Search

ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-520

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

 Telecom Order

 Ottawa, 18 April 1997
 Telecom Order CRTC 97-520
 On 15 May 1996, the Commission received an ex parte application by Bell Canada (Bell) for approval of a Special Facilities Tariff providing for a Customer Specific Toll-free Service.
 File No.: Tariff Notice 5762
1.  Under Telecom Order CRTC 96-594 (Order 96-594) dated 17 June 1996, the Commission granted the proposed tariff revisions interim approval conditional on the company informing the Commission that the customer had selected Bell as a carrier.
2.  Order 96-594 indicated that Bell was to advise the Commission of the outcome of the selection process as soon as possible, and if selected, was to provide an abridged version of the application for the public record in all relevant Public Examination rooms within 2 business days of notification.
3.  On 6 December 1996 Bell notified the Commission that it had been selected to provide the associated services, and subsequently placed an abridged version on the public record on 10 December 1996.
4.  By letter dated 20 December 1996, AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS) submitted that available information indicated that the customer was to receive rebates covering the period from 17 June 1996 onwards.
5.  AT&T Canada LDS submitted that Bell is providing this service on a retroactive basis to 17 June 1996, the date of the Order, that this is anticompetitive and is in contravention of section 25(1) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act).
6.  AT&T Canada LDS argued that the Commission exercised its authority pursuant to section 61(1) of the Act, to make its order conditional upon the fulfilment of a specified condition or the occurrence of a specified event.
7.  AT&T Canada LDS submitted that, according to Order 96-594, the proposed customer specific arrangement (CSA) would be approved on an interim basis once Bell had notified the Commission that the customer had selected Bell as its carrier and that Bell would be permitted to commence providing service only from that date.
8.  AT&T Canada LDS requested that the Commission rescind its interim conditional approval of Tariff Notice 5762, direct Bell to show cause as to how its offering of illegal rebates is in conformance with the Act, and reprimand Bell for its conduct.
9.  By letter dated 20 January 1997, Bell submitted that the requested effective date was 15 June 1996, that the effective date is 17 June 1996, the date of the Order, and that the Order makes no reference to an effective date coincident with Commission notification, customer acceptance or any other specific event.
10.  Bell stated that it has been the provider of Toll-free service to the customer for all of 1996, and that the customer wished to subscribe to the service effective the date of the Order.
11.  Bell submitted that it is simply abiding by its obligation to provide the customer with the rates to which the customer is entitled, and that the customer would have been overcharged had Bell charged the General Tariff Advantage Toll-free rates to the customer after 17 June 1996.
12.  Bell submitted that AT&T Canada LDS' request be denied and that final approval should be granted to the application.
13.  By letter dated 4 February 1997, AT&T Canada LDS further submitted that if Bell had been the toll-free provider to the customer for all of 1996, Bell should have been providing the service at approved General Tariff rates prior to the customer's acceptance of the new offer.
14.  AT&T Canada LDS stated that the customer would not have been overcharged since General Tariff rates would be the only rates the customer was entitled to up until the customer subscribed to the CSA.
15.  AT&T Canada LDS stated that the Toll-free service proposed under Tariff Notice 5762 is a customized solution, with different terms and conditions than that provided in the General Tariff, and that only when the customer had accepted the customized solution would the customer meet the conditions of the offer and thus be entitled to the special rates.
16.  AT&T Canada LDS further noted that it appeared that the approved rate at which the CSA was to be billed conflicted with the customer's internal memorandum and requested that the Commission direct Bell to clarify the discrepancy.
17.  AT&T Canada LDS suggested that the telephone companies be required to file an executed copy of their service agreements in confidence with the Commission, concurrent with the placement of the abridged tariff notice on the public record, to alleviate concerns that the telephone companies could charge one rate and file another for approval.
18.  AT&T Canada LDS requested that, for CSAs, the Commission issue an unconditional order once it has been notified of the outcome of the selection process to unequivocally establish the effective date of an approved tariff proposal.
19.  AT&T Canada LDS was of the view that such a process would ensure that the telephone companies are not able to take advantage of the approval process for CSAs by arbitrarily establishing an effective date that suits their purposes.
20.  By way of letter dated 17 February 1997, Bell restated its position that Order 96-594 makes no explicit reference to the effective date of Tariff Notice 5762 being tied to any specific event and that the customer is entitled to a rebate representing the difference between the amount the customer paid and the rate approved in Tariff Notice 5762.
21.  Bell noted that the rate charged to the customer is as per approved tariffs and the charge identified on the customer's internal memorandum represented the "rate" that the customer's purchasing organization will charge its internal users for service.
22.  Bell submitted that AT&T Canada LDS' concerns had been addressed and that their requests be denied.
23.  In Order 96-594 the Commission granted interim ex parte approval to the tariff revisions proposed by Bell.
24.  Given that Order 96-594 was issued on 17 June 1996, the 15 June 1996 effective date requested by Bell was not possible.
25.  The Commission agrees with Bell that Order 96-594 did not make reference to an effective date coincident with customer acceptance, Commission notification or any other specific event.
26.  As a general rule where an Order is silent as to the effective date, it is effective the date of the Order unless the requested effective date is subsequent to the date of the Order.
27.  The approval granted was conditional on Bell informing the Commission that the customer had selected it as a carrier, and Bell subsequently so informed the Commission.
28.  The Commission notes that the customer obtained Toll-free service from Bell throughout 1996, and that to qualify for the Toll-free rates specified in the tariff approved under Order 96-594, the customer had to meet certain traffic characteristics, and that General Tariff rates applied should those characteristics not be met.
29.  The Commission finds that given the above, the effective date of the interim approval granted in Order 96-594 is 17 June 1996, and that a rebate to the customer covering the period 17 June 1996 to 11 November 1996 would not, in the circumstances, be illegal.
30.  The Commission is of the view that Bell has adequately addressed AT&T Canada LDS' concerns with respect to the rates charged to the customer.
31.  The Commission is of the view that it is unnecessary for: (1) the telephone companies to file executed copies of their service agreements concurrent with the placement of abridged tariff notices on the public record, or (2) the Commission to issue an unconditional order, once it has been notified of the outcome of the selection process, to establish the effective date of an approved tariff proposal.
32.  The Commission denies AT&T Canada LDS' claims for relief and, in light of all the information.
33.  In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:
34.  The proposed tariff revisions are given final approval.
 Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: