ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 99-1110

Telecom Order CRTC 99-1110

Ottawa, 26 November 1999

On 13 August 1999, Norigen Communications Inc. (Norigen), [formerly Navitar Communications Inc.], filed an application under Tariff Notice (TN) 1, amended by Tariff Notice 1A dated 21 September 1999, for approval of its General Tariff (CRTC 21310). The application provided proposed general tariff terms and conditions, as well as terms and conditions for the provision of access services for interconnection with local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers (IXCs) and wireless service providers.

File No.: Tariff Notice 1

1. Comments were received on 13 September 1999 from Bell Canada (Bell) on behalf of itself, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc., and NewTel Communications Inc. and on 17 September 1999 from TELUS Communications Inc. and BC TEL [now TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc.] (collectively TELUS).

2. Bell noted that Norigen has not provided any information on whether or not its exchange areas will be equivalent to those of the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). Bell submitted that the Commission should provide directives specifying the terms and conditions to be included in Norigen's tariff regarding recovery of toll contribution from interexchange services, as defined by the ILECs' exchange boundaries.

3. Bell also submitted that the tariff provisions with respect to contribution should also include a clause to confirm that an IXC that combines the use of its local services to provide an interexchange service should be subject to contribution charges.

4. In Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 (Decision 97-8), the Commission stated that the present ILECs' exchanges will be maintained as the elementary unit for the purpose of interconnection and calculation of contribution in a competitive environment. The Commission considers that Norigen's contribution charge provisions are equivalent to those found in the ILECs' tariffs and other competitive local exchange carriers' (CLECs) tariffs. However, the Commission considers that, for the purpose of clarity, an additional note should be added to the proposed contribution charge provisions specifying that the contribution charges applicable to IXCs, other than the ILEC, would also be applicable to Norigen in relation to its interexchange services, where the interexchange services in question are defined by the ILECs' exchange boundaries.

5. Bell proposed amendments to the provisions for contribution exemptions submitting that Norigen's proposed wording does not clearly define the current terms and conditions that apply to contribution exemptions as they apply to CLECs. The Commission considers that the wording suggested by Bell is clearer than Norigen's and that Norigen's tariff should be amended accordingly.

6. Bell submitted that Norigen should add a paragraph with respect to contribution rates specifying that charges would not apply where the IXC certifies that it does not transport traffic that would otherwise be contribution eligible over contribution exempt direct access lines (DALs). This addition would reflect the Commission's determinations in Contribution on traffic carried by alternate providers of long distance services over direct access lines, Telecom Decision CRTC 99-9, 20 July 1999 (Decision 99-9).

7. The Commission notes that the directives of Decision 99-9 will not come into effect until 1 January 2000 and is of the view that it is not necessary to include the provisions at this time.

8. Bell submitted that Norigen's proposed tariff is not consistent with the Standard form agreement between CLECs and municipalities/municipal Association for the provision of 9-1-1 Emergency Calling Services (Standard agreement) that was approved by the Commission. Bell noted that it is the responsibility of each CLEC to negotiate an agreement with the municipalities based on the Standard agreement, specifying the terms and conditions of the business relationship, the administration of this relationship and the obligations and responsibilities of both parties.

9. Bell stated that it is concerned that Norigen, as well as other CLECs that have received interim tariff approval for 9-1-1 service, are using the tariff process to alter the agreement that was reached in the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee.

10. Bell noted, as a specific example, that Norigen has excused itself of the administrative responsibility of informing the municipalities of its presence and providing appropriate contact information. Bell submitted that with the increased penetration of local number portability, as well as the increasing number of CLECs in operation, the companies are concerned that the provision of reliable 9-1-1 contact information will become increasingly burdensome, if not impossible.

11. Bell submitted that Norigen should be required to file a Standard agreement for Commission approval and not be permitted to make use of the tariff process to avoid these responsibilities. Bell submitted that the Commission should direct Norigen to issue revised tariff pages correcting the instances identified.

12. The Commission notes that providing 9-1-1 Emergency Response Service (ERS) is a requirement for CLECs and they are required to enter into agreements with the municipalities for the provision of 9-1-1 ERS. However, until the applicable agreements are signed, Norigen would rely on the tariff to define its relationship with the municipality. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the provisions pertaining to 9-1-1 Service should be retained. The Commission notes further that Norigen's 9-1-1 ERS tariff provisions are identical to those found in other approved CLEC tariffs. However, the Commission considers that additional provisions should be added to the 9-1-1 ERS tariffs to ensure that they conform with the Standard agreement approved by the Commission.

13. The Commission notes that in Part A, Item 101, Article 6 (Deposits and Alternatives) Norigen has not included provisions limiting the amount of the deposit that it can request from a customer. The Commission notes that similar provisions are included in other CLEC tariffs and considers that they provide a level of protection to Norigen's customers.

14. Norigen requested that the Commission approve, pursuant to Section 31 of the Telecommunications Act, the proposed provisions for limitation of liability towards other Canadian carriers.

15. The Commission notes that the limitation of liability terms and conditions are similar to those found in the ILECs' and other CLECs' general tariffs with the exception of provisions 10.4 and 10.5.

16. The Commission notes that these provisions do not appear in the ILECs' general tariffs. The Commission considers that, contrary to Decision 97-8, the provisions would provide a greater level of protection to Norigen than is available to the ILECs.

17. The Commission notes that Norigen has included definitions for "Basic Listing Interexchange File (BLIF) Master File" and "BLIF Update File" as well as definitions for "BLIF Master" and "BLIF Update." The definitions for "BLIF Master File" and "BLIF Update File" are not used in the BLIF agreement and are not required.

18. The Commission notes that the definition that Norigen has included for "service control point" is different than that found in the ILECs' and other CLECs' tariffs. The Commission considers that the definition found in the ILECs' and CLECs' tariffs is clearer than the one proposed by Norigen.

19. The Commission notes that Norigen has included provisions for central office (CO) code administration and CO code transfer in its access tariff for wireless service providers. The Commission notes that these provisions are currently not found in the operating territory of TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) but are before the Commission in respect of TCI's proposal associated with wireless service provider access. The Commission will address these items upon consideration of TCI's proposed tariffs.

20. The Commission notes that Norigen has proposed a service charge of $77 related to reserved seven-digit telephone numbers with outpulsing for all provinces in which it operates. The Commission notes that BC TEL does not have a corresponding charge in the territory in which it operates. The Commission considers that, consistent with the determinations in Decision 97-8, Norigen's rate should be no higher than that charged by BC TEL for an equivalent service.

21. Norigen has proposed to apply the proposed rate structure for reservation of seven-digit telephone numbers in Alberta. The Commission is of the view that although this service is not offered by TCI in Alberta, it is in the public interest that this service be provided. The Commission is of the view that Norigen's proposal to charge rates that are comparable to those charged in other provinces is acceptable.

22. The Commission notes that, in addition to the above, various changes and/or corrections to Norigen's tariff are required to clarify various provisions.

23. In light of the foregoing,

A. The Commission approves the proposed tariff revisions on an interim basis with the amendments set out below, with the exception of Tariff Items 402.2, CO code administration, and 402.3, CO code transfer, for the province of Alberta for which determinations are deferred until the Commission has rendered its determination with respect to the ILECs' proposals for these services.

(a) In Part A, Item 101, Article 6 (Deposits and Alternatives), add the following provision as Article 6.7:

"At no time may the total amount of all deposits and alternatives provided by or for an applicant or customer exceed three months' charges for all services, including anticipated long distance charges."

(b) In Part A, Item 101, Article 10 (Limitation of the Company's Liability), delete Articles 10.4 and 10.5 as well as the number for Article 10.6.

(c) In Part A, Item 102:

(i) delete the definitions for "BLIF Master File" and "BLIF Update File"; and

(ii) replace the definition of service control point with the following: "is a network resident database which contains the ported numbers information necessary to support number portability."

(d) In Part B, Item 201, paragraph 3, amend the second line of the table to read "Residential Listings."

(e) In Part C, Item 301, paragraph 1.b, change the phrase "the company's point of interconnection or switching centre" to "the company."

(f) In Part C, Item 302, paragraph 1.a, delete the last sentence.

(g) In Part C, Item 302, paragraph 1.f, delete the last sentence.

(h) In Part C, Item 302, paragraph 2.d, amend the "connect time to conversation minutes ratio" for the province of British Columbia to read 1.827.

(i) In Part C, Item 302, paragraph 3.a, delete the dialling provisions 1+800/888/877 from the first sentence.

(j) In Part C, Item 302.3.h, amend the "Account set-up charge, each PIC processing account" for the province of Alberta to read $579.12.

(k) In Part C, Item 305, Paragraph 1.a, add the following additional note in relation to the "contribution charge, each minute of traffic for IXSPs other than the ILECs' affiliated long distance companies:"

"Where applicable, the contribution charges specified above will be attributed to Norigen's toll traffic where interexchange services are defined by the ILECs' exchange boundaries."

(l) In Part C, Item 305, paragraph 2.a, delete the words "on a monthly basis" from the first sentence.

(m) In Part C, Item 305, paragraph 2, number the second paragraph as b. and delete the words "If a".

(n) In Part C, Item 305, paragraph 3.a, delete the word "monthly" from the first sentence.

(o) In Part C, Item 305, replace paragraph 4 (Exemptions) with the following:

a) The contribution charges specified in Item 305.1.a and .b do not apply when an interconnecting circuit associated with line-side access is:

– used to provide a dedicated voice or dedicated data service; or

– used to provide a local service; or

– associated with a stand-alone administrative location or system which is not directly connected to an IXSP's interexchange network.

The IXSP must apply to the Commission on a case-by-case basis and provide evidence satisfactory to the Commission that by reasons of the technical, economic or operational characteristics of the service, it is unlikely that the connections will be used significantly for joint-use interexchange services.

b) Likewise, the contribution charges specified in Item 305.1.a do not apply, when a Canada-U.S. circuit or an overseas circuit is:

– used to provide a dedicated voice or dedicated data service; or

– used to provide a joint-use data service; or

– used to provide an international transit service not connected to the Canadian public switched telephone network; or

– unused and not connected for service.

The Class A licensee must apply to the Commission on a case-by-case basis and provide evidence satisfactory to the Commission that by reasons of the technical, economic or operational characteristics of the service, it is unlikely that the connections will be used significantly for joint-use interexchange voice services.

(p) In Part C, Item 305, paragraph 4.c, delete the word "Access" from the term "Overseas Access Circuit".

(q) In Part D, Item 402, paragraph 1.a, change the reference to "i" from "I".

(r) In Part D, Item 402.1.b.ii, Service Charge, add the following additional note:

(4) The service charge associated with each reserved telephone number is not applicable in British Columbia."

(s) In Part D, Item 402, paragraph 2, add the following note:

"CO Code Administration is currently not available in the province of Alberta."

(t) In Part D, Item 402, paragraph 3, add the following note:

"CO Code Transfer is currently not available in the province of Alberta."

(u) In Part D, Item 403.3.b, delete the word "toll" from the phrase "per activated toll access channel" in both tables and in the associated "note 1."

(v) In Part F, Items 602, 603 and 604, add the following additional provisions to Paragraph 3.1 in relation to each province:

e. Provide to the municipality at its designated call answer centre a telephone number that is accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the purpose of reporting trouble with the 9-1-1 Emergency Calling System.

f. Provide to the municipality at its designated call answer centre a facsimile number or alternative address (such as e-mail) or both for the purpose of dealing with problems with information as to end-user subscribers and 9-1-1 street address database, and updating such information.

(w) In Part F, Item 602, delete paragraph 5.6, and renumber paragraph 5.7 accordingly.

(x) In Part F, Item 602, paragraph 10.3, replace the word "associated" with "required".

(y) In Part F, Item 604, paragraph 1.1, delete the second last sentence: "The service is available to municipalities and/or other governments ("Municipality") subject to the availability of suitable facilities."

(z) In Part F, Item 604, Paragraph 5.c, delete one of the two appearances of the following sentence: "Information is provided on a call-by-call basis for the sole purpose of responding to 9-1-1 emergency calls."

(aa) In Part F, Items 604 and 603, paragraph 10.a, add the phrase "decisions of regulatory authorities" after the word "strikes".

B. Norigen is directed to file forthwith its PIC/CARE (Primary Interexchange Carrier/Customer Account Record Exchange) Handbook and BLIF agreement for approval.

C. Norigen is to issue forthwith revised tariff pages incorporating the changes set out above.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca