|
|
|
Ottawa, 8 June 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-560
|
|
By letter dated 5 November 1997, Tick Talk Communications Inc. (Tick Talk) applied for contribution exemption for a Centrex service in Oakville, Ontario. Tick Talk indicated that it intended to begin offering multiple-hop service on this Centrex system which is currently used to provide only single-hop service. Tick Talk stated that it intended to complete a technical audit shortly after it starts providing a double-hop capability at this location.
|
|
File No.: 8626-T16-02/97
|
|
1. By letter dated 20 November 1997, Bell Canada (Bell) submitted that the submission from Tick Talk should be characterized as a request for advance approval of a contribution exemption since the proposed configuration is not yet in place. Under the circumstances, Bell agreed that advance approval of an exemption might be appropriate, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory technical audit, including an engineer's affidavit, once the double-hop configuration is in place.
|
|
2. However, Bell noted that the provision of double and other multiple-hop services requires the use of more than one Centrex service. Bell stated that therefore, an audit should address the configuration of each of the Centrex services involved. As well, Bell stated that the audit should confirm that appropriate control procedures are in place to ensure that the configuration will continue to comply with the requirements for a contribution exemption on a going-forward basis.
|
|
3. By letter dated 23 March 1998, Tick Talk provided a technical audit regarding the Oakville Centrex system.
|
|
4. By letter dated 22 April 1998, Bell noted that in addition to the Oakville Centrex system, another Centrex system in Burlington is used to complete the double-hop service. Bell stated that calls to the Burlington Centrex system are automatically call forwarded to the Oakville Centrex system using Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) connections that attract contribution. Bell stated that all PSTN access connections associated with the Burlington Centrex system are billed contribution charges, therefore no exemption is required for that system.
|
5. Bell noted that Tick Talk also has a Centrex system in Hamilton and that Hamilton has Extended Area Service with Burlington. Bell stated that the Hamilton Centrex system is currently exempt from contribution, pursuant to Telecom Order CRTC 97-1130 dated 18 August 1997, on the basis that it is used solely for single-hop calling. Bell stated that it can find no reference in the technical audit report which confirms that the Hamilton system does not forward calls to the Burlington system in a manner that might attract contribution charges, or alternatively that calls can be forwarded from the Burlington system to the Hamilton system. In light of this, Bell submitted that Tick Talk or the auditor should provide the Commission and Bell with such confirmation, prior to approval of this contribution exemption application.
|
|
6. Bell stated that the auditor has confirmed that the application software, which was designed by the auditor to be used with the Oakville Centrex system, selects the appropriate Virtual Facility Group (VFG) for routing of a call on the basis of the originating calling line identification. Bell stated that single-hop calls are routed via contribution-exempt VFGs, while double-hop calls are routed using contribution-attracting VFGs.
|
|
7. Bell stated that the auditor has also advised that control of the application software rests with the auditor, not Tick Talk. Bell stated that when modifications are required, the auditor verifies the appropriate routing before making the modification. Bell stated that since Tick Talk cannot alter the application software including the list of exchanges which are validated as single-hop and contribution-exempt, the auditor contends that appropriate control procedures are in place to ensure that the system will continue to route calls correctly based on their eligibility for an exemption.
|
|
8. However, Bell noted that ongoing control procedures normally also include some form of written evidence, signed by the person responsible for ongoing system compliance. Bell stated that such evidence provides an audit trail should there be a requirement to review the configuration at a later date. In this respect, Bell submitted that the auditor should also be required to sign a document or a letter each time a software change is made describing the change and attesting that the system remains compliant with the requirements for the contribution exemption. Bell stated that this letter should be retained by Tick Talk for future reference, as required.
|
|
9. In light of the above, Bell agreed with the requested exemption subject to the following: (1) confirmation from Tick Talk and the auditor that each time a change is made to the application software that will affect call routing, a document is signed by the auditor controlling the software attesting that the modification does not alter the eligibility of the system for a contribution exemption; and (2) confirmation from Tick Talk or the auditor that calls to or from the Hamilton Centrex system, which is currently contribution exempt on the basis that all calling is single-hop, are not forwarded to or from the Burlington Centrex system. Bell also submitted that the systems should be subject to future random audits.
|
|
10. The Commission is of the view that Tick Talk has filed a satisfactory technical audit for the Oakville Centrex system and notes that Bell also agrees. The Commission agrees with Bell that the exemption should be subject to confirmation from Tick Talk and the auditor that each time a change is made to the application software that will affect call routing, a document is signed by the auditor controlling the software attesting that the modification does not alter the eligibility of the system for a contribution exemption. This document should be placed on file at Tick Talk's premises. Similarly, the Commission agrees with Bell that the system should be subject to future random audits, which is consistent with Commission precedent.
|
|
11. The Commission also agrees with Bell that Tick Talk or the auditor should confirm that calls to or from the Hamilton Centrex system, which is currently contribution exempt on the basis that all calling is single-hop, are not forwarded to or from the Burlington Centrex system. However, the Commission does not agree with Bell that provision of this information is required prior to approval of the exemption application for Oakville, since this application is independent of the situation at Hamilton and Burlington.
|
|
12. In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:
|
|
(i) Tick Talk's application for Oakville is approved effective the date of addition of the double-hop circuits such that no contribution applies on the single-hop circuits;
|
|
(ii) the exemption is subject to confirmation from Tick Talk and the auditor within 30 days of this Order that each time a change is made to the application software that will affect call routing, a document is signed by the auditor controlling the software attesting that the modification does not alter the eligibility of the system for a contribution exemption;
|
|
(iii) the Oakville system is subject to future random audits; and
|
|
(iv) Tick Talk or the auditor is also directed to confirm within 30 days of this Order that calls to or from the Hamilton Centrex system, which is currently contribution exempt on the basis that all calling is single-hop, are not forwarded to or from the Burlington Centrex system.
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request
|
|
|