Telecom Decision CRTC 2016-279

PDF version

Ottawa, 21 July 2016

File number: 8640-B7-201603150

Bruce Telecom – Application for forbearance from the regulation of business local exchange services

The Commission denies Bruce Telecom's request for forbearance from the regulation of business local exchange services in the exchange of Kincardine, Ontario.

Introduction

1. The Commission received an application from Bruce Telecom, dated 29 March 2016, in which the company requested forbearance from the regulation of business local exchange services^{Footnote 1} in the exchange of Kincardine, Ontario.
2. The Commission received a submission regarding Bruce Telecom's application from Huron Telecommunications Co-operative Limited (HuronTel). The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 13 June 2016, is available on the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca or by using the file number provided above.

Commission's analysis and determinations

3. The Commission has assessed Bruce Telecom's application based on the local forbearance test originally set out in Telecom Decision 2006-15 and applied to the small incumbent local exchange carriers (small ILECs), with modifications, in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-379.
4. The competitor presence test set out in Telecom Decision 2006-15 states that forbearance may be granted when the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) demonstrates that, there is, in addition to the ILEC, at least one other independent facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider that offers local exchange services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75% of the number of business local exchange service lines that the ILEC is capable of serving.
5. In Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-379, the Commission allowed for some flexibility in the application of the competitor presence test to the small ILECs by lowering the threshold from 75% to 50% in instances where evidence demonstrates that due to the lack of financial incentive or economic ability to offer services in the outskirts of the exchange, the competitors will target the core of the exchange and, as a result, the 75% competitor presence threshold is unlikely to ever be achieved.
6. In its application, Bruce Telecom relied on the 75% competitor presence test threshold and named HuronTel as an independent facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider that offers local exchange services in the Kincardine exchange, capable of serving at least 75% of the number of business local exchange service lines in that exchange.
7. In order to help ascertain whether HuronTel is, in fact, capable of serving at least 75% of the number of business local exchange service lines in the Kincardine exchange, Bruce Telecom was requested to provide
   1. a list of all the postal codes in the exchange to which business local exchange services can be provided; and
   2. for each postal code, the number of business local exchange service lines (network access services [NAS])^{Footnote 2} that Bruce Telecom is capable of serving.
8. HuronTel was requested to indicate, for each postal code provided by Bruce Telecom, where HuronTel is capable of serving business NAS. This enabled the Commission to determine the percentage of business NAS that HuronTel is capable of serving in relation to the total number of business NAS that Bruce Telecom is capable of serving in the Kincardine exchange.
9. Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission finds that for the exchange of Kincardine, there is, in addition to Bruce Telecom, at least one other independent facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider, namely HuronTel. However, the Commission finds that HuronTel is not capable of serving 75% of the number of business local exchange service lines that Bruce Telecom is capable of serving in this exchange.

Conclusion

10. The Commission determines that Bruce Telecom's application does not meet the competitor presence test for the exchange of Kincardine, Ontario. Accordingly, the Commission denies Bruce Telecom's application for forbearance from the regulation of the business local exchange services in this exchange.
11. In light of the above, the Commission does not need to address Bruce Telecom's submission with respect to the product market, its competitor quality of service results, and its communications plan.

Secretary General

Related documents

• Framework for forbearance from regulation of retail local exchange services in the serving territories of the small incumbent local exchange carriers, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-379, 23 June 2009
• Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, 6 April 2006, as amended by Order in Council P.C. 2007-532, 4 April 2007

Date modified:

2016-07-21