ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2004-104
This page has been archived on the Web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 2004-104 |
|
| Ottawa, 31 March 2004 | |
Téléphone Guèvremont inc. |
|
| Reference: Tariff Notice 33 | |
Pay telephone service with customer-provided equipment |
|
|
1. |
The Commission received an application by Téléphone Guèvremont inc. (Guèvremont), dated 10 October 2003, to revise its General Tariff in order to introduce item 13, Pay Telephone Service with Customer-Provided Equipment, under section 2.13. |
|
2. |
The Commission received comments from Bell Canada dated 10 November 2003, the Ontario Telecommunications Association (OTA) dated 13 November 2003, the Canadian Alliance of Publicly-Owned Telecommunications Systems (CAPTS) and l'Association des Compagnies de Téléphone du Québec (ACTQ) dated 17 November 2003. |
|
3. |
Bell Canada submitted that Guèvremont's application should be part of a broader review to introduce local competition in the serving territories of the small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). The OTA submitted that the tariff proposal should be treated as an isolated and specific application and should not be used as a precedent to introduce local pay telephone competition in the serving territories of other small ILECs. CAPTS submitted that Guèvremont's application was premature as it was filed prior to a Commission proceeding dealing with all of the issues surrounding the introduction of local competition in the serving territories of the small ILECs. The ACTQ submitted that the application had nothing to do with the current regulatory framework for pay telephones or any other local service offered by Guèvremont. ACTQ argued that Guèvremont's tariff proposal should be interpreted as a request to allow a third party to provide pay telephone service, the reason being that Guèvremont was not interested in providing that service. |
|
4. |
Guèvremont did not reply to the comments. |
|
5. |
On 4 February 2004, Guèvremont, the OTA, CAPTS and the ACTQ were requested to answer interrogatories. The Commission received responses from the ACTQ on 13 February 2004, and from the OTA and CAPTS on 18 February 2004. |
|
6. |
Although Guèvremont did not respond to the Commission's interrogatories, in a letter dated 19 February 2004, it requested the Commission's approval to withdraw its application. The company indicated that it had underestimated the impact that approval of its tariff proposal could have on the introduction of local competition in the small ILECs' serving territories. Guèvremont agreed that the issues raised by its application should be examined in the context of a proceeding to consider the introduction of local competition, of which local pay telephone competition is a component. |
|
7. |
The Commission approves Guèvremont's request to withdraw its application. |
| 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 |
Date Modified: 2004-03-31
- Date modified: