Search

ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 99-1202

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.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 CRTC 99-1202

  Ottawa, 22 December 1999
  Forbearance for agreements between domestic and foreign common carriers
  File No.: 8640-B2-01/99
  1. In the proceeding leading to Teleglobe Canada Inc. – Forbearance for GlobeaccessTel and Related Matters, Telecom Decision 99-14, 28 September 1999 (Decision 99-14), BC TEL and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) submitted that they should be granted forbearance with respect to section 29 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) as it applies to their international agreements.
  2. On 21 July 1999, the Commission received an application from Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc. (Bell et al.) requesting that the Commission refrain wholly and unconditionally from exercising powers and performing duties under section 29 of the Act, with respect to approval of their agreements or arrangements with other telecommunications common carriers relating to international telecommunications services which have been granted forbearance from at least sections 25 and 31 of the Act. Bell et al. stated that its forbearance request encompassed only the international component of forborne services, and that it was not requesting forbearance from the requirement to file for approval agreements that deal with both forborne and non-forborne services.
  3. By letter dated 9 August 1999, the Commission established a proceeding to consider whether either complete or partial forbearance is warranted with regard to the section 29 international agreements of the former Stentor companies, excluding Saskatchewan Telecommunications. The Commission expressed the preliminary view that at least partial forbearance would be appropriate. The Commission placed on the record of the proceeding: (a) Bell et al.'s application of 21 July 1999, and (b) that portion of TELUS's comments in the Teleglobe Canada (Teleglobe) proceeding in which it requested forbearance in respect of its section 29 international agreements.
  4. Pursuant to the Commission's letter of 9 August 1999, Bell et al. and TELUS filed supplementary submissions on 23 August 1999.
  5. The Commission received comments from (a) Teleglobe, dated 27 July 1999, (b) Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell), dated 7 September 1999, and (c) Clearnet Communications Inc. (Clearnet) and Rogers Cantel Inc. (Cantel), each dated 22 September 1999.
  6. Bell et al. filed replies on 17 September and 29 September 1999.
  7. In its supplementary submission, Bell et al. noted that the Commission's letter had stated that it had requested forbearance with respect to their section 29 agreements or arrangement with "foreign carriers". Bell et al. noted that it had requested forbearance with respect to agreements or arrangements entered into with other telecommunications common carriers, and clarified that it did not intend to limit the application only to agreements with foreign carriers. Rather, it intended that the application apply to agreements with any other carrier, domestic or foreign, provided that the agreement related to forborne international telecommunications services.
  8. Bell et al. stated that, in light of the comments by TELUS and the Commission's letter of 9 August 1999, it considered it appropriate to broaden its application to seek forbearance under section 29 for all agreements relating to forborne services, whether domestic or international. Thus, the services identified in its initial application would not be limited only to the international component of those services for which forbearance was granted in Forbearance – Regulation of toll services provided by incumbent telephone companies, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-19, dated 18 December 1997 (Decision 97-19), and in Stentor Resource Centre Inc. – Forbearance from regulation of interexchange private line services, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-20, dated 18 December 1997 (Decision 97-20). Bell et al. stated that the rationale presented in its original application would apply equally well in this broader context.
  9. Microcell, Clearnet and Cantel expressed concerns as to whether or not the expanded request in Bell's supplemental submission was within the scope of the proceeding and whether parties had been given sufficient time to respond to it. Clearnet and Cantel argued, among other things, that granting the expanded request would leave open the possibility that incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) would enter into agreements that would confer undue preferences on affiliates or unjustly discriminate against competitors. Clearnet submitted that, to the extent that the Commission does not reject Bell et al.'s expanded request outright, it should exclude from the scope of forbearance any section 29 agreement between an ILEC and an affiliate that offers domestic telecommunications services.
  10. The Commission notes that, in Decision 99-14, it forbore completely and unconditionally under section 29 with respect to any agreements or arrangements, whether domestic or international, that Teleglobe might enter into with other telecommunications common carriers. Therefore, at present, the only Canadian carriers obliged to file agreements with foreign carriers for the Commission's approval are the former Stentor companies.
  11. In Decisions 97-19 and 97-20, the Commission's rationale for not granting forbearance under section 29 was that the Stentor companies had agreements addressing the settlement of jointly earned revenues and agreements to act in concert as a national entity. The Commission notes that agreements with foreign telecommunications carriers filed by the former Stentor companies have not dealt with such matters.
  12. Further, the Commission finds that the market for international services is sufficiently competitive that it is not necessary in order to protect the interests of users to require the former Stentor companies to continue to file agreements with foreign carriers for the Commission's approval.
  13. With respect to agreements between the former Stentor companies and foreign carriers, the Commission sees no reason to limit forbearance under section 29 to agreements relating to forborne services. Therefore, the Commission refrains completely and unconditionally from the exercise of powers and the performance of duties under section 29 of the Act with respect to agreements between foreign telecommunications common carriers and TELUS, Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. or NewTel Communications Inc.
  14. Pursuant to Decision 99-14, neither the former Stentor companies nor Teleglobe are obliged to file agreements between themselves and Teleglobe for the Commission's prior approval. The Commission considers that such agreements would fall within the scope of Bell et al's initial request, i.e., for forbearance with respect to agreements or arrangements entered into with other telecommunications common carriers relating to international telecommunications services.
  15. In light of its findings in Decision 99-14, the Commission considers it unnecessary and inappropriate to require the continued filing of agreements that the former Stentor companies might enter into with Canadian carriers other than Teleglobe for the carriage of international traffic into or out of the country. In particular, the Commission finds that the market is sufficiently competitive that it is not necessary in order to protect the interests of users to continue to require the filing of such agreements. Therefore, the Commission refrains completely and unconditionally from the exercise of powers and the performance of duties under section 29 of the Act. It includes agreements that TELUS, Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. or NewTel Communications Inc. might enter into with another Canadian carrier providing exclusively for the carriage of traffic into or out of Canada by one of the parties to the agreement.
  16. In its supplemental submission, Bell et al. expanded the scope of its request to seek forbearance for all agreements relating to forborne services, whether domestic or international. Bell et al. stated that the rationale presented in its original application would apply equally well in this broader context.
  17. The Commission considers that Bell et al.'s supplementary request is out of process, and that Bell et al. should have submitted a new application in this regard.
  18. The Commission also considers that the arguments and rationale provided in Bell et al.'s initial application are not sufficient to permit an adequate assessment of its request with regard to forborne domestic services. In particular, the Commission is not persuaded that the arguments raised in Bell et al.'s initial application would apply to domestic services.
  19. Pursuant to section 34(4) of the Act, the Commission declares that section 29 of the Act does not apply to: (a) agreements between foreign telecommunications common carriers and TELUS, Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. or NewTel Communications Inc.; and (b) agreements that TELUS, Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. or NewTel Communications Inc. enters into with another Canadian carrier providing exclusively for the carriage of traffic into or out of Canada by one of the parties to the agreement.
  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
Date modified: