Search

ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 98-60

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 29 January 1998
Telecom Order CRTC 98-60
Following the Commission's letter of 16 September 1997 requesting comments on, among other matters, roll-out of Local Number Portability (LNP), the Commission received comments on 30 September 1997 from MetroNet Communications Group Inc. (MetroNet); Canadian Cable Television Association and TelcoPlus Services Inc. (CCTA/TelcoPlus); ACC TelEnterprises Inc., AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company, Clearnet Communications Inc., fONOROLA Inc., Microcell Telecommunications Inc., Sprint Canada Inc. and Vidéotron Télécom ltée (collectively, ACC et al.); and Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada, The Island Telephone Company Limited, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS NetCom Inc. (MTS), The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited, NewTel Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. All the parties filed reply comments on 7 October 1997.
File No.: 96-2376
1. On 15 August 1997, following a dispute filed by the LNP Sub-Working Group of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee, Commission staff provided an opinion on the timing and rate of roll out of LNP in the free calling areas of first priority exchanges, namely, Montréal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver (Priority 1 exchanges), and of Priority 2 exchanges, namely, Winnipeg, Ottawa/Hull, Halifax, Victoria, Québec, Hamilton/Burlington, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, St. Catharines-Niagara Falls, Oshawa, Windsor, Guelph, Barrie, Peterborough, St. John, St-John's and Matsqui. Parties did not unanimously accept the staff opinion.
2. MetroNet and ACC et al. were of the view that Commission staff's opinion was reasonable, as long as the telephone companies were not allowed to further delay LNP roll-out.
3. Some Stentor member companies proposed delaying LNP roll-out by two to six months from the dates proposed in the staff opinion.
4. CCTA/TelcoPlus submitted that the proposed LNP implementation dates would allow telephone companies to offer broadcasting distribution services before cable companies are able to enter the local telecommunications market. They noted the Government's head start policy statement to the effect that telephone companies are not to offer broadcasting distribution services until regulatory barriers to competition in local telephone service have been removed and the Commission has approved tariffs to enable cable companies and others to launch competitive local telephone service. CCTA/TelcoPlus maintained that compliance with the Government head start policy statement and with Public Notice CRTC 1997-49 (PN 97-49) necessitated that LNP be available in the first quarter of 1998. They further submitted that the Commission should revisit its PN 97-49 timetable for permitting telephone company entry into broadcast distribution markets, should it approve Commission staff's proposed LNP implementation dates.
5. The Commission notes that the Stentor member companies' main reason for requesting that implementation of LNP be delayed is the availability of appropriate administrative systems. In addition, some Stentor member companies voiced concerns with regard to using temporary administrative systems until permanent ones could be developed. MTS submitted that it did not have the necessary resources to implement LNP because they were tied up in other projects. The Commission does not consider that the concerns noted by the Stentor member companies provide sufficient reasons for a significant delay of the implementation of LNP. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the dates proposed by Commission staff in its opinion of 15 August 1997 for LNP roll-out are reasonable.
6. In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that the roll-out of LNP occur pursuant to the dates provided in Attachment 1.
7. The Commission notes that the effect of the roll-out schedule approved in this Order on the PN 97-49 timetable is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
This document is available in alternative format upon request.

ATTACHMENT 1

   
PRIORITY 1 EXCHANGES
Company Exchange LNP Service Ready Date
BC TEL Vancouver 31 July 1998
Vancouver EAS 31 August 1998
Bell Montréal 31 August 1998
Montréal Island 31 August 1998
  Montréal EAS 31 October 1998
Toronto 31 August 1998
  Toronto EAS 31 October 1998
TCI Calgary & EAS 31 July 1998
      
PRIORITY 2 EXCHANGES
Company Exchange LNP Service Ready Date
BC TEL Victoria & EAS 28 February 1999
Matsqui 28 February 1999
Bell Ottawa/Hull 31 March 1999
Québec 31 March 1999
  Hamilton/Burlington 31 March 1999
London 31 March 1999
  Kitchener-Waterloo 31 March 1999
St. Catharines-Niagara Falls 31 March 1999
  Oshawa 31 March 1999
Windsor 31 March 1999
  Peterborough 31 March 1999
Guelph 31 March 1999
  Barrie 31 March 1999
NBTel Saint John 31 December 1998
MT&T Halifax 31 December 1998
MTS Winnipeg 31 December 1998
NewTel St. John's & EAS 31 December 1998
Date modified: