ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 97-508
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Telecom Order |
|
Ottawa, 15 April 1997
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 97-508
|
|
The Commission received an application from Rebel Communications (Rebel) dated 25 September 1996, for an exemption from contribution for Centrex services in Drummondville, Quebec.
|
|
File No.: 96-2110
|
|
1. In support of its application, Rebel provided an affidavit dated 15 October 1996.
|
|
2. In a letter dated 17 January 1997, Bell Canada (Bell) noted that despite the dates stated on the letter and affidavit, the facsimile header information on the copy provided to it indicated that the copy was transmitted to Bell on 29 November 1996.
|
|
3. Bell noted that Rebel recently applied for an exemption for similar service arrangements in Brockville, Ontario by a letter of the same date, and with an affidavit of the same form and date, as those provided in this case.
|
|
4. Bell stated that it has not been provided with an original copy of the affidavit and therefore is unable to determine whether it is a revised version of the previous submission, or a new duly sworn affidavit as required by the Commission's evidentiary requirements.
|
|
5. Bell also noted that the Drummondville Extended Area Service area includes a number of independent company exchanges.
|
|
6. Bell stated that should Rebel wish to offer services in these exchanges, it would be required to register as a reseller with the independent companies and contribution charges may apply to single-hop calls involving such exchanges, pursuant to Regulatory Framework for Québec-Téléphone and Télébec ltée Telecom Decision CRTC 96-5, 7 August 1996 (Decision 96-5) and/or Regulatory Framework for the Independent Telephone Companies in Quebec and Ontario (Except Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, Québec-Téléphone and Télébec ltée), Telecom Decision CRTC 96-6, 7 August 1996 (Decision 96-6).
|
|
7. Bell further noted that resellers may be required, pursuant to those Decisions, to provide traffic data to the telephone companies involved in order to permit them to bill the appropriate contribution charges.
|
|
8. Bell submitted that subject to the above comments including the requirements to verify that the affidavit has been duly sworn, Rebel has met the evidentiary requirements for an exemption for a single-hop service arrangement for service between Bell exchanges.
|
|
9. Accordingly, Bell agreed with the requested exemption on that basis.
|
|
10. Bell submitted that in keeping with the Commission's established practice, and in view of the dates noted above, the effective date should be the later of the transmission date (29 November 1996) of the exemption application, or the installation date of the services in question.
|
|
11. Attached to a note dated 18 February 1997, Rebel filed its original affidavit dated 15 October 1996 plus letters to Téléphone Guèvremont inc. and Télébec ltée (both dated 17 February 1996) requesting call blocking such that calls from Rebel's customers in Bell territory are blocked from accessing or egressing the respondents' territories.
|
|
12. The Commission is of the view that Rebel has met the evidentiary requirements as set out in Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993.
|
|
13. The Commission notes that Rebel's application letter is dated 25 September 1996, its affidavit is dated 15 October 1996, and its fax transmission is dated 29 November 1996.
|
|
14. The Commission's practice has been generally to accept the earlier of the date of the application letter or the date of affidavit for the effective date, as long as there is no substantial difference between those two dates.
|
|
15. However, here there are three dates to consider, all separated by approximately one month.
|
|
16. The Commission is of the view that it would be appropriate in this case to select the later of 29 November 1996 or the date of installation as the effective date for the application, particularly as Rebel did not explain the delay in transmitting the affidavit.
|
|
17. The Commission notes that Rebel has requested that the appropriate independent telephone companies block calls to Rebel so that Rebel does not have to pay contribution on one-hop calls as required by Decisions 96-5 and 96-6.
|
|
18. The Commission notes that contribution is also applicable on one-hop calls originating in Bell's territory to the independents' territories.
|
|
19. Accordingly, it may also be necessary for Rebel to block such calls in its computer or to request that Bell make the necessary blocking arrangements.
|
|
20. The Commission is of the view that as long as one-hop calls are blocked from accessing or egressing the independent companies' territories, no contribution would be applicable.
|
|
21. In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:
|
|
22. (a) Rebel's application for exemption for one-hop circuits is approved effective the later of the date of transmission (29 November 1996) or the date of installation.
|
|
23. (b) As long as one-hop calls are blocked from accessing or egressing the independent companies' territories, no contribution is applicable.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: