ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2012-296

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.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, 17 May 2012

Téléphone Milot inc. – Local network interconnection

File numbers: Tariff Notices 58, 58A, and 58B

Introduction

1.        The Commission received an application from Téléphone Milot inc. (Milot), dated 3 February 2012, and amended on 7 and 14 February 2012, in which the company proposed revisions to its General Tariff in order to introduce item 4.21 – Local network interconnection.

2.        Milot submitted that by introducing this item, it was complying with Telecom Decision 2012-40, in which the Commission approved Milot’s local competition implementation plan. This plan was filed with the Commission in response to a formal signed expression of interest from TELUS Communications Company (TCC) and Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco), which indicated that TCC wished to interconnect with Milot to enable Cogeco Câble Québec s.e.n.c. to provide local services as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Milot’s serving territory.

3.        Milot submitted that it had used the rates and provisions of Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership’s Access Services Tariff item 105 – Local network interconnection and component unbundling, modified to address TCC’s and Cogeco’s requested services, as well as the provisions of TCC’s tariff regarding information requested about 9-1-1 service.

4.        The Commission approved Milot’s application on an interim basis in Telecom Order 2012-112.

5.     The Commission received comments from TCC regarding Milot’s application. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 25 March 2012, is available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca under “Public Proceedings” or by using the file numbers provided above.

Should the Commission approve Milot’s proposed tariff?

6.     TCC submitted that Milot’s proposed tariff provides that Milot will inform the CLEC if, during interconnection, a traffic imbalance between Milot and the CLEC occurs for three consecutive months on one or more specific trunk groups. TCC submitted that this three-month period does not apply in Milot’s case because Milot has proposed to interconnect based on local interconnection regions (LIRs), and that Milot should modify its tariff accordingly.

7.     TCC added that Milot did not mention any signalling points of interconnection (POIs) in its proposed tariff, and that the company should declare signalling POIs that meet the Commission’s requirements.

Commission’s analysis and determinations

8.     The Commission notes that competitor services are assigned to the fourth basket of the price cap framework set out in Telecom Decision 2006-14. In that decision, the Commission determined that rates for services in the fourth basket would be allowed to increase up to any rate approved by the Commission for the same service.

9.     The Commission has reviewed Milot’s proposed tariff and considers that it covers the services requested by TCC and Cogeco. The Commission also considers that the proposed rates meet the pricing constraints applicable to competitor services set out in Telecom Decision 2006-14. However, the Commission considers that some modifications to the proposed tariff are required, as set out below.

10.  The Commission notes that, consistent with Telecom Decision 2006-35, when LIR-based interconnection occurs, the local exchange carrier must inform the other local exchange carrier as soon as a traffic imbalance is detected. The Commission also notes that the three-month period mentioned in Milot’s proposed tariff applies only to certain interconnection arrangements that are grandfathered through the exchange-based interconnection regime, consistent with Telecom Decision 2006-35, and that this regime does not apply to Milot. The Commission therefore considers that Milot’s proposed tariff should be modified to remove the mention of the three-month period.

11.  Regarding signalling POIs, the Commission notes that in Telecom Decision 97-8, it required that each company provide a signalling POI in each area code in which it provides services. The Commission considers that Milot should modify its tariff accordingly.

12.  In light of the above, the Commission approves Milot’s application, effective the date of this order, subject to the modifications set out in the appendix to this order.

13.  The Commission directs Milot to

• modify its proposed tariff as described in the appendix to this order; and
• file an amended copy of its tariff pages with the Commission for information purposes, reflecting the modifications described in the appendix to this order, within 15 days of the date of this order.

Secretary General

Related documents

• Telecom Order CRTC 2012-112, 22 February 2012
• Téléphone Milot inc. – Implementation of local competition for Cogeco Cable Inc., Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-40, 24 January 2012
• Follow up to Trunking arrangements for the interchange of traffic and the point of interconnection between local exchange carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-46, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-35, 29 May 2006
• Revised regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-14, 29 March 2006
• Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997