ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2002-198
This page has been archived on the Web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 CRTC 2002-198 |
|
|
Ottawa, 16 May 2002 |
|
|
Bell Canada |
|
Minimum contract period for Centrex service |
|
| 1. |
The Commisson denies an application by Bell Canada, dated 26 October 2001, to modify the provisions relating to contracts for Centrex service under a minimum contract period (MCP). The proposed revisions would have provided different extension options for customers who wished to extend the duration of their existing commitment period, and to simplify the formula for the calculation of the termination charges that are applicable when customers terminate their service before the expiry of their MCPs. |
| 2. |
On 29 November 2001, GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom) filed comments on the application. Group Telecom stated that in the proceeding initiated by Price cap review and related issues, Public Notice CRTC 2001-37, 13 March 2001 (the PN 2001-37 proceeding), it had presented extensive information associated with the market dominance that Bell Canada and other incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) maintained by using MCPs. In addition, Group Telecom reiterated the proposals it had made in the PN 2001-37 proceeding regarding restrictions on the use of long-term contracts. Group Telecom also argued that, pending a decision by the Commission in the PN 2001-37 proceeding, the ILECs should not be allowed to change any rates, charges, terms or conditions associated with MCPs. |
|
3. |
In its reply comment, dated 4 December 2001, Bell Canada submitted that while a pending decision in the PN 2001-37 proceeding might, in some instances, necessitate a delay in the disposition of certain initiatives, to do so for filings such as its 26 October 2001 application would be unwarranted. Bell Canada also expressed the view that such proposals would provide customers with greater choice as well as service migration alternatives, which would help minimize the potential financial impact on customers. |
|
4. |
The Commission notes that the use of Centrex MCPs by certain ILECs is under review in the PN 2001-37 proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it would be inappropriate to approve any changes to the MCP terms for Centrex service until it renders its decision in the PN 2001-37 proceeding. |
|
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 |
Date Modified: 2002-05-16
- Date modified: