ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-B2-200504680
This page has been archived on the Web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, 13 May 2005 File No: 8740-B2-200504680 BY E-MAIL
Mr. David Palmer - and - Interested Parties to Bell Canada Tariff Notice 6866 RE: Revised Process for Bell Canada Tariff Notice 6866: 3-1-1 Service On 15 April 2005 , Bell Canada filed Tariff Notice (TN 6866) to introduce General Tariff item 6001, 3-1-1 Service pursuant to Assignment of 3-1-1 for non-emergency municipal government services , Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-71, 5 November 2004 (Decision 2004-71). On 3 May 2005, the City of Toronto of behalf of itself, the City of Calgary, the Halifax Regional Municipality, La Ville de Gatineau, La Ville de Montreal and the Regional Municipality of Halton (collectively, Toronto et al.) filed comments, requesting that:
Commission's determination Request for interim direction The Commission, in Telecom Order CRTC 2005-117, dated 13 May 2005 , granted interim approval to TN 6866. T he Commission considered that municipalities would be able to proceed with the implementation of 3-1-1 service pending the completion of this proceeding, where the municipality has provided notice as required by Decision 2004-71 to the telecommunications service providers (TSPs ) of the municipality's intention to implement 3-1-1. Request for a public notice With respect to the request to issue a public notice, the Commission notes that Toronto et al. stated that no party in the proceeding leading to Decision 2004-71 had provided details regarding the costs of implementing 3-1-1 service. The Commission notes however, that in paragraph 81 of Decision 2004-71, the Commission did address the costing issue raised by certain parties when it directed the TSPs to assume, on an incremental basis, the costs of the basic switch modifications and network changes necessary for the implementation of 3-1-1 service. Further, in paragraph 83 of Decision 2004-71, the Commission noted that where municipal and exchange boundaries were not the same, the TSPs would incur additional costs in order to provision 3-1-1 service to correspond to municipal boundaries. The Commission noted that where 9-1-1 service had been implemented based on municipal boundaries, rather than exchange boundaries, the parties had agreed to this. The Commission considered that where the exchange boundary and the municipal boundary are different, the routing arrangements should be based on the exchange boundaries, unless otherwise agreed to by the municipality and the TSPs operating in that area. The Commission was of the view that if special routing arrangements are made, at a municipality's request, the TSPs should not bear the cost of provisioning to those specifications. The Commission is of the view that a public notice is not required in order for it to deal with the new issues raised by interveners in this proceeding. The Commission is however issuing a revised schedule below with regard to TN 6866 so as to allow Toronto et al. the time to respond. Revised Schedule
Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date. Sincerely, 'Original signed by J. Keogh' (for)
Diane Rheaume Date Modified: 2005-05-13 |
- Date modified: