ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-662

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 20 May 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-662

The Commission received an application for exemption from contribution dated 22 March 1995, from Vancouver Telephone Company Limited (VTC) for a configuration to facilitate the carriage of international transit traffic (described as Configuration 4).

File No.: 95-1382

1. In Telecom Order CRTC 96-39, 15 January 1996 (Order 96-39), the Commission approved the application subject to receipt of a technical audit verifying that the transit circuits cannot access the Canadian Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) such that no traffic originates or terminates in Canada.

2. By letter dated 14 May 1996, VTC submitted its technical audit.

3. The auditor stated that its approach consisted of (a) examining representative invoices from BC TEL, Cam-Net Communications Inc. (Cam-Net), and Consolidated Technologies Inc. (CTI); (b) requesting CTI to certify that it is not providing access to the PSTN for VTC's wholesale customers; and (c) conducting software verification tests at Cam-Net's switching centre since this is the only location where traffic from VTC's wholesale customers could be leaked into the PSTN.

4. The auditor concluded that based on a review of VTC's network configuration, software evaluations at Cam-Net, and a cross-section of call simulations, none of VTC's wholesale customers are able to access Canada's PSTN.

5. By letter dated 14 June 1996, BC TEL stated that it agreed that the audit report confirms that at Cam-Net's location, calling from the Canada-U.S. interexchange private line services to the Canadian PSTN is precluded.

6. However, BC TEL stated that it is not clear from the report if any testing was undertaken to ensure that access to the Canada-U.S. interexchange private line services from the PSTN is precluded.

7. BC TEL submitted that VTC's technical audit does not provide sufficient information to support its application for an exemption from contribution.

8. BC TEL submitted that prior to any further consideration of VTC's application, the technical audit requires the following: (1) the results of tests to support the finding that the one-way configuration of trunk groups precludes access to these trunk groups from the PSTN at all the locations identified in the technical audit; (2) the results of an on-site examination of the cross-connection, on CTI's premises, of the Canada-U.S. interexchange private lines to BC TEL local DS-1 services. These results should demonstrate that, at CTI's premises, any connection between the Canada-U.S. interexchange private line services and the PSTN is precluded; and (3) evidence with respect to the software controls implemented at Cam-Net's switch (and/or other locations) that procedures have been put in place to ensure that such controls continue to function as intended.

9. By letter dated 29 August 1996, VTC stated that it had provided BC TEL with the requested information in a letter dated 15 August 1996.

10. VTC stated that it no longer required the exemption provided in Order 96-39, since all its Canada-U.S. private lines have been reconfigured.

11. VTC attached a letter dated 15 August 1996 addressed to BC TEL, which responded to certain points in BC TEL's 14 June 1996 letter.

12. By letter dated 3 September 1996, BC TEL stated that VTC's comments concerning CTI did not change its view that an on-site examination of the cross-connection of circuits on CTI's premises would be required to meet the evidentiary requirements of a technical audit.

13. By letter dated 16 September 1996, VTC summarized its position with respect to the three circuits for which it originally was seeking exemption from contribution.

14. VTC submitted that since no technical audit had been done on a DS-1 circuit connected between BC TEL's Centrex switch and a 4:1 multiplexer at Cam-Net's site, six DS-0s out of a cross-section of 24 DS-0s would be liable for Canada-U.S. Cross-Border contribution charges.

15. VTC expressed the hope that the Commission would decide that a site inspection of CTI's premises was not warranted for the original audit given that as stated in CTI's letter of 29 April 1996 to the auditor, CTI was VTC's Canada-U.S. Cross-Border circuit carrier.

16. On 24 October 1996, VTC provided responses to three Commission staff interrogatories.

17. On 6 November 1996, BC TEL provided its comments.

18. The Commission is of the view that there are three issues in this proceeding.

19. The first issue is whether the results of the tests support the finding that the one-way configuration of trunk groups precludes access to these trunk groups from the PSTN at all the locations identified in the technical audit.

20. VTC described the call simulations in detail and BC TEL had no substantive comments.

21. Subject to the following, the Commission is of the view that VTC has supplied an acceptable response.

22. The Commission notes that VTC conceded that there is the possibility of leakage to the PSTN on 6 circuits out of a cross-section of 24 circuits.

23. The Commission notes that there are 24 channels connected to the BC TEL Centrex switch and that these are multiplexed on a 4:1 basis downstream.

24. In the circumstances, the Commission is of the view that there is potential for leakage to the PSTN from the Centrex switch on 24 circuits.

25. Given this, the Commission disagrees with VTC that contribution is limited to 6 circuits only, and considers that contribution is payable on all 24 circuits.

26. The second issue is whether the results of an on-site examination of the cross-connection on CTI's premises of the Canada-U.S. interexchange private lines to BC TEL local DS-1 services demonstrate that, at CTI's premises, any connection between the Canada-U.S. interexchange private line services and the PSTN is precluded.

27. VTC stated that the circuits in question are no longer used for this application.

28. VTC stated that it maintained its original configuration until the technical audit had been completed and then reconfigured.

29. VTC stated that it would now be impossible to perform a technical audit.

30. VTC pointed out that CTI is only a provider of interexchange facilities to VTC, which are inaccessible to VTC employees.

31. VTC stated that it is not affiliated with CTI and would not jeopardize its reputation by engaging in actions inconsistent with the regulatory regime.

32. VTC noted that CTI clearly stated in a letter to the auditor (enclosed with the technical audit) that all the DS-1s in question were directly cross-connected onto local BC TEL DS-1 accesses.

33. VTC also noted CTI's statement that it had never provided VTC with any switched, flat-rate or per-minute terminations for any type of traffic.

34. VTC stated that it would perform a technical audit (at CTI's premises) if required but raised the question as to whether audits should also be required at AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company and BC TEL to ensure that neither of these carriers are switching traffic onto VTC's facilities.

35. The Commission notes that this offer conflicts with VTC's earlier statement that because the circuits had been reconfigured, a technical audit would be impossible to perform.

36. The Commission is of the view that no further tests can be carried out to address BC TEL's concerns since the circuits in question are either cancelled, reconfigured, or out of service.

37. The Commission is of the view that the auditor should properly have examined the cross-connections at CTI when the configuration was available to ensure there was no leakage.

38. However, given that among other things the circuits at CTI run through a cross-connect panel not a switch, the Commission considers that the potential for leakage is very remote and that, despite the shortcomings of the technical audit, in the circumstances, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the circuits in question should be exempt from contribution.

39. The Commission is of the view that VTC's application for contribution exemption should be approved, except for the 24 circuits which connect to BC TEL's Centrex switch.

40. The third issue is whether evidence with respect to the software controls implemented at Cam-Net's switch (and/or other locations) ensure that procedures have been put in place and that such controls continue to function as intended.

41. The Commission notes that it is no longer necessary to fulfill this requirement since the configuration has been discontinued.

42. In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:

VTC's application for contribution exemption is approved, effective the date of application, 22 March 1995, except for the 24 circuits which connect to BC TEL's Centrex switch. Contribution is payable on the 24 circuits mentioned above for the period in question.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.