ARCHIVED -  Telecom Public Notice CRTC 97-35

Telecom Public Notice

Ottawa, 23 October 1997

Telecom Public Notice CRTC 97-35

RESALE OF RESIDENTIAL LOCAL SERVICE AND THE CONTRIBUTION EXEMPTION REGIME

1. By letter dated 18 July 1997, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) filed a submission on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada, The Island Telephone Company Limited, MTS NetCom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited, NewTel Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. (collectively, the companies) seeking clarification of one aspect of Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 (Decision 97-8), with respect to the resale of residential service.

2. Stentor stated that in Decision 97-8, the Commission approved the resale of local residential services. Stentor noted that in the regime in effect prior to Decision 97-8, local circuits which provide access to the public switched telephone network (PSTN), such as business lines and private branch exchange (PBX) trunk lines, when used in a resale configuration have typically been viewed as circuits which would normally be subject to contribution charges. In this respect, Stentor also noted that a local residential line is functionally equivalent to a business line or PBX trunk and could also be viewed as a circuit that might be subject to contribution. In light of this, Stentor stated that it was seeking clarification from the Commission with respect to how residential local exchange facilities should be treated from a contribution perspective. Stentor submitted that it was not the Commission's intention, when it issued Decision 97-8, to treat residential lines as circuits that are subject to contribution. Stentor submitted that this interpretation is appropriate in view of the fact that such facilities would normally only be used on a stand-alone basis to provide local residential exchange service.

3. Stentor believed that, consistent with this interpretation of the Commission's intention in Decision 97-8, there would be no requirement for resellers of local residential exchange services to seek contribution exemptions from the Commission as long as these local services are used solely to provide residential services. Stentor noted that such facilities would typically terminate on the residential end-customer's premises and that there is no significant concern at this time with respect to the potential use of such facilities on a joint-use basis to connect to a reseller's interexchange network. Stentor submitted that moreover, the imposition of the requirement for a contribution exemption process in this case could be administratively cumbersome to the resellers, the Commission and the companies. On balance, it was Stentor's view that such a requirement would appear to be inappropriate at this time.

4. Stentor submitted that circuits that provide access to the PSTN, as long as they are used solely to provide residential exchange services and are not jointly used to connect to a reseller's interexchange network, are appropriately viewed as exempt without a requirement for the reseller to seek a contribution exemption from the Commission.

5. The Commission agrees with Stentor that such facilities would likely terminate residential end-customer premises, and that, in these circumstances, there is no significant concern at this time with respect to the potential use of such facilities on a joint-use basis to connect to a reseller's interexchange network.

6. Given this, the Commission considers that circuits that provide access to the PSTN, as long as they are used solely to provide residential exchange services and are not jointly used to connect to a reseller's interexchange network, are not subject to the contribution application process.

This document is available in alternative format upon request.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

AVI97-35_0