ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2004-50

This page has been archived on the Web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 2004-50

  Ottawa, 19 February 2004

Aliant Telecom Inc.

  Reference: Tariff Notice 115

Migration of a service to the Aliant Telecom General Tariff


The Commission received an application by Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), dated 24 November 2003, proposing to migrate the following tariff items to Aliant Telecom's General Tariff item 650, Voice Messaging Integration:
  • Island Telecom Inc.'s General Tariff items 815.1(a) and (f);
  • Maritime Tel & Tel Limited's General Tariff item 1625.2(a);
  • NBTel Inc.'s Special Services Tariff item 5800.2(3); and
  • NewTel Communications Inc.'s General Tariff items 370.25.3(d) and (e).


Aliant Telecom also proposed the following changes to its Voice Messaging Integration service:
  • to introduce a lower uniform rate across the Aliant Telecom region;
  • to change the service description in New Brunswick to include the Message Waiting Indicator feature; and
  • to change the service in Newfoundland and Labrador to remove the standard service charge levy at the time of activation of this feature, since the costing reflects the service activation costs in the monthly recurring charge.


Aliant Telecom submitted that the amendments noted above would align the price and service description of Voice Messaging Integration services across Aliant Telecom's serving territory.


Aliant Telecom noted that Voice Messaging Integration was classified as a Category I Competitor Service pursuant to Regulatory framework for the second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002. Aliant Telecom indicated that it therefore set the rate for this service at causal costs plus a mark-up of 15%.


Aliant Telecom also proposed to introduce a new service, Call Forward Busy/No Answer with message waiting indication, under General Tariff item 304, Enhanced Local Calling Features. Aliant Telecom proposed to provide this service to its retail customers at a monthly rate of $1.75. Aliant Telecom proposed that Call Forward Busy/No Answer be classified as a residential optional service for the purpose of price caps, to be included in the high-cost serving areas (HCSAs) and non-high-cost serving areas (non-HCSAs) residential services sub-baskets as appropriate.


In support of its application, Aliant Telecom provided a cost study for each service.


The Commission received no comments with respect to the application.


The Commission notes that the proposed rate for a service must satisfy the imputation test. The Commission further notes that the imputation test is the accepted method, under the current regulatory regime, of determining whether the proposed rates would be anti-competitive.


Aliant Telecom's cost study in support of Voice Messaging Integration demonstrates that the proposed rate would recover the company's Phase II costs for providing this service plus a 15% mark-up. The Commission therefore finds that the proposed rate for Voice Messaging Integration service satisfies the imputation test.


The Commission notes that, pursuant to Telecom Order CRTC 98-784, 12 August 1998, the underlying Voice Messaging Integration service component should have been reflected at its tariff rate in the costs for Call Forward Busy/No Answer service, which Aliant Telecom failed to do. The Commission is nevertheless satisfied that the proposed rate for Call Forward Busy/No Answer service would satisfy an imputation test where the underlying Voice Messaging Integration service component was included at its tariff rate.


In Follow-up to Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34 - Service basket assignment, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-11, 18 March 2003 (Decision 2003-11), the Commission assigned the retail component of MessageManager - Call Forward Busy/Call Forward No Answer service to the residential optional local services sub-baskets in HCSAs and in non-HCSAs for the service provided to residential customers, and to the uncapped services for the service provided to business customers.


Accordingly, the Commission considers that Aliant Telecom's proposed classification of Call Forward Busy/No Answer service as a residential optional service is inconsistent with Decision 2003-11. The Commission finds that the revenues for this service should be assigned to the appropriate service baskets as indicated in Decision 2003-11.


The Commission approves Aliant Telecom's application, with the service assignment as determined above. The revisions take effect as of 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:

Date Modified: 2004-02-19

Date modified: