ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 99-906

This page has been archived on the Web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.


Telecom Order


Ottawa, 17 September 1999


Telecom Order CRTC 99-906


Télébec ltée (Télébec) and Québec-Téléphone (the Applicants) filed applications on 5 and 13 February 1998 respectively, pursuant to section 34 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), requesting forbearance from the regulation of their dedicated interexchange private line (IXPL) services.


File No.: Tariff Notice 552


1.On 17 November 1998, Teleglobe Canada Inc. (Teleglobe) filed a proposed Carrier Services Group (CSG) Agreement, along with Tariff Notice (TN) 552 proposing related revisions to its Resale and Sharing Rules Tariff and its Tariff for Interconnection with Interexchange Carriers (Interconnection Tariff). This Agreement and TN 552 were filed pursuant to Regulatory Regime for the Provision of International Telecommunications Services, Telecom Decision CRTC 98-17, 1 October 1998 (Decision 98-17).


2.In Decision 98-17, the Commission directed that Teleglobe's CSG Agreement be based on CSG Agreements approved for the (former) Stentor companies in Unbundled Rates to Provide Equal Access, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-6, 10 April 1997, amended to reflect the fact that Teleglobe is not a local service provider, and that it provide the same degree of protection for competitively sensitive information obtained from telecommunications service providers who wish to interconnect and/or resell Teleglobe's services.


3.On 16 December 1998, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) filed an intervention on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc., NewTel Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc.


4.Stentor used as a point of reference its own CSG Agreements and the Master Agreement for Competitive Local Exchange Carrier-IXC Interconnection (Consensus Version, 7 May 1998).


5.Stentor proposed a number of changes to Teleglobe's Agreement, most of which were accepted by Teleglobe. Teleglobe filed a revised version of the agreement with its reply of 18 January 1999.


6.In addition to those changes accepted by Teleglobe, Stentor proposed (a) reviews with non-CSG employees regarding confidentiality in CSG-related matters, and (b) the inclusion of schedules that specify certain CSG procedures.


7.With respect to issue (a), Teleglobe's proposed CSG Agreement states that employees who are not part of the CSG, but who may be involved in the provision of Teleglobe services, would be made aware by their immediate supervisor of the Agreement's purpose and importance on a periodical basis.


8.Stentor maintained that there should be a written acknowledgement by both the employee and immediate supervisor that such a review has taken place.


9.Stentor noted that the Agreement specified a similar written acknowledgement process for employees working in the CSG.


10.In reply, Teleglobe submitted that such an acknowledgement was not necessary and would be a heavy administrative burden.


11.The Commission notes that Teleglobe's proposed CSG Agreement provides that Teleglobe will review with each employee at the beginning of the employee's assignment to the CSG group, and on an annual basis, the confidentiality of information obtained from the customer or developed by Teleglobe exclusively for the benefit of the customer. The specific information to be reviewed is set out in Attachment 1 of the Agreement. The Agreement also provides that a form acknowledging the review will be signed by both the employee and the immediate supervisor. That form is set out in Attachment 3 to the Agreement.


12.The Commission considers the language of Attachment 3 inappropriate for the purpose of obtaining the acknowledgement of the employee and the supervisor that the review has taken place. Rather, the Commission considers it preferable that Attachment 1 be revised to include the appropriate lines for the supervisor and the employee to sign and date the document, acknowledging the review. Consistent with the above, the reference to Attachment 3 should be deleted from Article 4.1.1 of the Agreement.


13.The Commission notes that Teleglobe's proposed CSG Agreement also provides for a form of review with employees who are not part of the CSG, and considers that obtaining a written acknowledgement that the review has taken place would not constitute a significant administrative burden. The Commission considers that having to sign an acknowledgement would impress upon non-CSG employees the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of customer information obtained through the CSG.


14.The Commission therefore considers that, for employees working outside the CSG, Teleglobe should obtain the same type of written acknowledgement that a review has taken place as it obtains for employees working in the CSG.


15.With respect to issue (b), Stentor noted that, in the (former) Stentor companies' CSG and Master Agreements, the obligations of the CSG regarding specific procedures related to ordering, billing, and network planning are set out in separate schedules. Stentor requested that Teleglobe be directed to provide such schedules. Stentor stated that would ensure that the procedures are subject to the Commission's approval and that customers are fully aware of them.


16.Teleglobe maintained that it adapts its ordering, billing and network planning procedures to its customers' needs, depending on the nature of the services requested. Teleglobe added that it has no written procedures that would cover every possible manner in which orders are received and processed and in which billing and network planning are established for each customer. Teleglobe submitted that a single set of procedures is neither necessary nor in the best interests of its customers.


17.Teleglobe proposed, as an alternative, that its Agreement provide that the procedures will be agreed upon between the customer and Teleglobe.


18.The Commission notes that, to implement public long distance voice competition, the (former) Stentor companies developed detailed procedures related to the interconnection of competing long distance service providers and to the resale of telephone company services. These procedures were set out in schedules to the CSG Agreements.


19.The Commission considers that Teleglobe's circumstances differ from those of the incumbent telephone companies at the inception of public long distance voice competition. At that time, the telephone companies were integrated providers of both local and long distance services, and it was necessary for competitors entering the long distance market to interconnect with the telephone companies' ubiquitous local networks to provide service to end-users. In order to effect interconnection, and minimize any potential for delays in interconnection, there was a need to set out procedures and timetables in some detail.


20.The Commission notes that Teleglobe is historically a provider of wholesale services, and that those with whom it interconnects are its major customers, as well as potential competitors. In these circumstances, Teleglobe has an incentive to facilitate interconnection.


21.The Commission also considers that, depending on the service and the needs of the customer, the appropriate interconnection procedures may vary.


22.The Commission notes that Teleglobe has added a provision to its Agreement stating that the specific obligations of the CSG will be set forth in written procedures to be agreed upon between Teleglobe and the customer.


23.The Commission notes that recourse to the Commission is available if disputes arise as to what those specific obligations should entail.


24.The Commission notes that TN 552 was filed prior to the issuance of Telecom Order 99-312, 1 April 1999 (Order 99-312), in which the Commission granted interim approval to tariff revisions, including revisions to Teleglobe's Resale and Sharing Rules Tariff and its Interconnection Tariff, intended to implement per-minute contribution charges pursuant to Decision 98-17.


25.In light of the extent of the revisions approved in Order 99-312, the Commission considers it appropriate that Teleglobe's Resale and Sharing Rules Tariff and its Interconnection Tariff be amalgamated as follows:


2. General


The facilities and services of IXC's may be interconnected to the Corporation's facilities and services, subject to their availability.


The Corporation's telecommunications services may be shared or resold in accordance with the conditions in this Tariff.


For all overseas services which are resold or shared, resellers and sharing groups are required to register with the Corporation and the Commission prior to receiving service.


Interconnection and the resale and sharing of the Corporation's services are subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Carrier Services Group Agreement ("the CSG Agreement"), including the Attachments. The CSG Agreement defines and determines the procedures for handling confidential information provided by the IXCs, resellers and sharing groups.


26.The Commission also considers it appropriate that Teleglobe update the definitions set out in Article 1 of its current Interconnection and Resale and Sharing Rules Tariffs to reflect the revisions approved here and in Order 99-312.


27.In light of the above, the Commission approves Teleglobe's proposed CSG Agreement, as revised with its reply of 18 January 1999, subject to the following: (a) the Commission's approval does not include Attachment 3; (b) Article 4.1.1 is amended to delete the reference to Attachment 3; (c) Attachment 1 is amended as described in paragraph 12 above, and (d) Article 4.1.3 is amended to add the following:


A dated acknowledgement form will be signed by the employee as well as the employee's supervisor indicating that the purpose and importance of the agreement have been reviewed with the employee. Provided that Teleglobe has made reasonable efforts to obtain an employee's signature but cannot, an acknowledgement form signed by such employee's supervisor confirming the review shall be sufficient.


28.Teleglobe is directed to provide the Commission forthwith with a copy of the CSG Agreement revised to incorporate the changes directed in this Order.


29.The Commission also directs Teleglobe to issue forthwith revised Tariff Pages consistent with paragraphs 26 and 27 above. Consistent with Order 99-312, these revised Tariff Pages should indicate that the Commission's approval of the Tariff Pages is interim.


Secretary General


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


Date modified: