|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-29
|
|
|
Ottawa, 9 May 2003
|
|
|
Forbearance from regulating additional interexchange private line services
|
|
|
Reference: 8640-T42-04/02 and 8638-S1-01/98
|
|
|
In this decision, the Commission forbears, with some conditions, from regulating additional high capacity and digital data services interexchange private line services on routes for which competitors of several incumbent local exchange carriers now offer, or provide, services at DS-3 or greater bandwidth.
|
|
1.
|
On 18 June 2002, TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) filed an application pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, requesting that the Commission forbear from regulating additional high capacity and digital data services (DDS) interexchange private line (IXPL) services on routes in its territory.
|
|
2.
|
The Commission received comments from AT&T Canada Corp. on behalf of itself and AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company (collectively, AT&T Canada) on 19 July 2002, Bell Canada and Bell Nexxia Inc. (Nexxia) on 18 July 2002, Bell West Inc. (BWI) on 17 July 2002, Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) on 18 July 2002 and GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom) on 18 July 2002. TCI filed reply comments on 26 August 2002.
|
|
|
Background
|
|
3.
|
The Commission's power to forbear from regulating a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier originates from section 34 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), which reads as follows:
|
|
|
34. (1) The Commission may make a determination to refrain, in whole or in part and conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 in relation to a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier, where the Commission finds as a question of fact that to refrain would be consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives.
|
|
|
(2) Where the Commission finds as a question of fact that a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier is or will be subject to competition sufficient to protect the interests of users, the Commission shall make a determination to refrain, to the extent that it considers appropriate, conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 in relation to the service or class of services.
|
|
|
(3) The Commission shall not make a determination to refrain under this section in relation to a telecommunications service or class of services if the Commission finds as a question of fact that to refrain would be likely to impair unduly the establishment or continuance of a competitive market for that service or class of services.
|
|
|
(4) The Commission shall declare that sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 do not apply to a Canadian carrier to the extent that those sections are inconsistent with a determination of the Commission under this section.
|
|
4.
|
The Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out at section 7 of the Act include the following:
|
|
|
(c) to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications;
|
|
|
(f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective;
|
|
|
(h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services.
|
|
5.
|
The Commission established a framework for considering whether or not to forbear in Review of regulatory framework, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, 16 September 1994 (Decision 94-19). In that decision, the Commission noted that the first step in assessing whether it is appropriate to forbear involves defining the relevant market. The relevant market is essentially the smallest group of products and geographic area in which a firm with market power can profitably impose a sustainable price increase. The Commission established a number of criteria to be examined when determining whether a market was competitive. These criteria include the market shares of the dominant and competing firms, demand and supply conditions, the likelihood of entry into the market, barriers to entry into the market and evidence of rivalrous behaviour.
|
|
6.
|
The Commission, in Stentor Resource Centre Inc. - Forbearance from regulation of interexchange private line services, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-20, 18 December 1997 (Decision 97-20), further to an analysis in accordance with the framework set out in Decision 94-19, granted forbearance pursuant to section 34 of the Act with respect to the provision of IXPL services for the routes identified in that decision. The Commission found that forbearance from regulation of the routes at issue would, under subsection 34(1) of the Act, be consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Act, including paragraphs 7(c) and (f). The Commission also found that it would be appropriate to forbear under subsection 34(2) of the Act on the basis that the forborne services are or will be subject to a level of competition sufficient to protect the interests of users. Finally, the Commission found, pursuant to subsection 34(3) of the Act, that to forbear would not impair unduly the establishment or continuance of a competitive market for the forborne services.
|
|
7.
|
The Commission, in Decision 97-20, noted that high capacity IXPL services were offered and provided on a route-specific basis and customers required these services on one or more routes. The Commission determined that each route should be considered as a separate market for purposes of forbearance analysis, and that forbearance is appropriate for routes for which rivalrous competition exists or will exist in the near future.
|
|
8.
|
The Commission later determined, in Follow-up Proceeding to Telecom Decision CRTC 97-20: Establishment of criterion and process for considering further forbearance from High Capacity/DDS interexchange private line services, Telecom Order CRTC 99-434, 12 May 1999(Order 99-434), that, given that the IXPL market is route-specific, forbearance from a route is appropriate if there is at least one competitor that provides, or that is offering to provide, IXPL services, at DS-3 or greater bandwidth, on that route using facilities other than facilities obtained from the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) or an affiliate of the ILEC.
|
|
9.
|
The Commission, in Order 99-434, directed competitors to report to the Commission semi-annually their new IXPL routes that meet the above-mentioned criterion. The Commission also stated that ILECs may request forbearance from regulation of IXPL routes that competitors have failed to report.
|
|
10.
|
With respect to the scope of forbearance, the Commission, in Decision 97-20, forbore from the exercise of its powers and duties under section 25, subsections 27(1) and 27(2) and section 31 of the Act. The Commission found it appropriate to impose conditions pursuant to section 24 of the Act with respect to the protection of customer confidential information and the bypass of Canadian telecommunications services and facilities. In addition, the Commission retained its powers pursuant to section 24 of the Act to impose future conditions upon the forborne services provided by the Stentor companies, where the circumstances so warrant.
|
|
11.
|
The Commission considered, in Decision 97-20, that it was appropriate to retain its powers pursuant to subsection 27(3) of the Act to the extent that this subsection did not refer to compliance with powers and duties not forborne from in that decision.
|
|
12.
|
The Commission also found it appropriate to continue to exercise its powers under section 29 of the Act with respect to the requirement to file for Commission approval agreements or other arrangements. In that respect, the Commission considered that these agreements and arrangements, which address the settlement of jointly earned revenues, were a matter that should remain subject to the Commission's oversight.
|
|
|
The application
|
|
13.
|
TCI requested that the Commission issue an order granting forbearance from regulating IXPL services on the routes listed in its application to the same extent as that granted in Decision 97-20. The routes with respect to which TCI requested forbearance are listed in Appendix 1.
|
|
14.
|
In its application, TCI submitted that these IXPL routes met the forbearance criterion stipulated in Order 99-434.
|
|
15.
|
TCI noted that, in Order 99-434, the Commission directed competitors of the major ILECs to file a report with the Commission, on 1 April and 1 October of each year. TCI noted that the report was required to identify all IXPL routes for which the competitors offered to provide, or provided, IXPL service equivalent to DS-3 or greater bandwidth, to at least one customer, using terrestrial facilities from a company other than an ILEC or an affiliate of an ILEC. TCI alleged that several competitors offered IXPL services in its territory, but had, however, mostly ignored the filing requirement of Order 99-434, despite having been reminded to do so by the Commission's staff in a letter dated 5 April 2002.
|
|
|
Positions of parties
|
|
|
AT&T Canada's comment
|
|
16.
|
AT&T Canada argued that the information TCI referred to in regard to the availability of IXPL routes did not demonstrate that AT&T Canada was offering or providing services. It submitted that only the routes that it filed at the time of the April 2002 filing met the Order 99-434 criterion. AT&T Canada submitted that TCI's request for forbearance on the routes listed in its application were based on a misunderstanding of the information it used from AT&T Canada's Service Availability Tool (SAT). AT&T Canada, however, acknowledged that one of the routes identified in TCI's application, the Vancouver-Abbotsford route, should be forborne as it met the criterion.
|
|
|
Call-Net's comment
|
|
17.
|
Call-Net submitted that it was inappropriate to grant forbearance when there was a reasonable prospect that, considering the state of the competitive industry, alleged sources of competition on the routes in question might no longer exist due to financial difficulties. It also submitted that TCI's application should be dismissed as some of the routes for which TCI requested forbearance may be tariffed in the proceeding initiated by Competitor Digital Network Access service proceeding, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-4, 9 August 2002 (PN 2002-4).
|
|
|
Bell Canada and Nexxia's comment
|
|
18.
|
Bell Canada and Nexxia stated that they had complied with the reporting requirements outlined in Order 99-434, as detailed in their respective 15 May 2002 reports, and indicated that the facilities in question were part of BWI's network.
|
|
|
BWI's comment
|
|
19.
|
BWI indicated that its network implemented over the last year did not include any IXPL routes other than the IXPL routes previously forborne from or those identified by TCI in its application.
|
|
|
Group Telecom's comment
|
|
20.
|
Group Telecom acknowledged that it provided service on some of the routes identified by TCI, namely Calgary to Fort McMurray, Calgary to Red Deer, and Calgary to Medicine Hat, and that additional routes were identified in its 12 June 2002 filing.
|
|
|
TCI's reply
|
|
21.
|
In its reply comments, TCI submitted that with the exception of AT&T Canada, none of the parties contested the fact that the additional IXPL routes requested by TCI met the Commission's criterion for forbearance. In TCI's view, the information provided in AT&T Canada's SAT included locations that were eligible for forbearance. As well, TCI submitted that, contrary to Call-Net's submission, the matter of IXPL forbearance was not within the scope of the proceeding initiated by PN 2002-4.
|
|
22.
|
TCI submitted that, in addition to those identified in its application, all new routes filed with the Commission by competitors should be granted forbearance.
|
|
|
Commission determinations
|
|
23.
|
The Commission notes that, while subsection 34(1) of the Act provides that the Commission may refrain from regulating a service or class of services when it finds that such forbearance is consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives, subsection 34(2) of the Act requires it to forbear where it finds that the market for the service in question is, or will be, subject to sufficient competition to protect the interests of users. The Commission also notes, however, that subsection 34(3) of the Act provides that the Commission shall not forbear if it finds that to do so would be likely to impair unduly the establishment or continuance of a competitive market for that service.
|
|
24.
|
The Commission notes that in response to the Commission's staff letter dated 5 April 2002, reminding competitors of the filing requirements set out in Order 99-434, Call-Net, AT&T Canada, Bell Canada, Group Telecom and BWI filed additional IXPL routes in the spring of 2002. The Commission also notes that AT&T Canada, Call-Net and Navigata Communications Inc. (Navigata) (formerly MK Telecom Network Inc.) reported additional IXPL routes as part of the October 2002 reports filed pursuant to Order 99-434. The routes filed by these companies are identified in Appendix 2.
|
|
25.
|
The Commission finds that, based on the information provided by TCI, and the information provided in the reports filed by AT&T Canada, Bell Canada, BWI, Call-Net, Group Telecom, Navigata and Nexxia pursuant to Order 99-434 and further to the Commission's staff letter dated 5 April 2002, the IXPL routes listed in Appendix 3 satisfy the criteria under section 34 of the Act for a forbearance determination by the Commission.
|
|
26.
|
The Commission notes, in regard to some of the routes identified in Nexxia's report filed pursuant to Order 99-434, that in Regulatory safeguards with respect to incumbent affiliates, bundling by Bell Canada and related matters, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-76, 12 December 2002, it found that Nexxia and Bell Canada do not compete in Bell Canada's service territory. The Commission considers that supply from Nexxia will not be sufficient to protect user interests in Bell Canada's territory. Therefore, the Commission finds that the routes identified in Nexxia's report that begin or end in Bell Canada's territory do not satisfy the criteria under section 34 of the Act for a forbearance determination by the Commission.
|
|
27.
|
Accordingly, the Commission does not forbear from regulating the IXPL services on the routes identified only by Nexxia that begin or end in Bell Canada's territory.
|
|
|
Application of subsections 34(1), (2) and (3) of the Act
|
|
28.
|
The Commission finds, pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Act, as a question of fact, that to refrain from the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties, to the extent set out in this decision, with respect to the regulation of the IXPL services on the routes listed in Appendix 3, which includes a number of the IXPL routes for which TCI requested forbearance and a number of the IXPL routes that were filed by other parties pursuant to Order 99-434 or further to the Commission's staff letter dated 5 April 2002, is consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 the Act.
|
|
29.
|
The Commission also finds, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Act, as a question of fact, that it is appropriate to refrain from regulating the IXPL services on the routes listed in Appendix 3, to the extent set out in this decision, on the basis that the forborne services are subject to a level of competition sufficient to protect the interests of users of these services.
|
|
30.
|
Finally, the Commission finds, pursuant to subsection 34(3) of the Act, as a question of fact, that refraining from regulating the IXPL services for the routes listed in Appendix 3, to the extent set out in this decision, is unlikely to impair unduly the continuance of a competitive market for these services.
|
|
31.
|
In light of these findings, the Commission must determine the extent to which it is appropriate to refrain, in whole or in part, and conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any powers or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act.
|
|
|
Section 24
|
|
32.
|
Section 24 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
24. The offering and provision of any telecommunications service by a Canadian carrier are subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission or included in a tariff approved by the Commission.
|
|
33.
|
The Commission considers that it is appropriate to retain its powers pursuant to section 24 of the Act to ensure that the confidentiality of customer information continues to be protected. Accordingly, the Commission directs the ILECs whose territory includes one or more of the IXPL routes forborne from in this decision (the affected ILECs), on a going forward basis, to incorporate, where appropriate, the existing conditions regarding disclosure of confidential customer information to third parties into all contracts and any other arrangements for the provision of the services forborne from regulation in this decision.
|
|
34.
|
The Commission considers that it is also appropriate to retain sufficient powers under section 24 of the Act to specify possible future conditions upon the forborne services provided by the affected ILECs, where circumstances so warrant.
|
|
35.
|
The Commission notes that the restrictions against the bypass of Canadian telecommunications services and facilities were terminated in Regulatory regime for the provision of international telecommunications services, Telecom Decision CRTC 98-17, 1 October 1998. Therefore, there is no need to impose a condition pursuant to section 24 of the Act as was done in Decision 97-20.
|
|
|
Section 25
|
|
36.
|
Section 25 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
25. (1) No Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by the Commission that specifies the rate or the maximum or minimum rate, or both, to be charged for the service.
|
|
|
(2) A joint tariff agreed on by two or more Canadian carriers may be filed by any of the carriers with an attestation of the agreement of the other carriers.
|
|
|
(3) A tariff shall be filed and published or otherwise made available for public inspection by a Canadian carrier in the form and manner specified by the Commission and shall include any information required by the Commission to be included.
|
|
|
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commission may ratify the charging of a rate by a Canadian carrier otherwise than in accordance with a tariff approved by the Commission if the Commission is satisfied that the rate
|
|
|
(a) was charged because of an error or other circumstance that warrants the ratification; or
|
|
|
(b) was imposed in conformity with the laws of a province before the operations of the carrier were regulated under any Act of Parliament.
|
|
37.
|
The Commission considers it appropriate that the affected ILECs no longer be required to file tariffs and obtain the Commission's approval in respect of the forborne services in this decision. Accordingly, the Commission will refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under section 25 of the Act with respect to the forborne services in this decision.
|
|
|
Section 27
|
|
38.
|
Section 27 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
27. (1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.
|
|
|
(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.
|
|
|
(3) The Commission may determine in any case, as a question of fact, whether a Canadian carrier has complied with section 25, this section or section 29, or with any decision made under section 24, 25, 29, 34 or 40.
|
|
|
(4) The burden of establishing before the Commission that any discrimination is not unjust or that any preference or disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable is on the Canadian carrier that discriminates, gives the preference or subjects the person to the disadvantage.
|
|
|
(5) In determining whether a rate is just and reasonable, the Commission may adopt any method or technique that it considers appropriate, whether based on a carrier's return on its rate base or otherwise.
|
|
|
(6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a Canadian carrier may provide telecommunications services at no charge or at a reduced rate
|
|
|
(a) to the carrier's directors, officers, employees or former employees; or
|
|
|
(b) with the approval of the Commission, to any charitable organization or disadvantaged person or other person.
|
|
39.
|
The Commission considers that there is no need to apply the regulatory standards for "just and reasonable" rates to rates that are set in a competitive market. Accordingly, the Commission will refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under subsection 27(1) of the Act with respect to the services forborne from in this decision. Similarly, the Commission will refrain from the exercise of all of its powers and the performance of all of its duties under subsection 27(2) of the Act.
|
|
40.
|
However, the Commission considers it necessary to retain its powers under subsection 27(3) of the Act with respect to compliance with powers and duties not forborne from in this decision.
|
|
41.
|
The Commission will also forbear from all of its powers under subsections 27(4), (5) and (6) of the Act, since these subsections relate to subsections 27(1) and (2) of the Act with respect to which the Commission is forbearing in this decision.
|
|
|
Section 29
|
|
42.
|
Section 29 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
29. No Canadian carrier shall, without the prior approval of the Commission, give effect to any agreement or arrangement, whether oral or written, with another telecommunications common carrier respecting
|
|
|
(a) the interchange of telecommunications by means of their telecommunications facilities;
|
|
|
(b) the management or operation of either or both of their facilities or any other facilities with which either or both are connected; or
|
|
|
(c) the apportionment of rates or revenues between the carriers.
|
|
43.
|
The Commission considers it appropriate to continue to exercise its powers under section 29 of the Act to the extent discussed in Decision 97-20.
|
|
|
Section 31
|
|
44.
|
Section 31 of the Act provides:
|
|
|
31. No limitation of a Canadian carrier's liability in respect of a telecommunications service is effective unless it has been authorized or prescribed by the Commission.
|
|
45.
|
The Commission considers it appropriate that the affected ILECs be able to limit their liability with respect to the provision of the forborne services on the routes listed in Appendix 3. Any provision limiting liability in existing contracts or arrangements will continue to remain in force until their expiry. A contract or arrangement will be deemed to terminate on the date or in the manner provided therein as of the date of this decision, notwithstanding extensions provided for therein.
|
|
|
Declaration pursuant to subsection 34(4) of the Act
|
|
46.
|
In light of the above, the Commission declares, pursuant to subsection 34(4) of the Act, that sections 24, 25, 27 and 31 of the Act do not apply to the affected ILECs' high capacity and DDS IXPL services on the routes identified in Appendix 3, except with respect to:
|
|
|
a) the conditions pursuant to section 24 of the Act set out in this decision with respect to the confidentiality of customer information;
|
|
|
b) any future condition that the Commission may impose, pursuant to section 24 of the Act;
|
|
|
c) the Commission's powers under subsection 27(3) of the Act with respect to compliance with powers and duties not forborne from in this decision; and
|
|
|
d) the Commission's powers under section 29 of the Act with respect to the Commission's approval of agreements or arrangements with other telecommunications common carriers.
|
|
47.
|
The Commission notes that the scope of forbearance hereby granted is the same as that granted in Decision 97-20.
|
|
|
Tariff filings
|
|
48.
|
The Commission directs the affected ILECs to issue tariff pages forthwith removing the tariffs for the services on the routes identified in Appendix 3, effective on the date of issuance of the tariff pages.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Appendix 1
|
|
|
Routes for which TCI requested forbearance
|
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Abbotsford (also serving Matsqui)
|
|
|
|
Cloverdale (serving part of Surrey)
|
|
|
|
Ft. Langley (serving part of Langley)
|
|
|
|
Haney (serving part of Maple Ridge)
|
|
|
|
Ladner (serving part of Delta)
|
|
|
|
Langley
|
|
|
|
Newton (serving parts of Surrey and Delta)
|
|
|
|
North Vancouver
|
|
|
|
Pitt Meadows (serving part of Maple Ridge)
|
|
|
|
Port Coquitlam (also serving part of Coquitlam)
|
|
|
|
Port Moody (also serving part of Coquitlam)
|
|
|
|
West Vancouver
|
|
|
|
Whalley (serving part of Surrey)
|
|
|
|
White Rock (also serving part of Surrey)
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Oyama
|
|
|
|
Vernon
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
|
Fort McMurray
|
|
|
|
Grande Prairie
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
|
Medicine Hat
|
|
|
In reply, dated 26 August 2002, TCI stated that, at a minimum, the Commission should forbear from the following routes:
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Abbotsford
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Vernon
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Medicine Hat
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Fort McMurray
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Grande Prairie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix 2
|
|
|
IXPL routes submitted by competitors
|
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
|
Group Telecom, reporting IXPL routes, filed in confidence on 12 June 2002 and filed on the public record on 16 August 2002:
|
|
|
Victoria
|
Nanaimo
|
|
|
Victoria
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Kelowna
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Kamloops
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Calgary
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Edmonton
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Montréal
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Penticton
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Vernon
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Kamloops
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Calgary
|
|
|
Kamloops
|
Prince George
|
|
|
Kamloops
|
Calgary
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Lethbridge
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Fort McMurray
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Medicine Hat
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Saskatoon
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Ottawa
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Montréal
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Fort McMurray
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Saskatoon
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Ottawa
|
|
|
Winnipeg
|
Hamilton
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Kitchener
|
|
|
Toronto
|
London
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Ottawa
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Montréal
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Hamilton
|
Kitchener
|
|
|
Hamilton
|
London
|
|
|
Kitchener
|
London
|
|
|
Ottawa
|
Montréal
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Québec City
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Québec City
|
Moncton
|
|
|
Québec City
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Fredericton
|
Edmundston
|
|
|
Fredericton
|
Moncton
|
|
|
Fredericton
|
Halifax
|
|
|
St. John
|
Edmundston
|
|
|
St. John
|
Moncton
|
|
|
St. John
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Edmundston
|
Moncton
|
|
|
Edmundston
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Moncton
|
Halifax
|
|
|
AT&T Canada, reporting IXPL routes on 12 April 2002, pursuant to Order 99-434:
|
|
|
Blaine
|
Richmond
|
|
|
Blaine
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Blaine
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Edmonton
|
|
|
Lethbridge
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
New Westminster
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Richmond
|
|
|
Neche
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Brampton
|
Detroit
|
|
|
Hamilton
|
Kingston
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Montréal
|
|
|
Kingston
|
Ottawa
|
|
|
Markham
|
Ottawa
|
|
|
Burlington
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Kanata
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Ottawa
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Peace Bridge
|
Streetsville
|
|
|
Detroit
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Fort Erie
|
Toronto
|
|
|
London
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Malton
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Ottawa
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Peace Bridge
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Streetsville
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Oshawa
|
Unionville
|
|
|
Peace Bridge
|
Unionville
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Unionville
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
London
|
Windsor
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Mooers Forks
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Ottawa
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Mooers Forks
|
|
|
Saskatoon
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
AT&T Canada, reporting new IXPL routes on 1 October 2002, pursuant to Order 99-434:
|
|
|
Nelson
|
Kelowna
|
|
|
Detroit
|
New Glasgow
|
|
|
Detroit
|
Oshawa
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Québec
|
|
|
Oshawa
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Oshawa
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Peace Bridge
|
Welland
|
|
|
Abbotsford
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
BWI, reporting new IXPL routes on 27 September 2002, pursuant to Order 99-434:
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Lethbridge
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Medicine Hat
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Fort McMurray
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Grande Prairie
|
|
|
Kamloops
|
Kelowna
|
|
|
Kamloops
|
Prince George
|
|
|
Kamloops
|
Vernon
|
|
|
Nanaimo
|
Victoria
|
|
|
Regina
|
Saskatoon
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Abbotsford
|
|
|
Navigata, reporting IXPL routes on 2 October 2002, pursuant to Order 99-434:
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Victoria
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Nanaimo
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Whistler
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Kelowna
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Kamloops
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Prince George
|
|
|
Prince George
|
Williams Lake
|
|
|
Prince George
|
Quesnel
|
|
|
Prince George
|
Terrace
|
|
|
Prince George
|
Dawson Creek
|
|
|
Prince George
|
Fort St. John
|
|
|
Nexxia, reporting IXPL routes on 15 May 2002, pursuant to the CRTC staff letter:
|
|
|
From any of Ottawa, Montréal, Toronto, Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, to any of:
|
|
|
Mooers Forks
|
|
|
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
|
Sarnia
|
|
|
|
Emerson
|
|
|
|
Victoria
|
|
|
|
Bell Canada, reporting IXPL routes pursuant to the CRTC staff letter, filed on the public record on 15 May 2002, and filed in confidence in April 2002:
|
|
|
All possible pairs between the following exchanges:
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
|
|
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
|
|
|
Donnacona
|
|
|
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
|
|
|
Sept-Îles
|
|
|
|
Baie Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
|
Call-Net, filing IXPL routes on 15 April 2002, pursuant to Order 99-434:
|
|
|
All routes between any two of the following exchanges:
|
|
|
Kamloops, New Westminster, Vancouver, Victoria
|
|
|
Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer
|
|
|
Saskatoon, Regina
|
|
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
Belleville, Brampton, Brantford, Guelph
|
|
|
Hamilton, Kitchener, London, Oshawa
|
|
|
Sarnia, Stratford, St. Catharines, Sudbury
|
|
|
Thunder Bay, Toronto
|
|
|
Montréal, Québec City
|
|
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Call-Net, filing IXPL routes on 11 October 2002, pursuant to Order 99-434:
|
|
|
All routes between any two of the following exchanges:
|
|
|
Kamloops, New Westminster, Vancouver, Victoria
|
|
|
Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer
|
|
|
Saskatoon, Regina
|
|
|
Winnipeg
|
|
|
Belleville, Brampton, Brantford, Guelph
|
|
|
Hamilton, Kitchener, London, Oshawa
|
|
|
Ottawa, Sarnia, Stratford, St. Catharines
|
|
|
Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Toronto
|
|
|
Montréal, Québec City
|
|
|
Halifax
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix 3
|
|
|
In this decision, the Commission forbears from regulating IXPL services on routes between the following pairs of exchanges or border crossings:
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
Montmagny
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
Donnacona
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
Sept-Îles
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
Rimouski
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
Donnacona
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
Sept-Îles
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
Montmagny
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
Donnacona
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
Sept-Îles
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
Ste-Marie-de-Beauce
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
Donnacona
|
|
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
|
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
Sept-Îles
|
|
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
St-Georges-de-Beauce
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
Donnacona
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
|
|
Donnacona
|
Sept-Îles
|
|
|
Donnacona
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
Donnacona
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
Donnacona
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
Sept-Îles
|
|
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
St-Augustin-de-Desmaures
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
Sept-Îles
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
|
|
Sept-Îles
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
Sept-Îles
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
Bonaventure
|
|
|
Baie-Comeau/Hauterive
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
Bonaventure
|
Gaspé
|
|
|
Lethbridge
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
Blaine
|
Richmond
|
|
|
Blaine
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Neche
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Brampton
|
Detroit
|
|
|
Kingston
|
Ottawa
|
|
|
Burlington
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Kanata
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Oshawa
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Ottawa
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Unionville
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Welland
|
Peace Bridge
|
|
|
Fort Erie
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Streetsville
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Oshawa
|
Unionville
|
|
|
London
|
Windsor
|
|
|
Mooers Forks
|
Toronto
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Abbotsford
|
|
|
Saskatoon
|
Regina
|
|
|
Kamloops
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Victoria
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Saskatoon
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Winnipeg
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Guelph
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
London
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Stratford
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Thunder Bay
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Montréal
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Halifax
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
New Westminster
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Regina
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Brampton
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Hamilton
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Oshawa
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Ottawa
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
St. Catharines
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Toronto
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Québec City
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Brantford
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Kitchener
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Sarnia
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Sudbury
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Red Deer
|
|
|
Québec City
|
Vancouver
|
|
|
Victoria
|
Nanaimo
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Penticton
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Vernon
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Kamloops
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Nelson
|
|
|
Kelowna
|
Calgary
|
|
|
Kamloops
|
Prince George
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Lethbridge
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Fort McMurray
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Medicine Hat
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Fort McMurray
|
|
|
Québec City
|
Moncton
|
|
|
Fredericton
|
Edmundston
|
|
|
Fredericton
|
Moncton
|
|
|
Fredericton
|
Halifax
|
|
|
St. John
|
Edmundston
|
|
|
Edmundston
|
Moncton
|
|
|
Moncton
|
Halifax
|
|
|
Victoria
|
Emerson
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Emerson
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Emerson
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Emerson
|
|
|
Saskatoon
|
Emerson
|
|
|
Regina
|
Emerson
|
|
|
Winnipeg
|
Emerson
|
|
|
Victoria
|
Victoria cable terminus
|
|
|
Vancouver
|
Victoria cable terminus
|
|
|
Calgary
|
Victoria cable terminus
|
|
|
Edmonton
|
Victoria cable terminus
|
|
|
Saskatoon
|
Victoria cable terminus
|
|
|
Regina
|
Victoria cable terminus
|
|
|
Winnipeg
|
Victoria cable terminus
|
|
|
Detroit
|
New Glasgow
|
|
|
Detroit
|
Oshawa
|
Date Modified: 2003-05-09
|