ARCHIVED - Letter

Our Reference No.: 8622-T66-201100213

BY E-MAIL

Distribution

RE: TELUS Communications Company – Application for clarification and expedited relief concerning the manner in which Bell Canada intends to implement Telecom Decision 2010-908 – Extension of the deadline permitting Bell Canada to block long-distance calls to small ILECs’ customers routed via its local transit interconnection service

Dear Sir/Madam:

In an application dated 7 January 2011, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) requested that the Commission issue certain directions to Bell Canada regarding its call blocking practices as they relate to the Commission’s determinations in Telecom Decision 2010-908.

TCC noted that the Commission’s directions in Telecom Decision 2010-908 regarding
long-distance call routing to small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), as well as those permitting Bell Canada to block certain long-distance calls, will come into effect on
2 February 2011 (the deadline).  As a result, TCC requested that the Commission provide relief on an expedited basis.

Given TCC’s request for expedited relief, in a letter dated 18 January 2011, Commission staff requested comments on the matters raised in TCC’s application from Bell Canada and other parties by 26 January 2011 and reply comments from TCC by 28 January 2011.  Parties were also requested to provide comments in their submissions on whether or not there is a need to extend the deadline permitting Bell Canada to begin blocking certain long-distance calls to small ILECs’ customers routed via its local transit interconnection service, as per Telecom Decision 2010-908.

Bell Canada and the Canadian Independent Telephone Company Joint Task Force (JTF) submitted that there was no need to extend the deadline.  Bell Canada argued that if the deadline were extended, small ILECs would continue to be denied certain toll interconnection revenue during that period and that these revenues are unrecoverable.

Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI) submitted that Bell Canada’s proposed blocking mechanism should not be implemented on the deadline because certain legitimate local calls destined for small ILECs will be blocked.

In its reply comments, TCC maintained its position that Bell Canada’s blocking mechanism is flawed.  TCC submitted that since Bell Canada has indicated that it cannot block
long- distance calls in accordance with the Commission’s definition of long-distance traffic, Bell Canada should be prohibited from implementing call blocking entirely.  TCC proposed two alternate solutions and suggested that they be examined in further detail.

The Commission notes that certain parties have indicated that there is a risk that certain legitimate local calls could be blocked.  Given this risk, the Commission is of the view that it would be in the public interest to extend the deadline until such time as the Commission makes a determination on the matters raised by parties in this proceeding.

As a result, the Commission determines that Bell Canada is not to block any long-distance calls destined to small ILECs’ customers routed via its local interconnection transit service until further notice.

Notwithstanding the above, in accordance with the determinations in Telecom Decision 2010-908, all competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) are to route all long-distance traffic from their networks destined to small ILECs’ customers using toll interconnection trunks.  It continues to be the responsibility of each CLEC to separate local and long-distance calls to small ILECs’ customers, and to route these calls to the appropriate toll or local interconnection services.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Robert A. Morin
Secretary General

Distribution list:

andrew@isptelecom.net; bell.regulatory@bell.ca; regaffairs@quebecor.com; regulatory.affairs@telus.com; gcordeau@maskatel.qc.ca; documents@accesscomm.ca; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; jboutros@globility.ca; steve@wtccommunications.ca; grubb@hurontel.on.ca; rbanks@mornington.ca; brenda.stevens@rci.rogers.com; sachuter@tcc.on.ca; regulatory@telnetcommunications.com; regulatory@execulink.com; cedric.tardif@derytelecom.ca; s.cloutier@axion.ca; iworkstation@mtsallstream.com; bazilewichr@westmancom.com; Regulatory@sjrb.ca; regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca; tracy.cant@ontera.ca; reglementation@xittel.net; pallard@cooptel.qc.ca; alain.duhaime@sogetel.com; lisagoetz@globalive.com; donna.robertson@novusnow.ca; regulatory@fibernetics.ca; rishi.patel@flexity.ca; clayton@mnsi.net; mark.halwa@nanofibre.ca; michel.messier@cogeco.com; jdowns@nexicomgroup.net; regulatory@brucetelecom.com; denis@michaud.qc.ca; regulatory@terago.ca; crtc@les.net; lisa.marogna@cwct.ca; tsullivan@wightman.ca; sbishay@iristel.com; regulatory@distributel.ca; ataylor@personainc.ca; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; perron@ccapcable.com; mbontje@sourcecable.ca; info@mountaincable.net; regulatory@vianet.ca; pwightman@wightman.ca; a.schneider@hay.net; alain.duhaime@sogetel.com; paul.frappier@telmilot.com; j-fmathieu@telupton.qc.ca; telstep@telstep.net; nfrontenac@kw.igs.net; nantel@tellambton.net; rroy@telwarwick.qc.ca; jpatry@telcourcelles.qc.ca; telvic@telvic.net; scoffey@dryden.ca; m.baron@brktel.on.ca; sachuter@tcc.on.ca; roxboro@ontarioeast.net; steve@wtccommunications.ca; nicolet@puc.net; jdowns@nexicomgroup.net; rbanks@mornington.ca; dave.baxter@quadro.net; gosfield@gosfieldtel.com; sgander@kmts.biz; wagrier@1000island.net; regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca; pdowns@nexicom.net; lisa.marogna@cwct.ca; rob.olenick@tbaytel.com; reglementa@telebec.com; pallard@cooptel.qc.ca; jonathan.holmes@ota.on.ca; sdesy@actq.qc.ca

Date modified:

2011-02-01