange.

6. CCTA is concerned that assigning NXX codes for wireline CLECs based on ILECs' Extended Area Service (EAS) zones is not technically or administratively feasible, and proposes the implementation of number pooling.

7. Call-Net considers that, under Microcell's proposal, service providers may avoid paying toll contribution by routing calls that attract toll contribution through a common local exchange between the originating and terminating exchanges. Instead, Call-Net proposes that wireline CLECs, including fixed wireless providers, purchase parts of an NXX in one exchange, as opposed to the entire NXX. These CLECs will still need one NXX per exchange but numbers will not be prematurely exhausted. As for mobile wireless CLECs, Call-Net proposes that new standardized calling areas be established, called Number Assignment Areas (NAAs). NAAs will only apply to mobile CLECs. CLECs will need one NXX per NAA and customers will only have an NXX number associated with a particular NAA.

8. Clearnet, for its part, states that paragraph 23 should be deleted, as the network already has the necessary tools to ensure that the Commission's local competition objectives are met. Clearnet considers that the Vertical and Horizontal coordinates make it possible to establish the originating, routing, and terminating cell sites for calls placed on the wireless network. Clearnet proposes that calls attracting toll contribution between the originating cell and the routing cell, and/or between the routing cell and the terminating cell be charged accordingly. In Clearnet's view, paying contribution twice on the same call is an acceptable compromise between Microcell's request for one NXX per local calling area and the need to maintain the present network architecture.

9. Stentor submits that Microcell's application should be rejected because it does not raise new facts not already considered in Decision 97-8. Stentor also states that Microcell's application is premature, as the industry is aware of the situation and is already working on solutions to number exhaust. Stentor further argues that Microcell's proposal will have a substantial negative impact on the configuration of the existing network and systems and will be costly to implement.

10. In response to Microcell's assertion that it would have to re-assign its customers' telephone numbers, Stentor points out that Decision 97-8 does not require that wireless CLECs change their customers' telephone numbers in order to meet the one NXX per exchange requirement. In Stentor's view, wireless CLECs' customers will only change numbers to take advantage of another local calling area or if they are directed to do so by their wireless CLEC. Stentor also adds that the potential disadvantage of re-assigning a new number to a customer has to be balanced with the benefits flowing from the new competitive regime. Among other benefits, local number portability (LNP) will enable Microcell to acquire customers from competitors without a number change.

11. Finally, Stentor raises other areas of concern that could be affected if CLECs are not required to obtain one NXX per exchange. Stentor submits that Microcell's proposal will require that the database perform a 10 digit analysis to establish whether a call is local or toll. Stentor also claims that ILECs will be competitively disadvantaged because they will need to maintain fixed local calling areas. Thirdly, Microcell's proposal will affect call rating and whether calls attract toll contribution. Furthermore, changes will need to be made to E911 and operator services systems. Stentor also submits that Microcell's proposal will impact both on information included in directories and on directory assistance rating. Finally, Stentor argues that the proposal will have an impact on certain customer provided equipment.

12. The Commission notes that, in Decision 97-8, one of its objectives was to define a structure for local competition that would establish the basis for local interconnection and LNP while maintaining the integrity of the existing North American routing and rating arrangements and the current toll contribution scheme. To do so, the Commission relied on the existing ILEC wireline network architecture and configuration, common to the entire North American continent.

13. Work is presently under way in a number of fora to modify and modernize the existing structure to accommodate LNP, terminal portability and rating and routing databases. As pointed out by Stentor, various bodies have been working on immediate and long term solutions to number exhaust, such as code sharing and number pooling. Coordination between, and participation by all interested North American players is required for a viable and lasting solution.

14. The Commission is confident that viable solutions will be available before the industry reaches a critical point and is thus of the view that requiring one NXX per exchange will not lead to premature number exhaust. In the Commission's view, it would not serve the public interest to formulate a new structure given that the North American network architecture and configuration is expected to evolve.

15. In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that retaining the current ILEC system of assigning a unique NXX for each ILEC exchange in which a CLEC provides service is, at this time, the most prudent approach to maintaining the integrity of the network.

16. As for Microcell's submission that it will need to re-assign some of its customers' telephone numbers if it becomes a CLEC, the Commission agrees with Stentor that this is not required pursuant to Decision 97-8 and will not be necessary. Wireless CLECs will be able to continue using numbers associated with one exchange in another exchange. Customers will be able to keep their telephone numbers and make calls within the local calling area associated with that telephone number's exchange. The Commission agrees with Stentor that customers need only change their number if they so desire or if required to do so by their wireless CLEC.

17. In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that Microcell has failed to demonstrate that the Commission failed to consider basic principles raised in the proceeding leading to Decision 97-8, that the Commission's determination in question is based on an error of fact or that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Commission's determination requiring, at paragraph 23 of Decision 97-8, that "a CLEC must obtain at least one NXX for each ILEC's exchange area in which it provides services". Therefore, the Commission denies Microcell's application filed pursuant to section 62 of the Act.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.