|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-784
|
|
|
Ottawa, 12 August 1998
|
|
|
The Commission has received proposed tariff revisions from MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) under Tariff Notice (TN) 326 dated 8 May 1998, for the introduction of Internet Call Display (ICD) service. The company also submitted TN 326A, dated 15 June 1998, proposing a lower rate than originally proposed in TN 326.
|
|
|
File No.: TN 326
|
|
|
1. InfoInterActive Inc. provided comments on TN 326 indicating that at the rates proposed by MTS, the service would not be compensatory and should be denied.
|
|
|
2. In reply, MTS argued that the Call Forward Busy (CFB) function is not an essential service. MTS submitted that in Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997, (Decision 97-8), essential services are defined as central office codes, subscriber listings, and local loops in certain bands. According to MTS, CFB therefore is not an essential service. MTS also clarified the apparent inconsistency in its application whereby the company stated in one part that the tariffed rate for CFB was used as a proxy for its cost, but in the actual cost information included in the application, the CFB causal cost was used. MTS clarified that CFB should reflect the causal cost, as CFB is not an essential service. According to MTS, the proposed rate meets the imputation test and the service should be approved.
|
|
|
3. The Commission notes that Decision 97-8 defined essential services in the context of local service competition. In the Commission’s view, the question of whether a service element is in the nature of an essential service in the context of another market should be examined on a case by case basis. The Commission notes that Decision 97-8 listed three services that it defined as essential for competitive entry into the local exchange market. The Commission further notes that in Decision 97-8, it described as essential services, among other things, those which the competitor cannot economically or technically reproduce. In addition, the Commission notes that in many past rulings it has determined that call forwarding is a service which competitors must rely upon to offer their own services. Accordingly, the Commission has required the telephone companies to cost call forwarding at tariff rates. In light of all this, the Commission considers that CFB is in the nature of an essential service in the provision of ICD, and therefore the CFB tariff rate should be used in the costing of ICD. The Commission further notes that had the company used the tariff rate of the CFB in the costing of ICD, the proposed rate would not satisfy the imputation test.
|
|
|
4. In light of the foregoing, MTS TNs 326 and 326A are denied.
|
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|