ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2007-50

Telecom Order CRTC 2007-50

TELUS Communications Company

Alberta Manual 150 Mobile Telephone Service

Introduction

1.

2.

Background

3.

a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn;

b) proposed date for destandardization;

c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service;

d) type of destandardization;

e) rationale for the application;

f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it is reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and ongoing costs to the customer);

g) the transition plan;

h) relevant information concerning existing customers, such as the number of customers affected;

i) a copy of the notice to affected customers; and

j) any other information the applicant believes is relevant.

4.

5.

TCC's application

6.

a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn

TCC proposed to withdraw former TCI General Tariff item 270 - Alberta Manual 150 Mobile Telephone Service.

b) proposed date for destandardization

TCC submitted that its application was for the withdrawal of a tariffed service rather than for a service destandardization. TCC further submitted that it was not proposing to destandardize the service prior to withdrawing it since MMS was only available in two areas in Alberta, it had received no new demands for MMS in more than three years, and MMS availability was threatened by a lack of equipment and facilities.

c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service

TCC requested an effective withdrawal date of 1 February 2007 if its application was approved by 15 January 2007. If approval was not granted before 15 January 2007, TCC requested a minimum of two weeks between the approval date and the effective withdrawal date in order for the company to notify the affected customers and grant them sufficient time to finalize alternative service arrangements.

d) type of destandardization

The company submitted that this criterion was not relevant.

e) rationale for the application

TCC indicated that it currently operated only two mobile towers in its incumbent serving territory in Alberta that were associated with MMS. The company also indicated that each tower provided approximately a 15 kilometre radius coverage for MMS.

TCC submitted that the infrastructure and technology used to deliver this service were obsolete, and that equipment and replacement parts were no longer produced. TCC indicated that the equipment needed to provide MMS was no longer supported by the original vendor or any other commercial source. The company stated that repairs and upgrades to the affected system were only possible with parts that had been recycled from the company's internal inventory or from equipment recovered from former MMS customers.

TCC submitted that no new requests for MMS had been received in the three years preceding its application. TCC stated that demand and revenue associated with this service had been steadily declining over the past decade to such a point that MMS was no longer economically sustainable for the company without a substantial rate increase for the remaining customers. Data on demand and revenue associated with MMS were provided to the Commission in confidence.

TCC indicated that all remaining customers were commercial businesses and that the majority of them did not actively use MMS, but rather retained it as backup for other telecommunications services.

f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it is reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and ongoing costs to the customer)

TCC submitted that superior and affordable substitutes for MMS were readily available through cellular or satellite telephone services. TCC also submitted that cellular telephone service in particular was an affordable alternative given the variety of sales promotions and service plans being offered, and given what MMS customers might have to pay if TCC were to increase the price of this service in order to cover the costs associated with its delivery.

In terms of functionality, TCC submitted that both cellular and satellite telephone services constituted far superior service alternatives. TCC highlighted that MMS did not support modern calling features such as call display, that only one customer could speak at a time given that MMS was transmitted in simplex mode, and that all MMS calls had to go through a TCC mobile service operator. TCC indicated that the operator then placed all calls to, from, and between MMS customers. TCC added that MMS did not have any data or Internet capabilities.

g) the transition plan

TCC submitted that it had contacted MMS customers prior to filing its application to inform them of the company's intention to withdraw MMS. TCC also submitted that, concurrent with the filing of its application, it had provided those customers with information regarding available substitute services as well as a contact list for alternative service providers. TCC further submitted that it would grant its MMS customers a two-week period following approval of its application in order to allow them sufficient time to finalize alternative service arrangements.

h) relevant information concerning existing customers, such as the number of customers affected

TCC provided information in confidence to the Commission regarding the number of customers and revenues associated with MMS.

i) a copy of the notice to affected customers

TCC indicated that it had notified affected customers of its intention to withdraw MMS by way of a letter that was sent concurrently with its application being filed. TCC provided a copy of the customer notification letter with its application, providing its customers a comment period of 45 calendar days, as required in Circular 2005-7.

j) any other information the applicant believes is relevant

No additional information was filed.

7.

Commission's analysis and determinations

8.

9.

10.

11.