Search

ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2000-744

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.

Order CRTC 2000-744

Ottawa, 10 August 2000
CRTC denies CNCI's application to introduce service charges for local exchange carriers
Tariff Notices 12 and 12A
The Commission denies Call-Net Communications Inc.'s (CNCI's) proposal to apply per order and per loop service charges to a local exchange carrier wishing to acquire a loop to provide local service to an end-customer previously served by CNCI.

1.

Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), on behalf of CNCI, filed Tariff Notice (TN) 12 on 17 April 2000. Call-Net filed a minor amendment to the application under TN 12A dated 20 April 2000.

2.

TELUS Communications Inc. and Bell Canada, on behalf of itself, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc. filed comments on 24 May 2000. Call-Net submitted reply comments on 5 June 2000.

3.

Call-Net submitted that CNCI incurs administrative costs when it co-ordinates the reassignment of local loops to other local exchange carriers (LECs). CNCI is proposing to charge the same local loop service charges as those approved for the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) by the Commission in Unbundled local loop fixed-rate service order charges, Telecom Decision CRTC 99-15, dated 29 September 1999.

4.

Bell Canada and TELUS submitted that Call-Net's proposal should be denied. Bell Canada submitted that, except where CNCI is supplying its own unbundled loops to other LECs, the activities and functions which must be completed by the ILECs to provision a local loop are clearly distinct and dissimilar from those which must be completed by CNCI when it requests that an ILEC reassign a local loop from CNCI to another LEC.

5.

TELUS stated that once CNCI is in a position to provision local loops to the ILECs and CLECs, it will be justified to include within its tariff charges for providing these services. TELUS submitted that it was unaware of any location within Canada where CNCI is providing this service and therefore inclusion of a service charge in CNCI's tariff is unwarranted.

6.

Bell Canada noted that the current process requires that a new LEC initiate a local service request to the current LEC to arrange for the porting or disconnection of the telephone number, depending on whether the existing telephone number is to be retained or a new one assigned. On the confirmation to the local service request, the current LEC simply identifies to the new LEC the circuit identifications of any associated ILEC leased local loops - no significant steps or costs are incurred by the current LEC. This process saves the current LEC from having to initiate its own local loop disconnection request to the ILEC.

7.

Bell Canada stated that the costs incurred by CNCI to port or disconnect the end-customer's telephone number and provide a circuit identification number to the new LEC are minimal at best and are more appropriately recovered through charges passed on through CNCI's retail service rates.

8.

In reply, Call-Net submitted that CNCI incurs administrative costs when it co-ordinates the reassignment of local loops to other LECs. Call-Net submitted that the function provided by CNCI is a telecommunications service that is similar to the functionality provided by the ILECs for the service charges assessed on CLECs for provisioning local loops. Call-Net argued that CNCI is justified in introducing the proposed service charges.

9.

Call-Net conceded that the activities and requirements undertaken in this context might be less administratively burdensome than what is carried out by the ILECs. As a result, CNCI proposed that TN 12 be granted interim approval with final approval contingent upon the filing of an economic study to support final rates for CNCI's proposed service charges.

10.

The Commission notes that the activities and functions which have to be completed by the ILECs to provision a local loop are significantly different from those which CNCI must complete when an ILEC is requested to reassign a local loop from CNCI to another LEC. It is therefore inappropriate for CNCI to charge the ILECs' service charges for providing loops for a service that is not comparable in function to the ILECs' service.

11.

Under CNCI's proposal, a new LEC would be required to pay CNCI's proposed per order and per loop service charges for co-ordinating the transfer of the existing local loop, as well as the ILEC's per order and per loop service charges for leasing that loop.

12.

The Commission considers that the administrative activities CNCI must perform to "coordinate the transfer of an existing local loop" are comparable to those it would have to do to disconnect a customer which has chosen to change its local service provider. The Commission notes that the ILECs do not charge CLECs a separate charge to recover the administrative costs to port or disconnect telephone numbers. The Commission is of the view that CNCI's costs to co-ordinate the transfer of an existing local loop are a normal cost of doing business, as it is for the ILECs. Accordingly, the Commission denies TNs 12 and 12A.
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: 2000-08-10

Date modified: