|
|
|
Ottawa, 20 January 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-20
|
|
On 17 October 1997, MTS NetCom Inc. (MTS) filed proposed tariff revisions to add Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Line Enhancement service. This application was given Commission approval in Telecom Order CRTC 97-1625, 10 November 1997. Comments were received on 14 November 1997 from AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS).
|
|
|
File No.: Tariff Notice 294
|
|
1. AT&T Canada LDS submitted that Tariff Notice (TN) 294 does not provide for the unbundled elements which would enable alternate service providers to purchase only those elements required for access to ADSL.
|
|
2. AT&T Canada LDS submitted that TN 294 should be denied and that the Commission should direct MTS to file an amendment to TN 294 to provide access to unbundled elements.
|
|
3. AT&T Canada LDS noted that two tariffs have recently received Commission approval that provide similar services, namely, Bell Canada (Bell) TN 6077 and BC TEL TN 3661.
|
|
4. MTS in reply stated that there have not been any requests for arrangements as provided by Bell in its tariff. MTS stated that there may be a need to provide ADSL Access in individual elements in the future depending on how competitors choose to design their requirement for their own implementation of ADSL. MTS stated that it is prepared to make these arrangements available if there is a request. The company further noted that no such requirements were identified during the technical and market trials which were carried out before the full service introduction of MTS's ADSL Line Enhancement Service.
|
|
5. The Commission is of the view that, while MTS has not received any requests for the unbundled service elements which would enable service providers to connect their own ADSL equipment, these service elements should be tariffed so as to be readily available if and when there is a request for such unbundled service elements.
|
|
6. The Commission is of the view that as MTS has not received any requests for the unbundled service elements it has not gained, nor is it continuing to gain, an undue competitive advantage because of lack of a tariff for the unbundled service element.
|
|
7. In light of the foregoing the Commission orders that:
|
|
(a) TN 294 is approved on a de novo basis.
|
|
(b) MTS is directed to file for approval, within 30 days, proposed tariffs for the unbundled elements required for alternate service providers to access the subscriber loops in order to connect their own ADSL equipment.
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|