Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-176

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.

PDF version

Ottawa, 26 March 2012

Amtelecom Limited Partnership – Implementation of wireless number portability for Rogers Wireless

File number: 8620-A2-200906836

Introduction

1.        The Commission received a wireless number portability (WNP) implementation plan, dated 24 June 2011, from Amtelecom Limited Partnership (Amtelecom). The plan was filed in response to a formal signed expression of interest from Rogers Communications, on behalf of Rogers Wireless (Rogers), which confirmed its interest in obtaining number portability in Amtelecom’s Aylmer, Ontario exchange.

2.        The Commission received comments from Rogers. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 26 January 2012, is available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca under “Public Proceedings” or by using the file number provided above.

Background

3.        In Telecom Decision 2008-122, the Commission, among other things, set out the framework for WNP implementation in the territories of the small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). This decision included directives that the small ILECs must follow when submitting their implementation plans.

4.        The Commission reviewed this framework and determined,  in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291, that WNP and local competition, including local number portability (LNP), would continue to be introduced in the territories of the small ILECs based on the existing frameworks, subject to the modifications set out in that decision.1

Should the Commission approve Amtelecom’s WNP implementation plan?

5.        In its implementation plan, Amtelecom indicated that (i) it would implement WNP within 60 to 80 days after the Commission had approved its plan, and (ii) because it had more than 3,000 NAS, it would not seek to recover its implementation costs from Rogers.

6.        Rogers stated that the implementation timelines proposed by Amtelecom were reasonable and did not provide any other comments regarding the plan.

7.        During the course of this proceeding, the Commission issued Telecom Regulatory Policy 2012-24, in which it decided that implementation of WNP was to be conditional on the wireless carrier directly interconnecting with a small ILEC, unless otherwise negotiated. This revised the existing policy established in Telecom Decision 2008-122 that allowed wireless carriers to use transit arrangements established with a large ILEC to transfer local voice calls to and from a small ILEC.

8.        The Commission notes that following the issuance of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2012-24, Rogers confirmed to the Commission that it had reached an agreement with Amtelecom to continue to use Rogers’ existing interconnection arrangement with Bell Canada in the London, Ontario exchange to transfer local voice calls to and from Amtelecom. The Commission considers that this negotiated arrangement is consistent with Telecom Regulatory Policy 2012-24.

9.        The Commission also considers that Amtelecom’s proposed WNP implementation plan is reasonable and meets the criteria set out in Telecom Decision 2008-122, as modified in Telecom Regulatory Policies 2011-291 and 2012-24.

10.     The Commission further considers that its approval of Amtelecom’s implementation plan for WNP would be consistent with the Policy Direction2 and would advance the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(b), 7(f), and 7(h) of the Telecommunications Act.3

11.     In light of the above, the Commission approves Amtelecom’s proposed WNP implementation plan. The Commission directs Amtelecom, when implementing all aspects of WNP in its serving territory, including but not limited to technical and network interconnection, to abide by the industry consensus items outlined in the various CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee documents related to interconnection, as well as the existing rules as outlined in the various decisions, orders, and letters issued by the Commission pertaining to WNP.

Secretary General

Related documents


Footnotes:

[1] In that decision, the Commission established certain measures to help mitigate the financial impact on small ILECs of implementing local competition and WNP. In particular, the Commission determined that the number portability start-up costs, including LNP and WNP, of the small ILECs serving 3,000 or fewer total residential and business NAS, including the NAS of all their affiliates and/or their parent company, are to be reimbursed by the new entrant(s) over a period of three years.

[2]     Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006.

[3]     These objectives are the following: 7(b) to render reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada; 7(f) to foster increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and to ensure that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective; and 7(h) to respond to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services.

Date modified: