ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2000-831
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Order CRTC 2000-831 |
|
| Ottawa, 8 September 2000 | |
|
General Tariff approved on an interim basis with modifications for Microcell Connexions Inc. Tariff Notice 2 |
|
| This order approves Microcell Connexions Inc.'s proposed General Tariff on an interim basis, with the changes listed below. Among other things, the order specifies the circumstances under which Microcell must provide local service end-users with equal access to the long distance service provider of their choice. The Commission also exempts the long distance arm of the incumbent telephone companies from interconnecting with Microcell. Finally, the Commission issues a number of directives related to the provision of 9-1-1 service by Microcell. | |
|
1. |
Microcell Telecommunications Inc. filed an application on 3 May 2000 requesting approval of Microcell Connexions Inc.'s (Microcell's) proposed General Tariff. |
|
2. |
Microcell proposed to operate as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in all the exchanges where it currently has points of interconnection as a wireless service provider (WSP). The company intends to continue to operate as a WSP over the remainder of the exchanges where it provides service. |
|
3. |
The Alberta E9-1-1 Advisory Association (AEAA), on behalf of the public safety answering point (PSAP) representatives from Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario, filed comments expressing concerns with Microcell's failure to comply with existing CLEC interconnection procedures on 31 May 2000. TELUS Corporation filed comments on 2 June 2000. As well, Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. and Newtel Communications Inc. (Bell Canada et al.) filed comments on 5 June 2000. Microcell filed reply comments on 12 June 2000. |
|
4. |
Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, dated 1 May 1997, established a framework for local competition that encouraged efficient interconnection arrangements and was technology-neutral. In particular, the Commission noted that should a WSP wish to become a CLEC, it would be subject to the same terms and conditions as wireline CLECs, as long as it accepts the obligations applied to CLECs in the decision. |
| Microcell proposes to operate as a wholesaler | |
|
5. |
Microcell intends to operate as a wholesale provider of local services to its affiliate, Microcell Solutions Inc. (Solutions), and other resellers. |
|
6. |
Microcell noted that Telecom Order CRTC 99-1127, dated 8 December 1999, expressed concerns that this arrangement would permit the company to circumvent many of its CLEC obligations. |
|
7. |
Microcell proposed to enforce its obligation to provide equal access to Solutions' end-users through contractual arrangements between itself and its affiliate. As well, the company proposed to enforce its CLEC obligations to protect customer privacy and the confidentiality of customer information through contractual arrangements between itself and its resellers, including Solutions. |
|
8. |
Microcell provided the wording for a clause it proposed to include in its contracts with resellers, including Solutions, to ensure that these resellers are bound by Microcell's CLEC obligations. |
|
9. |
TELUS argued that the proposed clause was not sufficient to address the Commission's concerns outlined in Order 99-1127. |
|
10. |
The Commission considers Microcell's proposal reasonable that resellers of its local services, including Solutions, abide by Microcell's CLEC obligations through contractual arrangements. The Commission, however, shares the concerns expressed by TELUS that the proposed wording is insufficient on its own to ensure that the resellers will abide by Microcell's CLEC obligations. |
|
11. |
In Order 99-1127, the Commission specifically identified the following as its main concerns in respect of Microcell enforcing its CLEC obligations: |
| a) end-users of affiliated resellers must have equal access to the interexchange service provider (IXSP) of their choice. | |
| b) Microcell must ensure that resellers of its local services respect the obligations imposed on CLECs to satisfy all existing and future regulatory requirements designed to protect customer privacy including: | |
| i) delivery of the privacy indicator when invoked by an end-customer; | |
| ii) provision of automated universal per-call blocking of calling line identification; | |
| iii) provision of per-line call display blocking to qualified end-customers; | |
| iv) disallowance of Call Return to a blocked number; | |
| v) enforcement of the Commission's restrictions on automatic dialling announcing devices, and unsolicited facsimiles applicable in the incumbent local exchange carrier's (ILEC's) territory where they operate; and | |
| vi) provision of universal call trace. | |
|
12. |
The Commission considers that the contracts between Microcell and the resellers of its local services should specifically identify the CLEC obligations set out in Decision 97-8 for which these resellers will be responsible. Microcell is directed to make the necessary amendments to the contractual arrangements between itself and its resellers to ensure that they are aware of the obligations for which they are responsible. |
|
13. |
The Commission further considers that Microcell should file for approval the agreement(s) it has with Solutions, as well as a form of the agreement(s) that it proposes to execute with unaffiliated resellers of its local services. |
| Defining equal access for mobile wireless CLECs | |
|
14. |
Microcell proposed to provide its customers (i.e., resellers) and Solutions' end-users with equal access to the IXSP of their choice whenever they place an interexchange call from within their home exchange. Microcell defined a "home exchange" as an exchange where it plans to operate as a CLEC. Microcell also indicated that if customers other than Solutions wish to offer equal access to their end-users, it would accommodate such offerings. |
|
15. |
Microcell further proposed to offer enhanced equal access products that it argued were beyond those required of other local exchange carriers (LECs). The company stated that enhanced equal access products could provide end-users roaming outside their home exchange with the ability to access the IXSP of their choice on an equal access basis when originating calls. Microcell proposed to provide enhanced equal access products on the basis of rates, terms, and conditions to be negotiated with the IXSPs. |
|
16. |
Bell Canada et al. argued that, consistent with the principle of end-user choice, wireless CLECs should be required to provide equal access in the end-user's home exchange and in an exchange where the end-user roams. Bell Canada et al. also submitted that the obligation for Microcell to provide equal access should extend to the wireless end-user's total toll calling requirements, including calls destined to an end-user roaming outside the local calling area. |
|
17. |
Bell Canada et al. noted that this might not be technically feasible in certain instances, such as when an end-user is roaming in a territory where service is actually provided by another wireless carrier. Bell Canada et al. also submitted that in some cases, a wireless end-user's preferred toll service provider may choose not to provide service in all locations being served by Microcell. Bell Canada et al. said the obligation for wireless CLECs to provide equal access should be contingent on the technical feasibility of wireless CLECs to provide equal access, and on the IXSP's ability to provide the service. |
|
18. |
Microcell submitted that the proposed extension of a wireless CLEC's mandated equal access obligations to include roaming mobile originating and terminating calls is a request to the Commission to interpret Decision 97-8 in a manner that is contrary to that decision and Telecom Decision CRTC 92-12, dated 12 June 1992, entitled Competition in the provision of public long distance voice telephone services and related resale and sharing issues. Microcell argued that such an interpretation would impose requirements on the company that exceed the equal access obligations imposed on other local exchange carriers (LECs). |
|
19. |
Microcell noted that in paragraph 10 of Telecom Order CRTC 98-1, dated 7 January 1998, the Commission rejected a similar request from the ILECs: |
| The Commission also considers that CLECs, including wireless CLECs, need only provide 9-1-1, MRS and equal access in the serving area or areas where they operate as a CLEC. Stentor's contention that customers of wireless CLECs should have access to these services wherever they roam, would impose a far greater obligation on wireless CLECs than on wireline CLECs, and would effectively prevent wireless providers from selecting their own CLEC serving areas. The Commission therefore finds that the imposition of such additional obligations on wireless CLECs would not be consistent with the intention of the Commission to establish a framework that is neutral in terms of technology. | |
|
20. |
The Commission considers that Decision 97-8 does not support Microcell's contention that its proposal to provide equal access within the home exchange is at least equivalent to what other LECs are required to provide. |
|
21. |
Decision 97-8 required that a CLEC provide equal access to its end-users in order to preclude exclusive arrangements, which would limit those end-users to only the IXSP of the CLEC's choice. |
|
22. |
The Commission notes that Microcell's basic proposal to provide equal access within an end-user's home exchange would limit Solutions' end-users from having access, through equal access arrangements, to the IXSP of Microcell's choice when roaming outside their home exchange but within Microcell's CLEC serving areas. Microcell's basic proposal is thus inconsistent with Decision 98-1. |
|
23. |
The Commission considers that, consistent with the principle of end-user choice, the end-users of a mobile wireless CLEC should have equal access to the IXSP of their choice on mobile originating calls, wherever they roam in the serving area or areas where the wireless CLEC operates. |
|
24. |
The Commission further considers that end-users of a mobile wireless CLEC should have equal access to the IXSP of their choice on mobile terminating calls, where roaming outside the local calling area associated with the end-user's home exchange. Although the roaming subscriber does not dial the long distance call, the subscriber causes the call by roaming, and is responsible for the applicable charges. |
|
25. |
The Commission thus finds that Decision 97-8 requires that Microcell provide enhanced equal access products to the end-users of any affiliated reseller, as long as they are roaming within the serving areas where the company is operating as a CLEC. |
|
26. |
Accordingly, the Commission directs Microcell to provide equal access on mobile originating calls, where Solutions' end-users are roaming within Microcell's CLEC serving areas and on mobile terminating calls, where an end-user is roaming outside the local calling area associated with the home exchange. This requirement is subject to Microcell's ability to provide equal access and the IXSP's ability to provide the service. |
| Equal access and distance sensitive pricing | |
|
27. |
Microcell submitted that enhanced equal access might not be compatible with all rating plans that are used by IXSPs. In particular, the company noted that mobile-originated long distance calling could not be billed according to a distance sensitive rate plan unless the call is originated in a location known to the alternate IXSP. |
|
28. |
Microcell indicated that if IXSPs required more information about the location where a call originated, it was willing to provide wireless call detail records at rates, terms, and conditions to be negotiated between itself and the IXSPs. |
|
29. |
Bell Canada et al. and TELUS noted that pursuant to Decision 97-8, the ILECs are required to interconnect their interexchange networks with every CLEC. Bell Canada et al. and TELUS submitted that with wireless users roaming, it is not possible for an IXSP to determine where a wireless call originated, and hence to apply distance-sensitive rates. |
|
30. |
TELUS was concerned that even when a long distance call is originated within the local calling area and routed back to the home exchange by Microcell, the IXSP would be unable to rate the call correctly. |
|
31. |
Bell Canada et al. objected to having to interconnect with mobile wireless CLECs unless: |
| a) a technology solution is developed so that the location where the call is originated is provided through the CCS7 message; or | |
| b) the wireless CLECs provide the ILECs with call detail records in suitable format. | |
|
32. |
Bell Canada et al. submitted that the interexchange operations of the ILECs should be provided the option of not interconnecting with Microcell. |
|
33. |
At this time, the Commission exempts the ILECs from having to interconnect their interexchange networks with Microcell in view of the billing and routing issues raised for IXSPs when a wireless CLEC's subscriber roams. The Commission also exempts Microcell from having to file executed CLEC-IXC agreements with the ILECs to achieve CLEC status. |
|
34. |
The Commission requests the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) Network Working Group to address possible solutions to the interexchange billing and routing issues raised by roaming subscribers of mobile wireless CLECs under the equal access regime, and to report within 90 days of the date of this order. |
| Microcell's proposal to collect and remit interexchange contribution | |
|
35. |
Microcell proposed that, consistent with the Commission's established contribution regime, the following principles would be applied to determine contribution eligibility and to calculate the applicable interexchange contribution charges when a toll call is originated by and/or terminated to a mobile end-user served by a reseller of Microcell's local services: |
| a) contribution eligibility will be based on the "physical location" of the calling or called mobile end-user, with the "physical location" determined by the location of the cell site in which the call is initiated, whether originating or terminating with a mobile user; | |
| b) ILEC exchange boundaries will be used to determine contribution applicability; and | |
| c) ILEC-specific per-minute contribution rates will be used to calculate the contribution applicable to the originating and/or the terminating end of an interexchange call. | |
|
36. |
Microcell identified a few instances where the assessment of contribution charges would be inconsistent with how they would be assessed by wireline LECs under similar circumstances. |
|
37. |
In view of the limitations of wireless technology at this time, Bell Canada et al. considered Microcell's proposal to handle the contribution assessment on toll traffic to be reasonable. |
|
38. |
TELUS submitted that any call carried by the IXSP, which cannot be correctly rated due to the roaming nature of the call, may also be a call for which the LECs or toll transit providers may be unable to calculate and remit the correct amount of contribution. TELUS expected that there would be a large number of these types of calls. |
|
39. |
TELUS submitted that all parties interested in the integrity of the contribution system require adequate time to assure themselves that Microcell's proposal will not adversely affect them. TELUS noted that it has provided illustrations and contributions at the CISC Network Working Group regarding this matter. |
|
40. |
The Commission considers Microcell's proposal reasonable to collect and remit contribution on its own long distance traffic on a per-minute basis, based on the ILECs' exchange boundaries. |
| Will Microcell be providing access tandem functionality? | |
|
41. |
Microcell offered an IXSP the option of interconnecting either at the Microcell point of interconnection (POI) in each exchange an IXSP wishes to serve, or at the Microcell mobile switching centre serving all the POIs connected to that centre. Microcell proposed to charge the rate for direct connection at a POI, and the rate for access tandem connection at a mobile switching centre. |
|
42. |
Bell Canada et al. and TELUS noted that the ILECs' access tandem connection rate allows for the aggregation of traffic over multiple switches, and routing to the access tandem switch. Bell Canada et al. and TELUS questioned the extent to which Microcell would be providing access tandem functionality. |
|
43. |
Microcell said it was aware that this issue is being raised by other parties in the context of CLEC networks other than its own. The company submitted that it was prepared to accept suspension of its proposed access tandem definition and rates, until this issue is resolved for other CLECs. |
|
44. |
The Commission considers that in providing interconnection at its mobile switching centres, Microcell will not be providing access tandem functionality. The Commission concludes that it would not be appropriate to approve the "Access tandem" definition and rates proposed by Microcell. Thus, the direct connection rate of 0.3 cents will apply for IXSP interconnection whether at a POI or a mobile switching centre. |
| Identifying Microcell's obligations regarding 9-1-1 service | |
|
45. |
Microcell proposed to continue employing the existing WSP 9-1-1 call routing arrangements, until such time as the technical feasibility of Wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 (Wireless E9-1-1) has been demonstrated and the service is available in each of the ILECs' serving territories. The company noted that technical feasibility should be demonstrated via a technical trial, followed by Commission approval of a commercial Wireless E9-1-1 service offering. As this is achieved on a province-by-province basis, Microcell proposed to file 9-1-1 service agreements between itself and municipalities, or 9-1-1 service tariffs, whichever is appropriate. |
|
46. |
The Commission notes that in Order 2000-830, also issued today, it has ruled that the ILECs must continue to provide 9-1-1 service to Clearnet PCS Inc., as a CLEC, at WSP rates, in view of the reduced level of service available to wireless carriers prior to the implementation of Wireless E9-1-1. The Commission considers that the WSP rates for 9-1-1 service should also continue to apply to Microcell as a CLEC until Wireless E9-1-1 is implemented. |
| a) Should emergency services have access to wireless CLECs' subscriber records? | |
|
47. |
The AEAA requested that Microcell be required to support the inclusion of wireless subscriber records (i.e., phone number, name, and billing address) in the Automatic Location Identifier (ALI) database. |
|
48. |
The AEAA acknowledged that wireless subscriber records are not as useful as having an actual location record delivered. The AEAA however noted that the phone number, customer name, and billing address of a wireless CLEC subscriberwould provide an immediate starting point for the PSAPs' legal and moral obligation to locate callers who call 9-1-1 but cannot communicate. |
|
49. |
Bell Canada et al. submitted that Bell Canada, as well as other ILECs, had in the past offered to make available to WSPs a trunk-side routing arrangement that would improve 9-1-1 call routing accuracy. Bell Canada et al. noted that such an arrangement could be made available prior to trials for Wireless E9-1-1. |
|
50. |
Microcell objected to having to provide wireless subscriber records arguing that this information was meaningless because wireless subscribers can roam. |
|
51. |
The Commission agrees with the AEAA that, in an emergency, the information contained in wireless subscribers' records could be of value to the PSAPs. The Commission considers that, as a CLEC, Microcell should provide the end-users of its resellers with 9-1-1 service functionality that is better than what it currently provides them as a WSP. The Commission considers that until Wireless E9-1-1 is implemented, Microcell should support the inclusion of the subscriber records of its resellers' end-users in the ALI databases. |
|
52. |
The Commission directs Microcell to update the relevant ALI databases with the subscriber records of its resellers' end-users where it operates as a CLEC. Microcell is also directed to use the trunk-side routing arrangement referenced in the comments of Bell Canada et al. The Commission notes the concerns expressed by Microcell regarding the trunk-side routing arrangement for 9-1-1 service that Bell Canada et al. mentioned in their comments and concludes that any operational issues associated with its directives should be resolved in the CISC Intercarrier Operations Group - Emergency Services (9-1-1). The Commission requests the group to address any operational issues associated with the above-noted directives to Microcell. |
|
53. |
The Commission further directs Microcell to implement Wireless E9-1-1 as soon as the service becomes available in any of the ILECs' serving areas where the company will be operating as a CLEC. |
| b) Is there a need for legal agreements? | |
|
54. |
TELUS and the AEAA submitted that Microcell's proposal to use the existing wireless arrangements for 9-1-1 service does not exempt the company from entering into 9-1-1 service agreements and, where applicable, billing and collection agreements. The AEAA and TELUS suggested that the CISC Intercarrier Operations Group -Emergency Services (9-1-1) should be instructed to address the interconnection issues associated with a wireless CLEC, as well as existing wireless service providers related to 9-1-1 interconnection issues including: |
| a) the Trunk-Side CLEC Interconnection Document; | |
| b) master agreements that include the Interconnection Agreement for the Provision of 9-1-1 Service to a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier; and | |
| c) provincial agreements between CLECs & Municipalities for the Provisioning of 9-1-1 Service, and Billing and Collection (as applicable). | |
|
55. |
The AEAA also requested that Microcell be directed to execute the applicable 9-1-1 contracts with PSAP municipalities and 9-1-1 platform providers. |
|
56. |
The Commission notes that some of the model agreements will have to be amended to accommodate mobile wireless CLECs. This task could be best handled by the CISC Intercarrier Operations Group - Emergency Services (9-1-1). |
|
57. |
The Commission requests the CISC Intercarrier Operations Group - Emergency Services (9-1-1) to start reviewing and revising the documents identified in paragraph 54 of this order to address interconnection issues for the provision of 9-1-1 service by a mobile wireless CLEC, including Wireless E9-1-1 service. |
|
58. |
The Commission reminds Microcell that CLECs have the obligation to execute agreements between themselves and the municipalities for the provision of 9-1-1 service, and as applicable, billing and collection arrangements. The Commission finds unacceptable Microcell's proposal to delay entering into agreements with the municipalities regarding the provision of 9-1-1 service, and billing and collection service, until Wireless E9-1-1 service is available. The Commission expects that, as a CLEC, Microcell will either enter into agreements with the municipalities to arrange for the provision of 9-1-1 service and, where appropriate, billing and collection service, or file proposed tariffs for Commission approval, prior to the implementation of Wireless E9-1-1. |
| Disposition of the tariff filing | |
|
59. |
Bell Canada et al. submitted that amendments were required to Microcell's General Tariff to correct some errors, and to ensure consistency with other CLECs' approved General Tariffs. Microcell generally did not object to the changes suggested by Bell Canada et al. |
|
60. |
Microcell stated that it had added or modified definitions in the ILECs' and other CLECs' tariffs so as to be specific to its operations, in view of its plans to operate as a wireless CLEC and as a wholesale provider of service. |
|
61. |
Microcell has used the term "interconnecting carrier", as opposed to the term "customer", to identify those parties who would be interconnecting with Microcell under the terms of its General Tariff. Microcell proposed to use the term "customer" to describe the resellers, including Solutions, who purchase its local services. |
|
62. |
The term "interconnecting carrier" is already used in the context of Commission decisions, and the ILECs' and other CLECs' General Tariffs. The Commission considers that defining it to mean something different in the context of Microcell's General Tariff is inappropriate. |
|
63. |
The Commission considers that Microcell's definition for the term "interconnecting carrier" should be deleted and that the definition for "customer" should be modified to indicate that a customer is a carrier or reseller who purchases services under Microcell's General Tariff. |
|
64. |
In Article 10.4 of its proposed Terms of Service, Microcell is requesting approval of a provision which states: |
| Microcell is not liable for any damages arising out of any act or omission of Microcell permitted pursuant to the conditions of its PCS license, provided that Microcell acted in good faith in accepting the court order or other legal power. | |
|
65. |
The Commission considers that this provision is too broad and would provide Microcell with limits to its liability which are more extensive than the ILECs', contrary to Decision 97-8. Accordingly, this provision is to be deleted. |
|
66. |
Several provisions related to contribution charges and contribution exemption require minor corrections, as well as amendments to appropriately reflect recent Commission decisions regarding direct access lines and international contribution. |
|
67. |
Amendments are required to Microcell's provisions for access services for interconnection with WSPs to correct the contribution rates and to reflect the determinations in Providing trunk-side access and common channel signalling #7 to wireless service providers, Order CRTC 2000-395, dated 12 May 2000. |
|
68. |
In addition to the above, the Commission considers that Microcell's tariff requires a number of other minor changes for the purpose of correcting and/or clarifying various references and provisions. |
|
69. |
In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that: |
| 1. The proposed tariffs are approved on an interim basis with the following amendments: | |
| a) in all sections of the tariff: | |
| i) replace the term "interconnecting carrier" with the term "customer"; and | |
| ii) replace the term "customers" with the term "end-customer"; | |
| b) in Item 100, Definitions: | |
| i) delete the definition of "access tandem functionality"; | |
| ii) add the following sentence to the end of the definitions of "class A licensee" and "class B licensee": | |
| "For more information with respect to licensing requirements, refer to the CRTC's web site at www.crtc.gc.ca. "; | |
| iii) change the label for the definition of "interconnecting carrier" to "customer"; | |
| iv) delete the definition of "direct connection functionality"; | |
| v) change the label for the definition of "customer" to "end-customer"; | |
| vi) add the dialling provisions "1+800/888/877" to the definition of "feature group D service"; | |
| vii) add the following definition for "standby circuit": | |
| Standby circuit means an interconnecting circuit with line or trunk-side access, which has been activated but rendered incapable, by the company, of carrying traffic. | |
| viii) add the dialling provision "1+950" to the definition of "trunk-side access"; and | |
| ix) modify the definition of "WSP" to be consistent with the definition found in Item 400 of Microcell's General Tariff. | |
| c) in Item 101: | |
| i) renumber the current paragraph 1.2 as paragraph 1.3 and add the following under the new item 1.2: | |
| These terms do not limit Microcell's liability in cases of deliberate fault or gross negligence, or breach of contract where the breach results from the gross negligence of Microcell.; | |
| ii) delete the words "including anticipated long distance charges" from the end of paragraph 6.7; | |
| iii) in paragraph 9.1, replace the reference to "Article 11.1" with "Article 10.1"; | |
| iv) in paragraph 10.1, delete the words "the greater of $20 and"; and | |
| v) delete paragraphs 10.4, 12.3 and 12.4; | |
| d) in Item 301(n), add the words "other than the ILEC" immediately after the term "IXSP"; | |
| e) in Item 301(o), replace the term "IXSP" with the term "IXC"; | |
| f) in Item 301(4)(a)(i), replace the words "its Customers or Interconnecting Carriers with which it interchanges traffic" with "or interconnecting carriers involved on its services"; | |
| g) in Item 302(1)(b): | |
| i) add the dialling provisions "1+800/888/877" and "1+950" to the first sentence; and | |
| ii) replace the second sentence in that paragraph with the following: | |
| Interconnecting circuits with trunk-side access arranged for feature group D service may be connected to Microcell's end office (direct connection), and may use multi-frequency (MF) or CCS7 signalling, subject to the availability of suitable facilities.; | |
| h) in Item 302(2): | |
| i) delete the last three sentences in paragraph (a); and | |
| ii) in the table at the end of paragraph (d), for each province, delete the words "Access Tandem Connection" and remove the associated rates; | |
| i) in the title of Item 303, and in the first sentence of paragraph (a), replace the term "trunk-side access" with "feature group D service"; | |
| j) in the title of Item 304, and in the first sentence of paragraph (a), replace the term "trunk-side access" with "feature group D service"; | |
| k) in the first sentence of Note 2 associated with Items 305(1)(b) and (c), replace the words "Microcell's operating territory" with "the applicable ILEC's operating territory"; | |
| l) in the table in Item 305(1)(c), for circuit group 75-99, in the second column for the province of British Columbia, replace the rate shown of "$133.00" with "$134.00"; | |
| m) in Item 305(2)(a): | |
| i) in the first sentence of the paragraph, replace the word "Microcell's" with the words "the applicable ILEC's"; | |
| ii) replace the words "in Item 305.1a) above apply" with the words "below apply"; | |
| iii) delete the last sentence of the paragraph; | |
| iv) add the following table immediately after the paragraph: | |
| Carriers and other service providers that use DALS | |
| Contribution charge, each minute of traffic: |
| Peak period |
$0.0075 |
|
| Off-peak period |
$0.0038 |
| Carriers and other service providers that have attested that they do not use DALs (Note 2) | |
| Contribution charge, each minute of traffic: |
| Peak period |
$0.0066 |
|
| Off-peak period |
$0.0033 |
| v) add the following as "Note 2" immediately after the table: | |
| An attestation that a carrier or other service provider does not use DALs requires that the carrier or other service provider provide an affidavit to the applicable ILEC and the Commission, sworn by a senior officer of the company, attesting to the fact that the carrier or other service provider does not use any DALs to originate or terminate traffic in the applicable ILEC's operating territory. The affidavit must be resubmitted on an annual basis and include a statement that if, during the year, the carrier or other service provider uses any DALs, the carrier or other service provider will notify the Commission immediately, serving a copy on the ILEC, and the contribution rate applicable to the carriers and other service providers that do use DALs would immediately apply.; | |
| n) in Item 305(2)(b): | |
| i) replace the text of sub-item (i) with the following: | |
| with respect to contribution-eligible international traffic that the licensee transports between Canada and the United States using circuit-switching protocol on telecommunications facilities operated by the licensee, the licensee shall a) report to the ILEC in whose territory a Canada-U.S. circuit crosses the border all contribution-eligible minutes, and b) remit to the ILEC the applicable contribution charges as specified in Microcell's tariffs. | |
| ii) replace the text of sub-item (ii) with the following: | |
| with respect to contribution-eligible international traffic that the licensee transports between Canada and a country other than the United States using circuit switching protocol on telecommunications facilities operated by the licensee, the licensee shall a) report to the ILEC in whose territory the gateway switch (i.e., the last switching point for outbound minutes and the first point of switching for inbound minutes) is located all contribution-eligible minutes, and b) remit to the ILEC the applicable contribution charges as specified in Microcell's tariffs; | |
| iii) replace sub-item (iii) with the following: | |
| with respect to contribution-eligible international traffic that the licensee converts from circuit-switched minutes originating in Canada to non-circuit-switched traffic, or from non-circuit-switched traffic to circuit-switched minutes terminating in Canada, the licensee shall a) report to the ILEC all contribution-eligible minutes as measured at the point of conversion to the ILEC in whose territory the conversion occurs, and b) remit to the ILEC the applicable contribution charges as specified in Microcell's tariffs; and | |
| o) in sub-item (iii) of Item 305(2)(c), replace the words "in Microcell's" with the words "by ILEC"; | |
| p) in Item 305(2)(d), add the following at the beginning of the first sentence of the paragraph: | |
| As an alternative to providing monthly and quarterly reports to the ILEC as noted in b) and c) above; | |
| q) in the last bulleted sub-item of Item 305(3)(b), replace the word "traffic" with "service"; | |
| r) in Item 402(1): | |
| i) in sub-item 402(1)(a), delete sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), and replace the text in paragraph (a) with the following: | |
| Seven digit telephone numbers with outpulsing are provided as outlined below:; | |
| ii) delete the letter (b) from the first row of the table; and | |
| iii) add the following service charges to the table, applicable in the province of Newfoundland: |
| Each telephone number |
$70 |
|
| Each reserved telephone number |
$62 |
| s) delete Item 402(3), CO Code Transfer; | |||||||
| t) in the table in Item 403(2)(b), replace the monthly rate shown for Alberta of "$17.99" with "$17.09"; | |||||||
| u) in Item 403(3)(b): | |||||||
| i) in the table entitled "Line-Side Access", for the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario/Quebec, replace the rates in the row entitled "IX contribution charges, per activated access channel" as follows: | |||||||
|
| ii) replace the information found in the second table, entitled "Trunk-Side Access" with the following: | |||||||||||||
| Alberta | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| British Columbia | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Ontario/Quebec | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Newfoundland | |||||||||||||
|
| v) in Item 403(3)(c): | |||||||||
| i) label the table "Service charges - Line-side access"; | |||||||||
| ii) delete the line-side access service charge shown for Newfoundland; and | |||||||||
| iii) insert a second table entitled "Service charges - Trunk-side access" containing the following information: | |||||||||
| Order processing, each order | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Interconnection trunk activation or change, per trunk | |||||||||
|
| w) in Item 403(4)(a): | |||||||||
| i) in sub-item (i), replace the rate shown for "each link, per month" for British Columbia of "$1156.90" with "$1314.50"; | |||||||||
| ii) delete sub-item (iii); | |||||||||
| iii) renumber sub-item (iv) as sub-item (iii); and | |||||||||
| iv) in new item (iii), replace the single administration service charge shown of "$69,500" with the following rates for each province: | |||||||||
|
| 2. Microcell issue forthwith revised tariff pages incorporating the changes set out above. | |
| 3. Microcell file forthwith: | |
| a) executed agreement(s) between itself and any affiliated reseller(s) of its local services; | |
| b) a form of the agreement(s) that it proposes to execute with unaffiliated resellers; | |
| c) its PIC/CARE (primary interexchange carrier/customer account record exchange) Handbook; and | |
| d) an unexecuted copy of its BLIF (Basic Listing Interexchange File) agreement. | |
| Secretary General | |
| This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca |
Date Modified: 2000-09-08
- Date modified: