|
|
|
Ottawa, 26 October 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-1062
|
|
On 1 June 1998, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) filed, on behalf of and with the concurrence of all federally regulated Stentor operating companies, proposed revisions to the National Services Tariff for Megaplan services regarding rate reductions for specific routes and increases and other revisions to the charges for Megaplan Service Extension Features and Megastream equipment.
|
|
File No.: Tariff Notice 664
|
|
1.The Commission received comments from AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) and London Telecom Network Inc. (London Telecom). The three interveners oppose the application, in particular the revisions to the service extension features and Megastream equipment rates.
|
|
2.London Telecom submitted that Stentor has not adequately justified its proposed rate increases. It further stated that any rate increases undertaken by Stentor would likely be mirrored industry wide and could result in higher equipment prices for resellers and end customers.
|
|
3.Call-Net and AT&T Canada LDS submitted that the proposed rate changes are targeted at large-volume customers including competitive carriers. Call-Net submitted that the proposal is anti-competitive and would set a negative precedent for future rate revisions. The two interveners submitted that Stentor's proposal would result in a significant increase of 30% or more in charges for large customers such as AT&T Canada LDS and Call-Net.
|
|
4.In reply, Stentor stated that the claim of a 30% increase is inaccurate since with customers such as AT&T Canada LDS, the 25% discount would apply, and hence the net increase would be smaller. Stentor further submitted that in order to determine the actual increase in charges, a more meaningful basis would be to determine the resulting end-to-end charges, and not just the increases in certain rate elements. Stentor submitted that based on that approach, the increase for large customers would be about 7.5%.
|
|
5.The Commission notes Stentor's submission that the application is an overall package of rate modifications that will result in decreases in net billing for some customers and increases for others, depending on their specific service configurations. Stentor also indicated that, in the vast majority of cases, customers would experience rate decreases.
|
|
6.Stentor also noted that large customers have alternatives to the service extension service. Stentor submitted that large customers could lease multiplexers from the telephone companies, provide their own equipment and obtain space and power under special assembly, or they could place their equipment in central offices under the co-location tariffs.
|
|
7.In light of the foregoing, Stentor Tariff Notice 664 is approved.
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|