ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-S22-200613358

This page has been archived on the Web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.


Ottawa, 8 November 2006

File No.: 8740-S22-200613358

By E-mail

Mr. Brian Armstrong
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Saskatchewan Telecommunications
2121 Saskatchewan Drive
Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P 3Y2

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

Re:   Tariff Notice 125 - Destandardization of Microlink Service Term Contracts

On 26 October 2006, the Commission received an application by Saskatchwan Telecommunications (SaskTel), under cover of Tariff Notice 125, in which it proposed to destandardize the contract terms for year 1, year 3 and year 5 presently offered under SaskTel's General Tariff, Item 110.34 Microlink Service.

Commission staff notes that in New procedures for disposition of applications dealing with the destandardization and/or withdrawal of tariffed services, Telecom Circular CRTC 2005-7, 30 May 2005 (Circular 2005-7), the Commission established clear procedures to be followed for tariff applications dealing with the destandardization of tariffed services.   At paragraph 19 of Circular 2005-7, the Commission established an obligation to provide affected customers with written notice of applications to destandardize an existing tariffed service and set out the information to be contained in the notice.

Commission staff notes that Circular 2005-7 required that the notice sent out to affected customers include information regarding the availability of a substitute service, with accompanying rationale as to why such an alternative would be reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the same geographic area, and cost.

Commission staff notes that SaskTel's sample notice letter does not provide sufficient information regarding the availability of alternatives to the destandardized service and, accordingly, does not fulfill the requirements set out at paragraph 19 of Circular 2005-7.

Consequently, this application has been closed.

The Commission is open to examining a new application from SaskTel that meets the requirements of Circular 2005-7.   The application must be filed under cover of a new tariff notice.

Yours sincerely,

'Original signed by P. Godin'

Paul M. Godin
A/Director General
Competition, Costing & Tariffs

cc    Eric Bowles, CRTC, 819-953-5672,

Date Modified: 2006-11-08

Date modified: