Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-M59-200712530

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Letter

Ottawa, 13 September 2007

File No.  8740-M59-200712530

BY E-MAIL

Mr. John Maksimow
Tariffs Manager, Regulatory Affairs
MTS Allstream

John.maksimow@mtsallstream.com

Dear Mr. Maksimow:

Re:   MTS Tariff Notice 632

On 31 August 2007, the Commission received an application by MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), under cover of Tariff Notice 632, proposing revisions to General Tariff Item 400 - Exchange Service and Item 475 - Rate Schedule for Primary Exchange Service, and the addition of a new General Tariff Item 472 - Forborne Residential Local Exchange Services . The application was filed pursuant to MTS Allstream Inc. - Application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services , Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-63, 3 August 2007 (Telecom Decision 2007-63).  

MTS Allstream's proposed Item 472 reflects, among other things, the incumbent local exchange carriers' specific conditions and obligations set out in Forbearance from regulation of retail local exchange services , Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, 6 April 2006, as amended by the Governor in Council's Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 , P.C. 2007-532, 4 April 2007.   Commission staff considers that, although consumers should be made aware of these specific conditions and obligations, they should not be reflected in the company's tariffs.  

Further, with respect to Item 472.B of the tariff application pertaining to generic tariffed services and service charges, Commission staff notes that in Decision 2007-63 the Commission stated:

The remaining 10 services were excluded from the scope of eligible local exchange services in List of services within the scope of the proceeding on forbearance from the regulation of local exchange services , Telecom Decision 2005-35 CRTC, 15 June 2005, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-35-1, 14 July 2005, because they were either generic services or service bundles. In that Decision, the Commission noted that:

  i)   tariffs for generic services apply not only to local exchange services, but also to other telecommunications services, and when it forbore from regulating a particular local exchange service, the relevant generic service tariffs would no longer apply to that forborne service; and

  ii) tariff approval is not required for a bundle that does not include any tariffed service.

Commission staff considers that the company's inclusion of Item 472.B reflecting generic tariffed services and service charges is not consistent with the Commission's determinations.

Consequently, the file is now closed.

However, the Commission is open to examining a new application from the company.   The application must be filed under a new tariff notice.  

Yours sincerely,

'Original signed by P. Godin'

Paul Godin
Director General,
Competition, Costing and Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc:    Joanne Baldassi, CRTC (819) 997-4576

Date Modified: 2007-09-13
Date modified: