|
|
|
Ottawa, 28 May 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-518
|
|
By letter dated 10 December 1997, AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS) applied for exemption from contribution charges for "stand-alone" individual business lines, i.e. not connected to an AT&T Canada LDS PBX or to AT&T Canada LDS' interexchange network, used for administrative purposes. In support of its application, AT&T Canada LDS provided (1) an affidavit affirming that the circuits are used for administrative calling and are not directly connected to AT&T Canada LDS' interexchange network and (2) a list of the circuits that are the subject of the application.
|
|
File No.: 8626-A4-03/97
|
|
1. By letter dated 12 January 1998, Québec-Téléphone indicated that AT&T Canada LDS had mistakenly requested that the Commission grant an exemption from contribution on certain circuits located in Québec-Téléphone's territory.
|
|
2. By letter dated 12 January 1998, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) responded on behalf of and with the concurrence of BC TEL, Bell Canada, The Island Telephone Company Limited, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc. (formerly MTS NetCom Inc.), The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited, NewTel Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications (Edmonton) Inc. (collectively, the companies). Stentor noted that AT&T Canada LDS had included in its application certain lines provided by other telephone companies and that its response does not address these other lines.
|
|
3. Based on the companies' records, Stentor submitted that most of the circuits referenced by AT&T Canada LDS appeared to be used for administrative purposes, except for the circuits listed in an attachment to its submission (filed in confidence) which did not appear to require a contribution exemption for one of the following reasons: (1) the circuit is not in service; (2) the circuit could not be located and therefore is assumed to be out of service; or (3) the circuit appears to be active for another customer.
|
|
4. Stentor noted that pursuant to AT&T Canada LDS' affidavit, AT&T Canada LDS had affirmed that the circuits are "stand-alone" in that they do not connect with an AT&T Canada LDS switch or an AT&T Canada LDS interexchange network. Stentor submitted that it would be appropriate for AT&T Canada LDS to affirm also that the circuits are not directly connected to the interexchange network of any other carrier or service provider, since such connections are also possible and would, in that event, be subject to contribution charges.
|
5. Stentor also noted that, when additional services are required, some of the companies currently employ a process with other carriers and resellers to monitor continued compliance with the requirements for a contribution exemption. Stentor submitted that this procedure, which the Commission recognized in Telecom Order CRTC 97-1556 dated 23 October 1997, avoids the need for further affidavits from AT&T Canada LDS and for further submissions to the Commission. Stentor submitted that in such cases, where an exemption has been granted and where there is a requirement to add new circuits utilizing the same configuration approved by the Commission as exempt, it would be appropriate that AT&T Canada LDS provide an attestation when an order is submitted that the services are configured in the same way and are eligible for contribution exemption under the Order which approved the original exemption.
|
|
6. Accordingly, subject to the submission of a revised affidavit affirming that the circuits in question are not directly connected to any other service provider's interexchange network, Stentor agreed that AT&T Canada LDS had satisfied the evidentiary requirements for an exemption in this case.
|
|
7. By letter dated 20 January 1998, AT&T Canada LDS noted Stentor's statement that most circuits identified in AT&T Canada LDS' Exhibit 1 appear to be used for administrative purposes, but that certain circuits did not appear to require a contribution exemption. AT&T Canada LDS stated that it would clarify their status, and file a revised version of Exhibit 1 by 3 February 1998.
|
8. AT&T Canada LDS disagreed with Stentor's statement that it would be appropriate for AT&T Canada LDS to affirm that the circuits identified by AT&T Canada LDS are not directly connected to the interexchange network of any other carrier or service provider. AT&T Canada LDS submitted that the affidavit attached to its application of 10 December 1997 is in full compliance with the Commission's determinations in Telecom Order CRTC 97-590 dated 1 May 1997. AT&T Canada LDS submitted that therefore, a revised affidavit in the form suggested by Stentor is unwarranted and unnecessary for the Commission to arrive at a decision on whether the circuits in question qualify for a contribution exemption.
|
|
9. AT&T Canada LDS agreed with Stentor that, on a going-forward basis, when adding administrative circuits in a manner similar to an approved administrative configuration, it would be appropriate to provide an attestation to the appropriate telephone company.
|
|
10. With respect to the Québec-Téléphone letter, AT&T Canada LDS stated that it would file a revised Exhibit 1 to its application and would remove any circuits mistakenly listed, including administrative circuits, which are used in the territories of the independent telephone companies.
|
|
11. By letter dated 3 February 1998, AT&T Canada LDS clarified the status of its circuits by including a new affidavit and a revised Exhibit 1 from which circuits mistakenly listed had been removed. AT&T Canada LDS stated that it had also removed administrative circuits used in the territories of the independent telephone companies.
|
|
12. AT&T Canada LDS stated that it sought a determination by the Commission that the circuits identified in Exhibit 1 to the affidavit qualify for an exemption from contribution under terms and conditions previously established by the Commission and requested that the contribution exemption be effective 1 January 1998.
|
13. The Commission notes that pursuant to Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995, it stated that it will generally grant contribution exemptions for administrative circuits effective the date of installation. In this case, AT&T Canada LDS requested an effective date of 1 January 1998. The Commission is of the view that it would be appropriate to use an effective date of the date of installation.
|
14. The Commission also notes that AT&T Canada LDS' revised affidavit of 3 February 1998 did not contain the wording suggested by Stentor. The Commission found this wording to be appropriate in connection with a similar application by Bell Global Solutions in Telecom Order CRTC 98-424 dated 1 May 1998. The Commission is of the view that it would be appropriate to require AT&T Canada LDS to provide similar assurances.
|
|
15. In light of the foregoing, AT&T Canada LDS' application is approved effective the date of installation subject to AT&T Canada LDS providing a revised affidavit within 30 days of the date of this Order affirming that the circuits in question are not directly connected to its interexchange network or any other service provider's interexchange network.
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|