ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2003-197

Telecom Order CRTC 2003-197

Ottawa, 22 May 2003

Bell Canada

Reference: Tariff Notice 6697

Channels for data transmission

1.

The Commission received an application by Bell Canada, dated 28 October 2002, proposing revisions to the company's General Tariff item 4660, Channels for Data Transmission. Bell Canada proposed to charge for the multi-point feature when it is used in conjunction with schedule 1, 2, 3, 3A and teletype interexchange circuits.

2.

Bell Canada submitted that in Telecom Order CRTC 94-803, 13 July 1994, the Commission approved a multi-point feature charge for schedule 1, 2, 3, 3A and teletype-grade channels that were classified as intraexchange channels. Bell Canada indicated that the charge had not been applied for the use of the multi-point feature for schedule 1, 2, 3 and 3A and teletype channels that were classified as interexchange channels. Bell Canada proposed to apply the same multi-point feature charge to interexchange channels as applies to the use of the multi-point feature on intraexchange channels.

3.

Bell Canada submitted that the proposed tariff revisions had no impact on the company's price cap indices since there was no change to the existing rate for the multi-point feature.

4.

Bell Canada provided an economic study demonstrating that even with the proposed tariff revisions, the service would continue to be non-compensatory.

5.

The Commission received comments from the Canadian Alarm and Securities Association (CANASA), on 27 November 2002. CANASA requested that the Commission deny Bell Canada's application.

6.

CANASA stated that its members made substantial use of Bell Canada's interexchange multi-point schedule 3A channels to provide alarm services to their respective customers. CANASA noted that its member companies generally provided their services on an annual contract basis to their customers. CANASA argued that Bell Canada did not provide enough notice to allow the companies time to recover the proposed rate increase from their customers.

7.

CANASA submitted that Bell Canada should have filed price cap information because, in its view, the proposal introduced a new rate element for a different service.

8.

In its reply dated 6 December 2002, Bell Canada stated that it presented its proposal to CANASA representatives in May 2002, therefore providing sufficient prior notice.

9.

With respect to CANASA's argument regarding the filing of price cap information, Bell Canada noted that, even if the Commission were to accept CANASA's position that the proposed rate element is a new rate element for a different service, the proposal would still have no price cap impact since it would have no weight in a price cap basket.

10.

The Commission notes that in its application, Bell Canada proposed to start charging for the multi-point feature used in conjunction with interexchange circuits which has always been provided at no charge. The Commission finds that the proposed charge for the multi-point feature used with interexchange circuits constitutes a rate increase. The Commission therefore considers that the proposed charge would have an impact on the price cap index for the other capped services basket, and should therefore be supported with price cap information. The Commission notes that although Bell Canada filed an economic study in support of its application, it did not file price cap information.

11.

In light of the above, Tariff Notice 6697 is denied.

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