|
|
|
Ottawa, 13 November 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-1142
|
|
By affidavit dated 7 April 1998, iXnet requested an exemption from contribution charges with respect to services in the 416-498 exchange. iXnet provided an affidavit affirming that the services in question are resold solely for the provision of data services.
|
|
File No.: 8626-J5-01/98
|
1.By letter dated 23 April 1998, Bell Canada (Bell) noted that pursuant to Telecom Order CRTC 97-590 dated 1 May 1997 (Order 97-590) and effective 1 January 1998, the Commission no longer grants contribution exemptions where facilities are resold solely to provide data services. Accordingly, Bell stated that it would appear that iXnet might not be eligible for a contribution exemption.
|
|
2.However, Bell also noted that in Order 97-590, the Commission made one exception whereby facilities used solely to provide Internet data services may continue to be eligible for a contribution exemption after 1 January 1998.
|
|
3.Bell stated that it has reviewed its records and has determined that the services which are the subject of iXnet's affidavit are provisioned as MegaLink facilities. However, Bell stated that it has no knowledge of how the MegaLink circuits are used or what type of service is being provided. Therefore, Bell stated that it cannot comment with respect to how the facilities are used.
|
|
4.In light of the above, Bell submitted that iXnet has not satisfied the requirements for a contribution exemption. Accordingly, based on the evidence provided, Bell stated that it does not agree with the requested exemption.
|
|
5.By letter dated 5 June 1998, iXnet provided clarification which indicated that the services in question are dedicated for the use of a single customer to allow asset management firms in the U.S. to access the customer's data centre in North York, Ontario.
|
6.By letter dated 22 June 1998, Bell noted that pursuant to Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993 (Decision 93-2), the Commission set out the evidence requirements to substantiate requests for contribution exemptions. In this case, Bell noted that it cannot verify the use of the facilities. Accordingly, Bell submitted that, consistent with the guidelines set out in Decision 93-2, it would appear that the appropriate evidence requirement in this case would be the provision of an affidavit from the end-customer affirming that the facilities in question are dedicated to that customer's use.
|
|
7.In light of the above, Bell agreed with the requested exemption subject to the provision of an affidavit from the end-customer affirming that the facilities are dedicated to that customer's use.
|
|
8.By letter dated 7 October 1998, iXnet provided a revised affidavit.
|
|
9.The Commission is of the view that iXnet has provided an affidavit which meets the evidentiary requirement for a contribution exemption (in this case, an affidavit from the end-customer affirming that the facilities in question are dedicated to that customer's use).
|
|
10.In light of the foregoing, iXnet's application is approved effective the date of application (7 April 1998).
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|