|
|
|
Ottawa, 21 December 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-1300
|
|
By letter dated 15 September 1998, Shaw FiberLink Limited (Shaw) requested an exemption from contribution charges for services used for administrative purposes and to provide Internet services. In support of its application, Shaw provided an affidavit dated 9 September 1998 which: (1) identifies each circuit; (2) provides a description of the use of the circuits; and (3) affirms the accuracy of the information stated in the application. Shaw also stated that it does not provide switched voice services.
|
|
File No.: 8626-S14-04/98
|
|
1.By letter dated 20 October 1998, Bell Canada (Bell) stated that it had reviewed the services that it provides to Shaw, and confirms that they have been accurately identified in the application.
|
|
2.With respect to the circuits described in Shaw's affidavit under paragraph 2 (a) (administrative lines), Bell noted that Shaw had declared that they are used solely for internal administrative purposes and are not used to provide telecommunications services to Shaw's customers. Bell stated that pursuant to the current contribution regime, such circuits may be eligible for a contribution exemption, subject to the provision of satisfactory evidence in support of the application. For administrative use circuits, Bell noted that such evidence typically consists of an affidavit affirming that the specified circuits: (a) are used by the applicant and its employees solely for administrative use; and (b) are not connected to the interexchange private network of the applicant used to provide services to customers.
|
|
3.Bell submitted that the affidavit provided by Shaw appears to satisfy the evidentiary requirements with respect to Item (a) above, but not Item (b). Accordingly, Bell agreed with the requested exemption, subject to the provision of a revised affidavit affirming that the circuits are not used to route administrative traffic over Shaw's interexchange private line networks used to provide services to Shaw's customers.
|
|
4.Bell also noted that, as established in Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26 dated 12 June 1995, the Commission's normal practice in the case of administrative use circuits is to grant exemptions effective the date of installation of the services in question. Bell stated that Shaw's request that such circuits be exempt from the date of installation appears to be consistent with the Commission's normal practice.
|
|
5.With respect to the circuits described in Shaw's affidavit under paragraph 2 (b) (integrated-service digital network dial-up data access circuits), Bell noted that Shaw has declared that they are used solely by Shaw's customers who are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and are connected to Shaw's Internet router. Bell noted that line-side access circuits used to provide public Internet services, which are not used for voice services over the Internet or which are not used for data services that are not carried over the Internet, are eligible for a contribution exemption.
|
|
6.Bell noted that Shaw has declared in its application that it does not provide switched voice services. Bell submitted that the appropriate form of evidence for a service provider such as Shaw is an affidavit affirming that the facilities are used solely to provide Internet services.
|
|
7.Bell noted that in paragraph 2 (b) of Shaw's affidavit, Shaw affirmed that the circuits in question are dedicated to ISPs' use and are connected to Shaw's Internet router. Bell submitted that Shaw has satisfied the evidentiary requirements in this respect. Accordingly, Bell agreed with this exemption.
|
|
8.Bell noted that Shaw described the data-only administrative circuits as dial access arrangements used by Shaw employees to access and perform diagnostics on Shaw's network. Bell stated that further, at paragraph 2 (c) of Shaw's affidavit, Shaw stated that the facilities are not used to provide telecommunications services to its customers.
|
|
9.In light of the above, Bell agreed with the requested exemption subject to the provision of a revised affidavit affirming that the circuits are not used to route administrative traffic over Shaw's interexchange private line networks.
|
|
10.Accordingly, based on Shaw's submission and Bell's comments above, Bell agreed that, on a prima facie basis, the requested exemptions appear to be warranted. However, Bell submitted that, as discussed above, final approval for the two administrative exemption requests should be subject to the submission of a revised affidavit by Shaw to provide assurances that the administrative facilities in question comply with all requirements for an exemption.
|
|
11.By letter dated 21 October 1998, Shaw filed a revised affidavit dated 22 October 1998 as suggested by Bell.
|
|
12.The Commission is of the view that Shaw's revised affidavit dated 22 October 1998 meets its evidentiary requirement for a contribution exemption. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the application should be approved effective the date of installation for the administrative circuits, and the date of application for the Internet access circuits. The Commission notes that its practice is to accept the earlier of the date of the original affidavit or the date of the original application letter as the effective date. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that in this case, the date of the original affidavit (9 September 1998) would be the appropriate effective date.
|
|
13.In light of the foregoing, Shaw's application is approved effective the date of installation for the administrative circuits, and the date of the original affidavit (9 September 1998) for the Internet access circuits.
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|