ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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, 16 February 2012
Our reference: 8740-B7-201201441
Ms. Faye Hughes
Box 80, 3145 Hwy 21 North
RE: Tariff Notice 140 – Access Services Tariff
On 3 February 2012, the Commission received the above-mentioned tariff notice submitted by Bruce Telecom (Bruce). In its application, Bruce indicated that the proposed tariff was filed in accordance with Telecom Decision 2012-35,1 in which the Commission set out its determinations regarding Bruce’s implementation plans for local competition and wireless number portability. Bruce Telecom submitted that its application was a Group B retail tariff filing pursuant to Approval processes for tariff applications and intercarrier agreements, Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-455, 5 July 2010 (Information Bulletin 2010-455).
Commission staff has reviewed Bruce’s application and considers that some modifications to the proposed tariff are required, as set out below.
At the beginning of its proposed tariff, Bruce included the following note:
Because the Commission has forborne, in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-19, with respect to the regulation of this service as set out in that decision, Bruce Telecom may also provide the services in this tariff at rates and on terms different from the tariffed rates and terms pursuant to an agreement entered into between Bruce Telecom and a competitor that has been filed with the Commission for the public record.
Commission staff notes that Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-192 amended aspects of Telecom Decision 2008-17,3 which set out the restructured regulatory framework for wholesale services. Commission staff also notes that these decisions do not apply to small incumbent local exchange carriers. Accordingly, Commission staff considers that this note should be removed.
Commission staff also notes that Bruce included provisions regarding the treatment of imbalance traffic compensation that only apply in the operating territories of Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership pursuant to Telecom Decision 2010-787.4 Accordingly, Commission staff considers that these provisions should be removed from Bruce’s proposed tariff.
Commission staff also considers that Bruce should amend the description of its Local Interconnection region (LIR) in order to indicate the name of all exchanges included in its Port Elgin LIR.
In light of the above, Commission staff requests Bruce to file an amended application which includes the changes described in the appendix to this letter by 23 February 2012.
In addition, Commission staff considers that this application does not meet the definition of a Group B retail tariff filing as indicated in Information Bulletin 2010-455 as it does not deal with services provided to retail customers, but with services that would be provided only to competitors. For purposes of efficiency, the Commission will process this application as a Competitor tariff filing rather than close the file and require the company to re-file it as a new application.
Accordingly, the application will follow the procedures described in Information Bulletin 2010-455 for Competitor tariffs:
- Interested parties may file interventions within 30 calendar days of the filing date of an application; and
- the applicant may file reply comments within 10 calendar days of the deadline for filing interventions.
The company is therefore not to implement its proposed tariff until a Commission order is issued disposing of this application.
‘Original signed by S. Bédard’
Senior Manager, Tariffs
cc: Sylvie Labbé, CRTC (819) 953-4945, firstname.lastname@example.org
 Bruce Telecom – Implementation of local competition for Bragg Communications Inc., operating as EastLink, and wireless number portability for Rogers Communications, on behalf of Rogers Wireless, Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-35, 24 January 2012
 Bell Canada et al.'s application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2008-17 with respect to negotiated agreements, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-19, 19 January 2009
 Revised regulatory framework for wholesale services and definition of essential service, Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-17, 3 March 2008
 Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada – Proposed revision to the treatment of imbalance traffic compensation, Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-787, 25 October 2010, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-787-1, 16 August 2011
Appendix - Requested changes to Bruce’s proposed tariff
Bruce is to make the following changes to it proposed tariff:
- On page 4, completely remove the following note below the heading “Item 100 – Local network interconnection”:
Note: Because the Commission has forborne, in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-19, with respect to the regulation of this service as set out in that decision, Bruce Telecom may also provide the services in this tariff at rates and on terms different from the tariffed rates and terms pursuant to an agreement entered into between Bruce Telecom and a competitor that has been filed with the Commission for the public record.
- On pages 11 and 13, remove the following provisions and the second associated table in item 100.4.1 – Termination of CLEC intra LIR Traffic:
The table below indicates the percentages of the monthly compensation payments to a CLEC when the total volume of traffic exchanged between Bruce Telecom and a CLEC over all their local shared-cost trunks is at least 10 million minutes per month and the volume of traffic in the direction of that CLEC network is more than 80 percent of the total traffic exchanged between Bruce Telecom and the CLEC (the Traffic Threshold).
The discounts set out in the table below will initially apply when the 10 million minute volume and Traffic Threshold conditions described in the preceding paragraph have been met in three consecutive months, and will continue to apply for each month until the traffic falls to, or below, the Traffic Threshold.
Following the initial application of the discounts in the table below, those discounts will apply in any subsequent month when the total volume of traffic exchanged between Bruce Telecom and a CLEC over all their local shared-cost trunks is at least 10 million minutes per month, and the volume of traffic in the direction of that CLEC network is more than the Traffic Threshold, whether or not those conditions have been met in the immediately preceding month(s). That is, the three month eligibility rule is relevant only to the initial application of discounts, not for any subsequent re-application between Bruce Telecom and the same CLEC.
The compensation payments are calculated by applying the percentages in the table below to the amounts payable using the rates identified in the tables above.
- On page 15, in item 100.5.1, replace “item 105.5(b)” with “item 100.5.2”
- On page 15, in item 100.5.2, indicate the name of all exchanges included in the LIR in the associated table
- On page 17, in item 200.2 – Definitions, replace the second “Wireline-to-Wireless Porting” with “Wireless-to-Wireline Porting”
- Date modified: