ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2014-82

This page has been archived on the Web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, 26 February 2014

CityWest Telephone Corporation – Implementation of wireless number portability for TELUS Communications Company

File number: 8620-T66-201312230

In this decision, the Commission approves CityWest’s plan for the implementation of wireless number portability in the British Columbia exchange of Prince Rupert.


1. The Commission received a wireless number portability (WNP) implementation plan, dated 30 September 2013, from CityWest Telephone Corporation (CityWest). The plan was filed in response to a formal signed expression of interest from TELUS Communications Company (TCC), which confirmed its interest in obtaining WNP in the British Columbia exchange of Prince Rupert, where CityWest is the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC). On 6 December 2013, CityWest filed a revised implementation plan with updated timelines.

2. The Commission received an intervention from TCC. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 6 December 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 retail competition in the local exchange market.

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.Footnote 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 CityWest’s WNP implementation plan?

7. In its implementation plan, CityWest initially indicated that it would require 135 days to implement WNP in Prince Rupert, which TCC argued could be shortened significantly by combining or eliminating certain steps. CityWest later revised the time frame to 60 calendar days, indicating that it had made considerable progress towards implementation.

8. The Commission notes, based on recent plans filed by other small ILECs, that WNP implementation periods have ranged from 30 to 60 business days. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that an implementation period of 60 calendar days, as proposed by CityWest, would be appropriate.

9. The Commission considers that the other elements of CityWest’s proposed WNP implementation plan are reasonable and meet the criteria set out in Telecom Decision 2008-122, as modified in Telecom Regulatory Policies 2011-291 and 2012-24. The Commission notes that CityWest is not entitled to reimbursement for WNP start-up costs because it serves more than 3,000 network access services (NAS).

10. The Commission notes that WNP implementation by CityWest in Prince Rupert will enable customers in that exchange, 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 DirectionFootnote 2 and would advance the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 7(b), (f), and (h) of the telecommunications act.Footnote 3

11. In light of the above, the Commission approves CityWest’s proposed WNP implementation plan. CityWest is to implement WNP in the exchange of Prince Rupert within 60 calendar days of the date of this decision.

Secretary General

Related documents


Footnote 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.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives, P.C. 2006-1534, 14 December 2006

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 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.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Date modified: