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This page has been archived on the Web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, 9 January 2014
Our references: 8740-B54-201316662
8740-B2-201316670
BY EMAIL
Ms Suzanne Morin
General Counsel - Regulatory & Privacy Chief
Bell Aliant Regional Communications
160 Elgin Street, 19th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Counsel – Regulatory Law and Policy
Bell Canada
160 Elgin St., Floor 19
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
RE: Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 466 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7412
Dear Madam/Sir,
On 21 November 2013, the Commission received applications by Bell Aliant Regional Communication, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (together, the Bell companies), under Tariff Notices 466 and 7412, respectively.
In these applications, the Bell companies proposed revisions to each of their respective Access Services Tariff (AST) item 50 - Rebilling of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Carrier Access Tariff (CAT) Charges (item 50) to revise the rates they charge alternate providers of long distance service (APLDS) for carrying toll traffic originating or terminating in the territory of the small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs).
Paragraph 28(1)(a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may request parties to file information or documents where needed.
The Bell companies are requested to provide comprehensive answers, including rationale and any supporting information, to the attached question by 23 January 2014.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications
c.c.: Joseph Cabrera, CRTC, (819) 934-6352, joseph.cabrera@crtc.gc.ca
Attach. (1)
ATTACHMENT
Request for information – Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 466 and Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7402
In the applications, the Bell companies requested approval for the proposed rate revisions, effective 21 December 2013, to reflect changes to the direct connection (DC) rates for Amtelecom Limited Partnership, Dryden Municipal Telephone System, KMTS, People’s Tel Limited Partnership, and TBayTel, which were approved in Direct connection service rates for certain small incumbent local exchange carriers, Telecom Order 2013 594, 7 November 2013 (Telecom Order 2013-594), effective 28 March 2013.
In Bell Canada TN 6857, dated 11 March 2005, Bell Canada proposed revisions to item 50 to, among other things, reflect changes in the DC and trunking rates for the small ILECs that were approved in Direct toll and network access costing methodology for small incumbent local exchange carriers - Follow-up to Decision 2001-756, Telecom Decision 2005-3, 31 January 2005 (Telecom Decision 2005-3), effective 1 January 2005. In TN 6857, Bell Canada requested an effective date retroactive to 1 January 2005 because the Commission had approved the DC and trunking rates for the small ILECs effective 1 January 2005.
In Telecom Order 2013-594, the Commission considered that it would be unfair to long distance service providers to require them to pay the higher DC rate for longer than necessary and therefore it approved a lower DC rate of $0.001662 per minute, retroactive to 28 March 2013.
Since the small ILECs’ DC rate is a component of the Bell companies’ item 50 rates, these proposals would, in effect, apply a higher DC rate to APLDS, for the period from 28 March 2013 to 20 December 2013, than what was approved for these small ILECs.
1. Explain, with supporting rationale, why the Bell companies did not propose an effective date of 28 March 2013 for these applications, which is the date that the DC rates for these SILECs were made effective in Telecom Order 2013-594.
2. Provide, with supporting rationale, the Bell companies’ views about why the the proposed lower item 50 rates should not be made retroactive to 28 March 2013.
3. The Commission expects that the DC rates of the other small ILECs identified in the Bell companies’ item 50 rates will be revised at a future date. Provide, with supporting rationale, the Bell companies’ views about whether it would be appropriate to make the remaining Bell company item 50 rates interim in case the small ILECs’ revised DC rates are applied on a retroactive basis.
- Date modified: