ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2013-597

This page has been archived on the Web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, 8 November 2013

Amtelecom Holdings Inc. – Implementation of wireless number portability for Rogers Communications Partnership

File number: 8620-R28-201308742

In this decision, the Commission approves Amtelecom’s plan for the implementation of wireless number portability in the Ontario exchanges of Cambray, Coldwater, Dyer’s Bay, Lion’s Head, Manitowaning, Mindemoya, Port Burwell, Stokes Bay, Straffordville, and Tobermory.


1. The Commission received a wireless number portability (WNP) implementation plan, dated 9 July 2013, from Amtelecom Holdings Inc. (Amtelecom). The plan was filed in response to a formal signed expression of interest from Rogers Communications Partnership (RCP), which confirmed its interest in obtaining WNP in the Ontario exchanges of Cambray, Coldwater, Dyer’s Bay, Lion’s Head, Manitowaning, Mindemoya, Port Burwell, Stokes Bay, Straffordville, and Tobermory (the exchanges), where Amtelecom is the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC).

2. The Commission received an intervention from RCP. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 12 August 2013, is available on the Commission’s website at under “Public Proceedings” or by using the file number provided above.


3. Number portability enables customers to keep the same telephone number when changing service providers and is an integral component of successful retail competition.

4. In Telecom Decision 2008-122, the Commission, among other things, set out the framework for WNP implementation in the territories of the small ILECs. That decision included directives that the small ILECs must follow when submitting their implementation plans.

5. The Commission reviewed this framework and determined, in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291, that WNP and local competition 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]

6. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2012-24, the Commission determined that implementation of WNP in a small ILEC’s territory is to be conditional on the wireless carrier directly interconnecting with the small ILEC, unless otherwise negotiated.

Should the Commission approve Amtelecom’s WNP implementation plan?

7. In its implementation plan, Amtelecom indicated that it would implement WNP within 20 to 30 business days following Commission approval of the plan. Amtelecom is not seeking to recover any costs associated with WNP implementation in the exchanges. Amtelecom and RCP have an existing customer transfer process in place and have negotiated an alternative interconnection arrangement to route traffic in the exchanges.

8. RCP submitted that it did not object to Amtelecom’s WNP implementation plan and accepted the proposed timeline for implementation.

9. The Commission considers that Amtelecom’s proposed WNP implementation plan, including the proposed timelines, 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 notes that WNP implementation by Amtelecom in the exchanges will enable customers in those exchanges, within a reasonable time period following approval of the company’s implementation plan, to retain their telephone numbers if they decide to switch service providers. The Commission considers that this ability will lead to greater choice for these customers, as they will have the opportunity to benefit from choosing among the services, options, and prices offered by different service providers. Accordingly, the Commission considers that approval of the WNP implementation plan would be consistent with the Policy Direction[2] and would advance the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(b), (f), and (h) of the Telecommunications Act.[3]

11. In light of the above, the Commission approves Amtelecom’s proposed WNP implementation plan.

Secretary General

Related documents


[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 local number portability and WNP, of the small ILECs serving 3,000 or fewer total residential and business network access services (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: