ARCHIVED -  Letter

Ottawa, 17 June 2013

Our reference: 8340-N1-201307546

BY EMAIL

Distribution

RE: Northwestel / Globility - 800 Service Origination Agreements

Dear Madam, Sir:

On 27 July 2011, the Commission received an application from Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel), subsequently revised on 1 August 2011, requesting approval pursuant to section 29 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) for an 800 service origination agreement that had been executed between itself and Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus) in May 2007.

In Northwestel Inc. – Interconnection and Service Agreements, Telecom Order CRTC 2012-151, 14 March 2012 (Order 2012-151), the Commission, among other things, found that this agreement did not fall under section 29 of the Act as Primus was a reseller, not a carrier. Accordingly, the Commission closed the associated file.

On 15 February 2013, in TELUS Communications Company v. Northwestel Inc., Bell Canada, Rogers Cable Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications and Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc., 2013 FCA 44, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA), among other things, referred this matter back to the Commission “to determine whether section 25 of the Act should apply to the amounts to be paid by Primus under its agreement with Northwestel.” Commission staff notes that the court left it to the Commission to consider whether it required any additional submissions from TELUS Communications Company (TCC), Northwestel or Primus on this matter.

In this 21 May 2013 application, Northwestel asked the Commission to approve two agreements between itself and Globility Communications Corporation (Globility) pursuant to section 29 of the Act. In previous correspondence, Northwestel stated that the agreement originally filed with the Commission was erroneously signed with Primus,
rather than the Canadian carrier Globility. Northwestel submitted that approval of the new agreement with Globility cures the issue identified by the court and that a determination on the applicability of section 25 to the amounts in the original agreement signed with Primus is not needed.

In several letters to the Commission on this topic, TCC has argued that the Commission should require Northwestel to file a tariff for the services provided to Primus as well as those that will be provided to Globility. TCC has argued that the Commission should take steps to address Northwestel’s non-compliance, including rate-ratification or a direction that Northwestel rebate Primus the rates charged not in accordance with an approved tariff.

Commission staff notes that this issue has already been the subject of significant filings and correspondence, including responses to interrogatories sent to Northwestel by Commissions staff on 11 April 2013 and related correspondence by TCC and Iristel Inc. (Iristel) currently contained in file nos. 8340-N1-201111385, 8638-C12-201305673, and 8340-N1-201307546.

In order to expedite the process and ensure that the Commission has all of the necessary information on the record in order to make a determination in this file, the following procedure will be followed in this file:

1. All documents from files 8340-N1-201111385 and 8638-C12-201305673 are incorporated into the record of this application (file no. 8340-N1-201307546).

2. Pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Northwestel is required to provide comprehensive answers, including rational and any supporting information, to the questions listed in Appendix 1 of this letter by 28 June 2013.

3. Parties may file an intervention or response to the application or any of the issues raised on the record by 9 July 2013. Parties do not need to repeat arguments already on the record, and should limit any submission to new evidence or argument.

4. Northwestel may file its reply by 16 July 2013.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications

c.c.: Bob Martin (CRTC) 819 953-3361, robert.martin@crtc.gc.ca

Attach. (2)

Appendix 1

1) Provide the total amounts paid to Northwestel for the services that were provided in the 800 service origination agreement that had been executed between Northwestel and Primus for the periods of time between 16 April 2007 and 14 March 2012, and between 15 March 2012 and 31 May 2013.

2) In both the previous agreement with Primus and the proposed agreements with Globility, there are three elements for which charges are applicable: a) a bundled carrier access tariff; b) a transport and access tandem charge; and c) a toll-free carrier identification charge. Of these three elements, there is no existing Commission approved tariff for element b), the transport and access tandem charge.

Describe in detail what functionality is provided in relation to the transport and access tandem charge element, including how it differs from the functionality provided through Northwestel’s Access Services Tariff for Interconnection with Interexchange Carriers (CRTC 21480) item 40.2(c) - satellite proxy transport charge.

3) In its 18 April 2013 response to Commission staff interrogatories, in describing the services that were provided to Primus, Northwestel stated that eligible calls originating in Northwestel's operating area were routed via Bell Canada.

Describe in detail the role that is played by Bell Canada in these arrangements.

Distribution List:

Bell Canada - bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Globility Communications Corporation - regulatory@primustel.ca

Iristel Inc. - sbishay@iristel.com

Navigata Communications 2009, Inc. - regulatory@navigata.ca

Northwestel Inc. - regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca

Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. - regulatory@primustel.ca

Rogers Communications Partnership - brenda.stevens@rci.rogers.com

TELUS Communications Company - tom.woo@telus.com

Date modified:

2013-06-17