Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-82

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.

 

Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-82

  Ottawa, 4 September 2008
 

Bell Canada - Application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services

  Reference: 8640-B2-200809080
  In this Decision, the Commission approves Bell Canada's request for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchanges of Aylmer, Bromont, Buckingham, Farnham, Oka, Papineauville, and Ste-Julienne, Quebec. The Commission denies Bell Canada's request for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchanges of Dunham, Mirabel-Ste-Scholastique, and St-Denis, Quebec.
 

Introduction

1.

The Commission received an application by Bell Canada, dated 27 June 2008, in which the company requested forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services1 in the exchanges of Aylmer, Bromont, Buckingham, Dunham, Farnham, Mirabel-Ste-Scholastique, Oka, Papineauville, St-Denis, and Ste-Julienne, Quebec.

2.

The Commission received submissions and/or data regarding Bell Canada's application from Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI), TELUS Communications Company (TCC), and Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd. (Videotron). The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 29 July 2008, is available on the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca under "Public Proceedings."
 

Commission's analysis and determinations

3.

The Commission has assessed Bell Canada's application based on the local forbearance test set out in Telecom Decision 2006-15, as amended by the Governor in Council's Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, P.C. 2007-532, 4 April 2007 (modified Telecom Decision 2006-15), by examining the four criteria set out below.
 

a) Product market

4.

The Commission received no comments with respect to Bell Canada's proposed list of residential local exchange services.

5.

The Commission notes that Bell Canada is seeking forbearance for 19 tariffed residential local exchange services. The Commission also notes that in Telecom Decision 2007-65 it found all of these services to be appropriate for forbearance. The list of approved services is set out in the Appendix to this Decision.
 

b) Competitor presence test

6.

The Commission notes that for the exchanges of Aylmer, Bromont, Buckingham, Farnham, Oka, Papineauville, and Ste-Julienne, information provided by parties confirms that there are, in addition to Bell Canada, at least two independent, facilities-based telecommunications service providers, including providers of mobile wireless services.2 Each of these service providers offers local exchange services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of residential local exchange service lines that Bell Canada is capable of serving, and at least one, in addition to Bell Canada, is a facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider.

7.

Accordingly, the Commission determines that the exchanges of Aylmer, Bromont, Buckingham, Farnham, Oka, Papineauville, and Ste-Julienne meet the competitor presence test.

8.

The Commission also notes that for the exchanges of Dunham, Mirabel-Ste-Scholastique, and St-Denis, there are two independent facilities-based providers of mobile wireless services capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of residential local exchange service lines that Bell Canada is capable of serving in those exchanges.3 The Commission further notes, however, that Videotron, the only other facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunication service provider present in these three exchanges, is not capable of serving 75 percent of the number of residential local exchange service lines that Bell Canada is capable of serving in these exchanges.

9.

Accordingly, the Commission determines that the exchanges of Dunham, Mirabel-Ste-Scholastique, and St-Denis do not meet the competitor presence test.

 

c) Competitor quality of service (Q of S) results

10.

The Commission notes that Bell Canada submitted competitor Q of S results for the period of November 2007 to April 2008.

11.

The Commission has reviewed Bell Canada's competitor Q of S results and finds that for some competitors, it did not meet the Q of S standards; however, in each of these cases there were three or fewer data points for the six-month period. The Commission notes that in Telecom Decision 2007-58 it considered that where there are only a few data points during a six-month period, there is insufficient data to make a finding that a company has consistently provided below-standard Q of S.

12.

The Commission notes that, except in the cases discussed above, Bell Canada has demonstrated that during this six-month period it
 

i) met, on average, the Q of S standard for each indicator set out in Appendix B of modified Telecom Decision 2006-15, as defined in Telecom Decision 2005-20, with respect to the services provided to competitors in its territory; and

 

ii) did not consistently provide any of those competitors with services that were below those Q of S standards.

13.

Accordingly, the Commission determines that Bell Canada meets the competitor Q of S criterion for this period.
 

d) Communications plan

14.

The Commission has reviewed Bell Canada's draft communications plan and is satisfied that it meets the information requirements set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15. The Commission approves the proposed communications plan and directs Bell Canada to provide the resulting communications materials to its customers in both official languages, where appropriate.
 

Conclusion

15.

The Commission determines that Bell Canada's application regarding the exchanges of Aylmer, Bromont, Buckingham, Farnham, Oka, Papineauville, and Ste-Julienne meet all the local forbearance criteria set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15.

16.

Pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), the Commission finds as a question of fact that to refrain from exercising its powers and performing its duties, to the extent specified in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15, in relation to the provision by Bell Canada of residential local exchange services listed in the Appendix and future services that fall within the definition of local exchange services set out in Telecom Public Notice 2005-2 as they pertain to residential customers only, in these seven exchanges, would be consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Act.

17.

Pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Act, the Commission finds as a question of fact that these residential local exchange services are subject to a level of competition in these exchanges sufficient to protect the interests of users of these services.

18.

Pursuant to subsection 34(3) of the Act, the Commission finds as a question of fact that to refrain from exercising its powers and performing its duties, to the extent specified in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15, in relation to the provision by Bell Canada of these residential local exchange services would be unlikely to impair unduly the continuance of a competitive market for these services in these exchanges.

19.

In light of the above, the Commission approves Bell Canada's application for forbearance from the regulation of the local exchange services listed in the Appendix and future services that fall within the definition of local exchange services set out in Telecom Public Notice 2005-2, as they pertain to residential customers only, in the exchanges of Aylmer, Bromont, Buckingham, Farnham, Oka, Papineauville, and Ste-Julienne, subject to the powers and duties that the Commission has retained as set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15. This determination takes effect as of the date of this Decision. The Commission directs Bell Canada to file revised tariff pages within 30 days of the date of this Decision for Commission approval.

20.

The Commission determines that Bell Canada's application does not meet all the local forbearance criteria set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15 for the exchanges of Dunham, Mirabel-Ste-Scholastique, and St-Denis. Accordingly, the Commission denies Bell Canada's application for forbearance from the regulation of the residential local exchange services in these three exchanges.
  Secretary General
 

Related documents

 
  • Bell Canada - Applications for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-65, 3 August 2007
 
  • Forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-58, 25 July 2007
 
  • Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, 6 April 2006, as amended by Order in Council P.C. 2007-532, 4 April 2007
 
  • Forbearance from regulation of local exchange services, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-2, 28 April 2005
 
  • Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20, 31 March 2005
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
  Footnotes:
 1 In this Decision, "residential local exchange services" refers to local exchange services used by residential customers to access the public switched telephone network and any associated service charges, features, and ancillary services.

2 These competitors are RCI, TCC, and Videotron.

3 These competitors are RCI and TCC.

Appendix

 

Local exchange services eligible for forbearance from regulation in this Decision (for residential customers only)

Tariff Item List of services
6716 29 Telephone Set Loss Charge
6716 70 Rate Schedules for Primary Exchange (Local) Service
6716 72 Reference of Calls Service
6716 73 Telephone Number Services
6716 82 Toll Restriction
6716 86 Call Display Blocking
6716 220 Extra Listings - Omission of a Primary Exchange Listing
6716 1060 Service on Stationary Boats, Ships, Trailers and Trains
6716 1130 Suspension of Service
6716 2025 Integrated Voice Messaging Service (IVMS)
6716 2030 Universal Messaging
6716 2150 Push-Button Dialing (Touch-Tone)
6716 2165 Calling Features
6716 2185 Single Number Reach
6716 2200 Call Blocking Service
6716 2210 SimplyOne Service
6716 2300 Telephone Station Equipment
6716 4699 Internet Call Display Service
6716 7031 Bell Digital Voice

Date Modified: 2008-09-04

Date modified: