ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2012-310
This page has been archived on the Web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, 25 May 2012
Téléphone Guèvremont inc. – Local network interconnection
File numbers: Tariff Notices 60, 60A, and 60B
1. The Commission received an application from Téléphone Guèvremont inc. (Guèvremont), dated 3 February 2012, and amended on 16 February and 26 March 2012, in which the company proposed revisions to its General Tariff in order to introduce section 5 – Local network interconnection.
2. Guèvremont submitted that by introducing this section, it was complying with Telecom Decision 2012-37, in which the Commission approved Guèvremont’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 Guèvremont to enable Cogeco Câble Québec s.e.n.c. to provide local services as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Guèvremont’s serving territory.
3. The Commission approved Guèvremont’s application on an interim basis in Telecom Order 2012-119.
4. The Commission received comments from TCC regarding Guèvremont’s application. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 25 April 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 Guèvremont’s proposed tariff?
5. TCC submitted that Guèvremont’s proposed tariff provides that Guèvremont will inform the CLEC if, during interconnection, a traffic imbalance between Guèvremont 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 Guèvremont’s case because Guèvremont has proposed to interconnect based on local interconnection regions, and that Guèvremont should modify its tariff accordingly.
6. TCC indicated that Guèvremont did not identify in its proposed tariff the common language location identifiers (CLLI)1 for its points of interconnection (POIs), and that this information should be added to the proposed tariff.
7. TCC added that Guèvremont did not mention any signalling POIs in its proposed tariff, and that the company should declare signalling POIs that meet the Commission’s requirements.
8. In reply, Guèvremont modified its application to i) remove the reference to the three-month period in cases of traffic imbalance and ii) add the CLLI for its POIs. However, Guèvremont indicated that it did not identify any signalling POIs in its modified tariff because it does not have a signal transfer point (STP) specific to its network and that it uses the STP of a third party.
Commission’s analysis and determinations
9. The Commission notes that Guèvremont has 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.
10. 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.
11. The Commission has reviewed Guèvremont’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 one modification to the proposed tariff is required, as set out below.
12. In Telecom Decision 97-8, the Commission required that each company provide a signalling POI in each area code in which it provides services. The Commission therefore considers that it would be appropriate for Guèvremont to declare signalling POIs in its proposed tariff, even if the company does not have an STP specific to its network and uses a third party’s STP.
13. In light of the above, the Commission approves Guèvremont’s application, effective the date of this order, subject to the company providing in the tariff a signalling POI in each area code in which it provides service.
14. The Commission directs Guèvremont to issue revised tariff pages reflecting the modification described above, within 15 days of the date of this order.2
- Telecom Order CRTC 2012-119, 27 February 2012
- Téléphone Guèvremont inc. – Implementation of local competition for Cogeco Cable Inc., Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-37, 24 January 2012
- 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
 A CLLI is an alphanumeric code that specifies the type and location of a given piece of network equipment.
 Revised tariff pages can be submitted to the Commission without a description page or a request for approval; a tariff application is not required.
- Date modified: