ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8740-M5-200501644 - Tariff Notice 35 – Voice mail/Call answer service
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOttawa, 22 February 2005 File No.: 8740-M5-200501644
By Fax and E-mail
Mr. Richard Banks Dear Mr. Banks: Re: Tariff Notice 35 - Voice mail/Call answer service On 16 February 2005 , the Commission received an application from Mornington Communications Co-operative Limited (Mornington) under cover of Tariff Notice 35, which proposes revisions to its General Tariff, section 820, Voice mail/Call answer service, to provide customers with an incentive to purchase additional Voice mail/Call answer services and to introduce Business connect voice mail services. In Regulatory framework for the small incumbent telephone companies , Decision CRTC 2001-756, 14 December 2001 , the Commission assigned the above noted services to the fourth basket. The Commission determined that rates for services in the fourth basket would generally be permitted to increase up to any already approved rate for the same service and that tariff applications should reference when and where the Commission had approved that rate. The Commission also determined that, for rate increases that would go beyond an already approved rate, an economic study must accompany the application. Commission staff notes that the start date for the proposed customer incentive, specified on page 2 of section 820 in the tariff, is inconsistent with the proposed date noted in the cover letter. In addition, the company did not provide the appropriate reference to an already approved rate in relation to its proposed Business connect voice mail services, or submit an economic study in support of such proposed rate. Consequently, this application is closed. However, the Commission is open to examining a new application from the company containing the missing information. The application must be filed under cover of a new tariff notice. Sincerely, 'Original signed by S. Hutton '
Scott Hutton cc: Cliff Abbott, CRTC (819) 997-4509 Date modified: 2005-02-22 |
- Date modified: