ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-252

This page has been archived on the Web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.

PDF version

Ottawa, 27 April 2012

Bell Canada – Application to exclude competition-related quality of service indicator 2.7 results from the rate rebate plan for competitors for November 2011

File number: 8660-B2-201200105


1.       The Commission received an application by Bell Canada, dated 9 January 2012, requesting the exclusion of the competitor quality of service (Q of S) results related to indicator 2.7 – Competitor Out-of-Service Trouble Reports Cleared within 24 Hours (indicator 2.7) from its rate rebate plan for competitors for MTS Allstream Inc.,1 now Allstream Inc. (Allstream) for November 2011.

2.       Bell Canada submitted that on 17 November 2011, a third-party contractor carrying out excavation and drilling operations for the City of Brampton on Wilkinson Road in Brampton, Ontario drilled through a six-way duct run housing major fibre and copper cables, despite facility locate sheets for Wilkinson Road being provided to the contractor. Bell Canada claimed that the duct run, the cables, and an air pipe were split apart and damaged beyond repair, thus requiring it to undertake a major service restoration project. Bell Canada claimed that this event was beyond its control.  Bell Canada also indicated that the local loop services for Allstream were disrupted and repair times were negatively impacted.   

3.       Bell Canada noted that its actual November 2011 competitor Q of S performance results for indicator 2.7 were below the set standard for service to Allstream. However, Bell Canada provided evidence that if the trouble reports related to the above-noted adverse event were excluded, its November 2011 results for indicator 2.7 for Allstream would have been within the accepted standard considering its achievements for the past 12 months relative to that indicator for Allstream.

4.       The Commission received no comments regarding this application. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 9 February 2012, is available on the Commission’s website at under “Public Proceedings” or by using the file number provided above.

Commission’s analysis and determinations

5.       In Telecom Decision 2005-20, the Commission created a mechanism for considering possible exclusions from competitor Q of S results when circumstances beyond the control of an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) might have caused it to fail to meet a performance standard.

6.       In Telecom Decision 2007-102, the Commission adopted a force majeure clause that provided that no rate rebates would apply in a month where failure to meet a competitor Q of S standard was caused in that month by events beyond the reasonable control of the ILEC. The Commission considers that, based on the evidence filed, the event in question was beyond the reasonable control of Bell Canada, and thus triggers the force majeure clause.

7.       The Commission also considers that Bell Canada has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the duct run, fibre and copper cable, and air pipe damages caused the below-standard results for indicator 2.7 for Allstream in November 2011.

8.       In Telecom Decision 2007-14, the Commission concluded that if an ILEC has met or exceeded the standard for a particular competitor Q of S indicator for three consecutive months, or for at least six out of twelve months, immediately prior to an adverse event, it is reasonable to conclude that the ILEC would likely have met its competitor Q of S obligations without the adverse event.

9.       After reviewing the evidence and verifying that Bell Canada met or exceeded the standard for competitor Q of S indicator 2.7 for at least six out of twelve months prior to the 17 November 2011 incident for almost all of its competitors that received the service measured with the indicator, in particular for Allstream, the Commission considers it reasonable to conclude that Bell Canada would have met its competitor Q of S obligations without the adverse event.

10.    In light of the above, the Commission approves Bell Canada’s request to exclude below-standard results for competitor Q of S indicator 2.7 for November 2011 in the calculation of the amounts due to Allstream under the rate rebate plan for competitors.

Secretary General

Related documents


[1] As of early 2012, MTS Allstream Inc. became known as two separate entities, namely MTS Inc. and Allstream Inc.

Date modified: