ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOur Files: see Attachment 1 Ottawa, 22 June 2007 BY E-MAIL TO: Email distribution - Attachment 2 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Approach to the handling of certain competitor services applications In this letter, the Commission sets out its approach with respect to the handling of various applications related to competitor services identified in Parts I, II, and III below, in light of the following:
I. Applications to Review Competitor Service Costs a) Services with rates approved on a final basis The following applications request that the Commission review costs associated with certain ILECs' competitor services:
(the Part I(a) Applications) The Commission notes that rates for the above services are approved on a final basis. The Commission notes that the costs associated with the rates for the competitor billing and collection service which are the subject of Yak's application contain a significant expense component. The Commission further notes that TCC's applications reflect proposed cost changes with respect to its competitor AT/DC and co-location power services that contain a significant expense component. The Commission notes that the question of appropriate expense inclusions is under active consideration in the Phase II review proceeding, and that this proceeding, as stated in Public Notice 2007-4, is considering a limited number of issues to ensure its timely completion, with a decision expected by 120 days from the close of record (mid-February 2008). In the Commission's view, the Part 1(a) Applications raise issues that may be materially affected by the Commission's determinations in the Phase II review proceeding. In light of the above, the applicants are invited to resubmit their applications subsequent to the Commission's Decision in the Phase II review proceeding, taking into account the determinations made in that proceeding. In the meantime, the files have been closed. The Commission notes that TNs 580/4267 and 579/4266 pertain to services in respect of which the Commission has made determinations in Decisions that are the subject of review and vary applications by each of Bell Canada and TCC (the Review and Vary Applications). Specifically, the Review and Vary Applications request that the Commission review and vary Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel and TCI - Approval of rates on a final basis for Access Tandem service , Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-22, 27 April 2006, Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel and TCI - Approval of rates on a final basis for Direct Connection service , Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-23, 27 April 2006, and Bell Canada and TCC - Co-location power service rates , Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-42, 30 June 2006. The Commission notes that the Review and Vary Applications allege specific costing errors and raise other issues, including the matter of retroactive rates. The Review and Vary Applications remain before the Commission for disposition. b) Services with rates approved on an interim basis The Commission is also considering the following TNs in the context of reviewing the costs associated with the competitor 800 Carrier ID service offered by Bell Canada, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant), MTS Allstream, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) and TCC:
Bell Canada TN 6995; (the Part I(b) Applications) The Commission notes that rates for these ILECs' 800 Carrier ID service are currently approved on an interim basis, and were made interim for the purposes of reviewing the associated costs. The Commission notes, however, that these costs also contain a significant expense component and therefore raise issues that may be materially affected by the Commission's determinations in the Phase II review proceeding. In addition, the Commission is also considering Bell Canada TN 6622, TCC TN 72, and Bell Aliant TN 100 [1] with respect to unbundled ADSL services. The Commission notes that these TNs also raise issues that may be materially affected by the Commission's determinations in the Phase II review proceeding. In light of the above, the Commission will defer further consideration of the Part I(b) Applications pending its determinations in the Phase II review proceeding. The Commission expects that rates for these ILEC services, when approved on a final basis, will not be applied retroactively. II. TNs related to the Ethernet and ADSL Appeals The Commission has received the following TNs:
(the Part II Applications) The Commission notes that the Part II Applications raise issues that are under consideration in, or may be materially affected by, the Commission's determinations with respect to the Ethernet and ADSL Appeals. In light of the above, the Commission will defer further consideration of the Part II Applications pending its determinations with respect to the Ethernet and ADSL Appeals. III. Other Applications The Commission has also received the following applications filed pursuant to Part VII of the Rules:
(the Part III Applications) The Commission notes that the Part III Applications raise issues that are under consideration in the Ethernet and ADSL Appeals, such as with respect to the regulation of non-essential services.
In light of the above, the Commission will defer further consideration of the Part III Applications pending its determinations with respect to the Ethernet and ADSL Appeals. Yours sincerely, ' Original signed by R. A. Morin'
Robert A. Morin Attach. [1] The Commission notes that Bell Aliant TN 100 does not have interim approval. Commission staff issued a letter dated 20 December 2002 in which it included Bell Aliant in the combined process to consider Bell TN 6622 and TCC TN 72. Attachment 1 File Numbers: I. Applications to Review Competitor Services Costs a) Services with rates approved on a final basis b) Services with rates approved on an interim basis
II. Tariff Notices related to the Ethernet and ADSL Appeals III. Other Applications Attachment 2 Distribution List: reglementa@telebec.qc.ca ; bell.regulatory@bell.ca ; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com ; regulatory.matters@aliant.ca ; document.control@sasktel.sk.ca ; regulatory.affairs@telus.com ; ataylor@personainc.ca ; regaffairs@quebecor.com ; lockie@globalive.com ; Christian.tacit@cybersurf.com; Date Modified: 2007-06-22 |
- Date modified: