ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-28

Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-28

Ottawa, 26 April 2002

Enforcement of Orders CRTC 2000-37, 2000-38 and 2001-82

Reference: 8622-O2-02/02

Summary

In this decision, the Commission determines that it will not enforce any aspect of Orders CRTC 2000-37, 2000-38 and 2001-82, against two long distance resellers, Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. and Distributel Communications Limited.

The application

1.

The Commission received a joint application dated 22 February 2002, from Execulink Telecom Inc., formerly known as Hurontario Telephones Limited (Hurontario); the Ontario Telecommunications Association (the OTA); La Compagnie de Téléphone de Warwick (Warwick); the Société d'administration des tarifs d'accès des télécommunicateurs (SATAT); Bell Canada; Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus), formerly known as London Telecom Network (London Telecom); and Distributel Communications Limited (Distributel) (collectively, the Applicants).

2.

The Applicants requested that the Commission rescind Orders CRTC 2000-37 and 2000-38, 21 January 2000, and CRTC denies Primus/Distributel's request to rescind Orders CRTC 2000-37 and 2000-38, Order CRTC 2001-82, 31 January 2001 (the Orders), or, in the alternative, that the Commission not enforce any aspect of the Orders against Primus and Distributel. The Applicants also requested that the Commission consider their application on an expedited basis.

Background

3.

The Orders disposed of a dispute between two independent telephone companies (ITCs) Hurontario and Warwick, complainants, against London Telecom and Distributel, resellers operating within the complainants' territories and those of certain other ITCs in Quebec and Ontario. The dispute related to the payment of contribution and related information requirements set out in Regulatory framework for the independent telephone companies in Quebec and Ontario (except Ontario Northland Commission, Québec Téléphone and Télébec ltée), Telecom Decision CRTC 96-6, 7 August 1996 (Decision 96-6).

4.

The Orders directed Primus and Distributel to pay contribution to Hurontario and Warwick, and provide the latter and other ITCs with information relating to the number of originating minutes in their territories, so that contribution payments could be calculated in accordance with the terms set out in Decision 96-6.

5.

In separate letters dated 21 February 2000, Primus and Distributel requested that the Commission rescind Orders CRTC 2000-37 and 2000-38. The Commission denied the request in Order CRTC 2001-82.

On 21 June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeal granted to Primus and Distributel leave to appeal the Orders. On 8 August 2001, Primus and Distributel filed and served a Notice of Appeal (the Appeal) upon the Commission, Hurontario, Warwick, Bell Canada, the OTA and SATAT.

7.

The Applicants subsequently agreed to settle the Appeal and submit the application at issue in this decision. By letter dated 11 April 2002, the Applicants filed the settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, Hurontario, Warwick and the members of the OTA and SATAT have agreed to forego receipt of contribution payments and of the information relating to the number of originating minutes in their territories.

Process

8.

On 25 February 2002, the Commission issued a process letter summarizing and seeking comments on the joint application. The letter was addressed to the other ITCs in Quebec and Ontario to which Decision 96-6 applies, namely the ITCs that are not members of the OTA or SATAT. TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. and Télébec ltée also received copies of the process letter.

9.

Only one party, Northern Telephone Limited (Northern), commented on the application. In its submission dated 7 March 2002, Northern advised the Commission that it had no objection should the Commission rescind or not enforce the Orders.

Commission determination

10.

The Commission notes that a very long period of time has passed since the dispute arose and that the circumstances that gave rise to the dispute have changed fundamentally since then. Although the dispute arose as a result of complaints by Hurontario and Warwick, these companies no longer wish to pursue the money that they had claimed. The Commission also notes that the contribution regime that applied when the Orders were issued has been replaced by a new one as a result of Changes to the contribution regime, Decision CRTC 2000-745, 30 November 2000, and subsequent decisions involving the ITCs in Quebec and Ontario, including Regulatory framework for the small incumbent telephone companies, Decision CRTC 2001-756, 14 December 2001.

11.

In light of the above, the Commission has determined that it will not enforce any aspect of the Orders against Primus and Distributel.

Secretary General

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