ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 97-516
This page has been archived on the Web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, 17 April 1997
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 97-516
|
|
On 18 February 1997 and 5 March 1997, Kenora Municipal Telephone System (Kenora) filed applications proposing the establishment of Extended Area Service (EAS) between the Minaki, Whitedog, Redditt, Grassy Narrows, Sioux Narrows and Kenora exchanges.
|
|
File No.: Tariff Notice 7/A
|
|
1. The Minaki, Whitedog, Redditt, Grassy Narrows and Sioux Narrows exchanges are served by Bell Canada (Bell).
|
|
2. Kenora submitted that Bell is preparing to provide one-way EAS with the Kenora exchange to the Minaki, Whitedog, Redditt, Grassy Narrows and Sioux Narrows exchanges.
|
|
3. In Telecom Order CRTC 97-169 (Order 97-169), Bell was granted approval to establish one-way EAS between Minaki, Whitedog and Kenora.
|
|
4. Kenora submitted that it was Bell's practice to implement two-way EAS when one of the exchanges involved met the EAS criteria.
|
|
5. Kenora concluded that it would be appropriate and in accordance with Bell's practice to introduce two-way EAS between these exchanges.
|
|
6. In 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, the Commission stated that for the independents in Ontario and Québec, it would require that subscribers pay for the cost of EAS through higher local rates and that the Carrier Access Tariff (CAT) not be used for this purpose.
|
|
7. Kenora submitted that the lost toll traffic attributable to the establishment of two-way EAS is not significant.
|
|
8. Kenora also stated that the incremental cost to establish these new links is not significant.
|
|
9. Kenora is not planning to implement a rate increase to recover these minimal costs.
|
|
10. Kenora undertook not to use the CAT to fund EAS now or in the future.
|
|
11. The Commission finds Kenora's application acceptable.
|
|
12. In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:
|
|
13. The proposed tariff revisions submitted by Kenora under Tariff Notices 7 and 7A are approved.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: