ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2002-443

Telecom Order CRTC 2002-443

Ottawa, 28 November 2002

Aliant Telecom Inc.

Reference: Tariff Notices 20B and 32

Business single-line and multi-line access services

Tariff Notice 20B

1.

The Commission received an application by Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), dated 12 July 2002, to revise General Tariff item 205.3, Multi-Line Access Service, (the application) in order to:

2.

On 14 August 2002, AT&T Canada Corp., on behalf of itself and AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company (collectively, AT&T Canada) filed comments with respect to Aliant Telecom Tariff Notice (TN) 32 and TNs 20, 20A and 20B. On 26 August 2002, Aliant Telecom filed reply comments.

AT&T Canada's comments

3.

In its comments, AT&T Canada submitted that the Commission should deny Aliant Telecom TN 20B.

4.

AT&T Canada stated that Aliant Telecom had neither identified the price cap basket that these services belonged to nor indicated whether its proposed changes would meet the price cap constraints as set out in Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34).

5.

AT&T Canada noted that Aliant Telecom's proposal was to increase rates for services in some provinces and decrease rates for the same service in other provinces. AT&T Canada argued that this demonstrated that Aliant Telecom was varying ratesacross bands. AT&T Canada argued that this was in contravention of the Commission's determinations in Decision 2002-34 that rates for single and multi-line business local exchange services should not be de-averaged further within a band.

6.

AT&T Canada also submitted that the proposed rate reductions in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island could be viewed as a move to stifle competition. AT&T Canada argued that the combination of the significant price decreases and the one-year contract commitment would act as an impediment to competitive entry.

Aliant Telecom's reply

7.

In its reply comments, Aliant Telecom submitted that the application, in conjunction with Aliant Telecom TN 32, met the price cap constraints set out in Decision 2002-34.

8.

Aliant Telecom noted that its bands were defined on a provincial basis and not on an Atlantic region basis. Aliant Telecom submitted that, accordingly, its proposal to change rates in different provinces did not violate the Commission's determinations concerning de-averaging rates within a band. Aliant Telecom also submitted that this proposal brings the rates in New Brunswick closer to the rates in the other provinces.

9.

Aliant Telecom submitted, with respect to AT&T Canada's argument that the proposed rate reductions would act as an impediment to competitive entry, that Aliant Telecom's proposal was consistent with the current regulatory rules. Aliant Telecom further submitted that the Commission did not alter the rules with respect to company initiated price reductions which continue to be subject to an imputation test.

Commission determination

10.

In Decision 2002-34, the Commission assigned Aliant Telecom's General Tariff item 205.3, Multi-Line Access Service, to the single and multi-line business local exchange services basket. In that decision, the Commission established a constraint equal to inflation applicable to that basket and adopted a rate element constraint to limit increases in the incumbent local exchange carriers' rates for single and multi-line business local exchange services to 10% per year.

11.

The Commission notes that the rate proposals in TN 20B meet the price cap constraints for single and multi-line business exchange services set out in Decision 2002-34.

12.

The Commission further notes that the rate bands are defined on a provincial basis in Aliant Telecom's serving territory. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Aliant Telecom's proposal under TN 20B does not violate the Commission's policy regarding the de-averaging of rates for a service within a band.

13.

The Commission notes AT&T Canada's comments that the proposed rate reductions and the introduction of the one-year contract commitment in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island would act as an impediment to competitive entry. However, the Commission finds that the proposed rates resulting from the introduction of a one-year contract Multi-Line Access Service in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island meet both the pricing constraints set out in Decision 2002-34 and the imputation test.

14.

In light of the above, the Commission approves Aliant Telecom TN20B effective the date of this order.

Tariff Notice 32

15.

The Commission notes that in Review and vary of Telecom Order CRTC 2002-366, as modified by Telecom Order CRTC 2002-366-1, Telecom Order CRTC 2002-413, 5 November 2002, the Commission indicated that the pricing constraints set out in Decision 2002-34 would be met by Aliant Telecom if the rate increase proposed in Aliant Telecom's Tariff Notice 32 was considered concurrently with the rate changes proposed in TN 20B.

16.

As a result of the approval of TN 20B in this order, the Commission approves Aliant Telecom TN 32 effective the date of this order.

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