|
|
|
Ottawa, 25 May 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-499
|
|
On 2 April 1998, Bell Canada (Bell) filed an application for the proposed addition of General Tariff Item 2210, Bell SimplyOne( service (SimplyOne).
|
|
|
File No.: Tariff Notice 6208
|
|
1. The proposed SimplyOne service is composed of the following service elements:
|
|
- Call Forward Busy/No Answer with
Message Waiting Indicator,
- Three Way Calling,
- Voice Mailbox,
- Wireless Basic Access,
- Wireless Call Routing features,
- Wireless Airtime.
|
|
2. SimplyOne will provide a wireless service that is configured as a wireless extension of the customer's existing single line residential or business primary exchange service (PES). The service is composed of the service elements required to effect the movement of calls between the wireline service and the wireless extension, a voice mailbox and the basic wireless voice access.
|
|
3. Incoming calls would ring first at the customer's existing wireline location. If the line is busy or unanswered, the call would automatically route to the customer's wireless extension, which can be anywhere in Ontario/Quebec, within range of the wireless service provider's system. Should the wireless extension also be busy or unanswered, the call would be automatically routed to a voice mailbox.
|
|
4. Since wireless service providers do not provide equal access, the customer could not designate a PIC (primary interexchange carrier) for long distance incurred on the wireless component.
|
|
5. Comments on the application were received from Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), MetroNet Communications Group Inc. (MetroNet), Clearnet Communications Inc. (Clearnet), Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell) and Rogers Cantel Inc. (Cantel).
|
6. Call-Net submitted, among other things, that SimplyOne improperly bundles PES and competitive services in violation of Telecom Order CRTC 97-1764 where the Commission stated that "promotions which bundle primary exchange service with toll services would not be appropriate until the barriers to facilities-based local competition are largely eliminated".
|
|
7. Call-Net also submitted that, for any SimplyOne customer that is using an alternate provider of long distance services (APLDS), the wireless component of SimplyOne must also provide equal access to that of APLDS.
|
|
8. MetroNet submitted, among other things, that SimplyOne improperly bundles PES and wireless services and exploits the lack of equal access in wireless services.
|
|
9. MetroNet also submitted that the Commission should continue to deny proposals to bundle PES with other services until the barriers to facilities-based local competition have been largely removed.
|
|
10. Clearnet submitted, among other things, that Bell's application is incomplete because it fails to include wireless long distance service, the wireless handset and the wireless handset programming charge in the bundle of services for review by the Commission.
|
|
11. Clearnet also submitted that SimplyOne violates the Commission's rule against bundling terminal equipment and network services, subsidizing the price of the wireless handset.
|
|
12. Clearnet argued that, because the wireless and wireline components of SimplyOne can be used simultaneously to make calls, it is possible to characterize Bell's service as providing two Network Access Services (NAS), one wireline and one wireless. Accordingly, a SimplyOne customer that is a residential user located in a subsidized band may well find that both of these NAS are eligible for the portable subsidy. Clearnet submitted that, for wireless competitors, this would mean that Bell's wireless services would be subsidized while those of its competitors are not.
|
|
13. Microcell submitted, among other things, that SimplyOne constitutes a service bundle that cannot economically be duplicated by any competitor or group of competitors and thereby awards an undue preference or advantage to Bell.
|
|
14. Cantel argued, among other things, that the current local market conditions will prevent other service providers from competitively duplicating services such as SimplyOne and will further entrench the incumbent telephone companies' dominant monopoly position in the local exchange market.
|
|
15. The Commission has carefully considered the application by Bell, as well as the submissions of the parties.
|
|
16. With respect to equal access on the wireless component, the Commission notes that equal access is not provided by any wireless service provider nor has the Commission ordered that it be provided. Accordingly, in the circumstances, the Commission finds it appropriate that long distance calls on the wireless component be carried by the wireless provider's choice of long distance carrier.
|
|
17. The Commission notes that the wireless handset is not part of the proposed bundle. A customer can purchase one from Bell or from any other supplier. Accordingly, the Commission does not consider that the proposed SimplyOne service is bundling terminal equipment and network services.
|
|
18. The Commission agrees that, under the proposed service, a customer could be considered as having both a wireless NAS (the underlying facility provided by a Wireless Service Provider) and a wireline NAS (the underlying facility provided by a Local Exchange Carrier). However, the Commission is of the view that the wireless NAS is not eligible for the portable subsidy and therefore Bell's wireless services will not be subsidized under the proposed SimplyOne service.
|
19. The Commission finds that the proposed SimplyOne service satisfies the applicable bundling rules as set out in Telecom Decision CRTC 98-4 dated 24 March 1998 entitled Joint Marketing and Bundling (Decision 98-4).
|
|
20. Unlike an application for a promotion, an application for a full service, such as Tariff Notice 6208, must demonstrate that the proposed service passes the imputation test. The economic evaluation submitted by Bell in support of its application demonstrates that the proposed SimplyOne service passes the imputation test in accordance with Decision 98-4, and that all the necessary service components have been included in the test and the acquisition costs have been separately identified.
|
|
21. Further, the Commission notes that Bell has stated in its application that the proposed service is available for resale, as required by Decision 98-4.
|
|
22. In light of the above, the Commission orders that the application submitted by Bell under Tariff Notice 6208 is approved.
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|