ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-976

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 15 July 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-976

The Commission received a letter dated 15 January 1997 from Stratford Telecommunications (Stratford) requesting that the Commission review and vary Telecom Order CRTC 95-481, 20 April 1995 (Order 95-481) to grant it an exemption from contribution charges retroactive to the date of the original affidavit (29 August 1994).

File No.: 97-8662-S15-01

1. Stratford was granted an exemption from contribution charges in Order 95-481 for single-hop services, based on applications filed on 29 August and 18 October 1994. At the time that Order 95-481 was issued on 20 April 1995, the Commission's accepted practice was that exemptions from contribution charges were effective the date of the Order.

2. Stratford, in its letter of 15 January 1995, stated that its affidavit of 29 August 1994 affirmed that it had requested exemption from contribution as of the first date of application and referred to Telecom Order CRTC 95-1064 dated 28 September 1995 (Order 95-1064) as a similar case where applications to vary effective dates were approved.

3. By letter dated 19 February 1997, Bell Canada (Bell) submitted that Stratford's letter of 15 January 1997 amounted to an application pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to review and vary a Commission Order. Bell stated that the Commission had established criteria to be addressed in such applications and that Stratford has not addressed these criteria, and has provided no basis for the requested change.

4. Bell noted that at the time Order 95-481 was issued, the Commission's normal practice was that exemptions were granted effective the date of the Order. Bell stated that Stratford's exemption was approved on that basis, effective 20 April 1995. Accordingly, Bell submitted that Stratford's application was correctly made effective the date of the Order, in accordance with the established procedures at the time. Bell further noted that Stratford had ample opportunity to apply to the Commission to vary the effective date of the Order, but instead delayed almost two years before filing its current submission.

5. Bell therefore submitted that Stratford's application should be denied. Bell submitted that should Stratford wish to further pursue its application to seek a change to Order 95-481, Stratford should be required to address the criteria for review, in accordance with the Commission's normal requirements, and submit such argument to the Commission.

6. Commission staff, in a letter dated 6 March 1997 advised Stratford that its request would have to be dealt with in the form of an application to review and vary Order 95-481, and provided an explanation to Stratford of the requirements to be addressed and the process involved to make such an application.

7. By identical letters dated 5 and 7 April 1997, Stratford stated that it has operated as a single-hop Extended Area Service (EAS) provider since inception. Stratford stated that it has never operated in a capacity which commands a contribution and for this reason it is requesting that Order 95-481 be reviewed and varied to grant exemption from the date of installation. Stratford stated that it had not begun resale of telephone service until 3 August 1995. Stratford stated that the single-hop service was offered as a free service to the local community.

8. In addressing the issue that it took a long time to dispute this issue, Stratford stated that a letter was sent to Bell Carrier Services regarding this issue, requesting it to address the contribution charges. Stratford stated that the letter was sent by a principal of Ad-Tel Communications at the same time a figure of a disputed amount was placed aside from the amount owed on current invoices. Stratford stated that after revisiting the issue, it was informed that the Commission needed to be involved in a revision of the original decision. Stratford stated that following this, a request to review and vary was submitted to the Commission. Stratford stated that other similar companies had been granted a varied decision and therefore, it believed that it should be exempt from any contributions on its single-hop service.

9. By letter dated 1 May 1997, Bell noted that Stratford's submission did not specifically address the criteria for review as directed by the Commission, and accordingly does not comply with the requirements for such applications. With respect to the manner in which the Order should be varied, Bell noted that Stratford's only argument was that Stratford had never operated in a capacity which commands a contribution.

10. Bell reiterated that the effective date of Stratford's application was determined in accordance with the established procedures at the time Order 95-481 was issued, and that Stratford had taken a long time to request that this Order be reviewed and varied. Bell submitted that there is no basis on which to grant Stratford's request to vary the effective date of Order 95-481, and it therefore concluded that Stratford's application should be denied.

11. Dealing, first, with the question of whether Stratford addressed the criteria under section 62 of the Act for the review and variance of a Decision or Order, the Commission notes that since Order 95-481 was released, the Commission issued Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995 (PN 95-26). The Commission notes that previously, as reflected in Order 95-1064, the Commission has accepted similar arguments that Order 95-481 be varied based on the fact that they had been prejudiced by the Commission's delay in issuing the Order. As was the case in Order 95-1064 and given PN 95-26 (to which Order 95-1064 refers), the Commission is of the view that Stratford's submissions support the criterion of substantial doubt as to the correctness of the effective date of the exemptions granted to Stratford.

12. Dealing, secondly, with the question of whether Stratford has taken too long to apply, the Commission notes that there is no explicit provision in the Act that addresses the time frame in which an applicant may apply for a review and variance of an Order. Stratford has explained the delay in this case by stating that a party acting on its behalf, a principal of Ad-Tel Communications, wrote to Bell to dispute the contribution charges. After that, it was informed that the CRTC needed to be involved in a revision of the original decision. The Commission considers that Stratford took timely steps to contest the outstanding accounts, but took longer to realize that it had to contest the cause of the charges with the Commission, namely, the effective date of 20 April 1995 set out in Order 95-481.

13. Dealing, thirdly, with the question of to which date should the effective date of Stratford's contribution exemption date be varied, the Commission notes that according, to the current rules as set out in PN 95-26, effective dates are generally to be the later of the date of application or the date of installation for circuits carrying customer traffic, and the date of installation for administrative circuits.

14. The Commission notes that in its evidence, Stratford stated the "affidavits were signed prior to installation." However, Stratford has not provided the dates of installation on the record of this proceeding. Therefore, since installation of the circuits occurred after the affidavits were provided, the Commission considers that the effective date for each of the applications should be the later of the date of application or the date of installation.

15. Based on the foregoing, the Commission orders that:

Order 95-481 is varied such that the effective dates of Stratford's contribution exemptions are as follows:

p) in the 519-662 exchange, the later of 29 August 1994 or date of installation of the circuits;

q) in the 519-651 exchange, the later of 18 October 1994 or date of installation of the circuits.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.