ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-B2-200809296
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Ottawa, 21 October 2008
RE: Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7144 and Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 202 - Local Service Request (LSR) Rejection Charge
1. On 4 July 2008, the Commission received applications by Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership. ( Bell Canada et al .) under cover of Tariff Notices 7144 and 202, respectively, in which they proposed the introduction of Access Services Tariff Item 108, Local Service Request (LSR) Rejection Charge.
2. The Commission received comments from Rogers Communications Inc., MTS Allstream Inc., and Quebecor Media Inc. on behalf of its affiliate Videotron Ltd. (the intervenors). The Commission also received reply comments from Bell Canada et al., dated 15 August 2008.
3. The procedures set out in the Commission's letter, dated 30 September 2008 are amended as follows:
4. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.
Original signed by
cc: Joe Cabrera, CRTC, email@example.com, (819) 934-6352
Interrogatories addressed to each of MTS Allstream Inc., Rogers Communications Inc. and Quebecor Media Inc.
1. Identify whether the company subscribes to Bell Canada et al.'s CAOSS service; if so, explain in detail why, in the company's view, the rejection rate of LSRs that were submitted to Bell Canada et al. commonly exceeded 5 %. Further explain to what extent CAOSS provides sufficient information for populating the majority of LSRs that the company submits to Bell Canada et al. and provide a discussion of the benefits and shortfalls of CAOSS as to correctly populating LSRs.
2. At paragraph 21 to 23 of their reply comments, Bell Canada et al. indicated that 6.8% of LSR rejections in a sample of 2799 rejections involved successive rejections of the same LSR.
3. In their reply comments dated 15 August 2008, Bell Canada et al.'s argued that the new version of the C-LOG represents years of collaborative work by the BPWG to streamline processing. Further, Bell Canada et al. submitted that the BPWG has already carried out an extensive review of the industry guidelines and process and therefore there is no reason to refer the question of LSR rejections to CISC. In the company's comments on Bell Canada et al.'s applications, the company supported the proposition to refer the matter back to the BPWG to analyze LSR rejections and determine the root causes, relative responsibilities and process improvements which could reduce rejection rates.
4. Provide the total number of LSRs that the company has made to other service providers (LECs, WSPs, ISPs) over the period from January to June 2008 and the percentage that was rejected due to errors. The response should include a discussion of the most frequent types of errors causing LSR rejections and any measures the company has taken to find solutions to reduce the number of LSR rejections.Date Modified: 2008-10-21
- Date modified: