ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2007-51

Telecom Order CRTC 2007-51

Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership

Destandardization of Station Message Detail Recording - Manual Delivery service and Electronic Transfer of Centrex Station Message Detail Recording service

Introduction

1.

2.

3.

Background

4.

a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn;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

5.

6.

The Companies' applications

7.

a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn

The Companies proposed to modify their respective versions of General Tariff item 675 - Centrex III Service - Rates and Charges in order to destandardize SMDR/MD service. The Companies also proposed to modify their respective versions of General Tariff item 677 - Electronic Transfer Capability for Centrex in order to destandardize ET service.

b) proposed date for destandardization

The Companies requested approval to destandardize SMDR/MD and ET services 45 business days from the date of their applications.

c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service

The Companies indicated that they were not proposing to withdraw SMDR/MD and ET services at this time.

d) type of destandardization

The Companies proposed to destandardize SMDR/MD and ET services, making them unavailable to new customers. The Companies submitted that new customers would be referred to the Companies' SMDR - File Distribution (SMDR/FD) service. The Companies also submitted that customers who currently received SMDR/MD or ET services would continue to do so in accordance with General Tariff items 675 and 677 respectively. The Companies further submitted, however, that additions or changes to SMDR/MD and ET services would no longer be available to existing customers.

e) rationale for the application

The Companies submitted that there were no differences between the types of calling details provided by SMDR/MD and ET services and the type of calling details provided by SMDR/FD service. The Companies indicated, however, that the majority of hardware components used by the SMDR/MD and ET platforms had been discontinued by the manufacturer and were no longer available. The Companies submitted that should a failure of either platform occur, they would be unable to restore the SMDR/MD and ET services. The Companies also submitted that such a failure would directly affect existing SMDR/MD and ET customers since the Companies would be unable to deliver SMDR data through these services.

The Companies submitted, therefore, that SMDR/MD and ET services had become obsolete, and in view of the lack of replacement parts for the SMDR/MD and ET platforms, they proposed to destandardize those services.

The Companies submitted that by destandardizing SMDR/MD and ET services, they would ensure that affected customers would be provided with a new, more reliable service that would enable customers to receive their calling details at favourable rates.

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)

The Companies submitted that SMDR/FD service provided a quick, convenient and cost-effective method for Centrex customers to retrieve their SMDR data. The Companies indicated that SMDR/FD was a Web-based delivery service used to transmit customer-specific calling details to a secure Company website. The Companies also indicated that SMDR/FD service enabled customers to access their SMDR data and to download those files for processing.

The Companies indicated that SMDR/FD service was available in the same geographic areas as SMDR/MD and ET services, and provided calling details in the same format and structure as the Companies' SMDR/MD and ET services. The Companies also noted that SMDR/FD service provided customers with the ability to download only the records they wanted within one day from the time the records were generated.

The Companies submitted that the cost of SMDR/FD service was comparable to the costs of SMDR/MD and ET services. The Companies indicated that SMDR/MD customers paid a $2,000 service charge for subsequent SMDR installations, a $75.00 monthly recurring charge per Centrex system, and a $0.50 monthly recurring charge per local per system for the monthly manual delivery of call records, while ET customers paid a minimum of $2,015 in service charges for the initialization and activation of SMDR, and a $0.0015 charge per call record transmitted to the Companies' secure website.

The Companies indicated, however, that SMDR/FD customers paid only a $1,000 initialization service charge and a $0.0012 charge per call record transmission.

g) the transition plan

The Companies indicated that since they were not proposing to withdraw SMDR/MD or ET services, they would not proactively migrate existing SMDR/MD or ET customers to SMDR/FD service. The Companies noted, rather, that they would continue to provide SMDR/MD and ET services to existing customers.

The Companies also indicated that they would work with existing SMDR/MD and ET customers that would have to transition to SMDR/FD as a result of additions or changes to their SMDR/MD or ET service.

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

No information was filed.

i) a copy of the notice to affected customers

The Companies provided a copy of their customer notification letter with their applications. The Companies indicated that the letter had invited customers to comment within 45 calendar days, as required in Circular 2005-7. The Companies further noted that they had sent copies of their respective applications to affected customers.

j) any other information the applicant believes is relevant

No additional information was filed.

8.

Commission's analysis and determinations

9.

10.

11.

12.