ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Distribution List
This page has been archived on the Web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, 13 April 2016
Our reference: 8695-B54-201410902
BY EMAIL
Distribution
RE: Follow-up to Telecom Decision 2015-353 - Fact-finding process on the Imbalance Regime
Dear Madam, Sir:
In Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada - Application regarding traffic imbalance payments to Fibernetics Corporation, Telecom Decision CRTC 2015-353, 4 August 2015 (Telecom Decision 2015-353), the Commission denied an application by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada (collectively, the Bell companies) regarding traffic imbalance payments to Fibernetics Corporation (Fibernetics). In that decision, the Commission noted concerns that had been raised on the record of the proceeding with regard to the existing compensation regime for traffic imbalance.Footnote 1 As a result, the Commission announced that it would initiate a fact-finding process to determine if sufficient cause exists to initiate a proceeding to examine whether this imbalance regime remains appropriate or requires adjustments.
Commission staff has now completed that the fact-finding exercise and considers that there is insufficient cause to initiate a review of the imbalance regime at this time.
In the fall of 2015, Commission staff held meetings with representatives from various telecommunications service providers, including local exchange carriers and resellers. From these meetings, Commission staff gathered information on:
- types of interconnection arrangements;
- type of services that utilize these interconnection arrangements;
- to whom and from whom imbalance payments were paid or received, where applicable; and
- whether and how the parties would propose changes to the imbalance regime
Most of the participants in the fact-finding process were not in favour of a review by the Commission of the imbalance regime. Further, based on the information gathered, Commission staff notes that, in general, the traffic exchanged between incumbent and competitive LECs over
bill and keeps trunks is becoming increasingly balanced. The result is a general decline in imbalance compensation payments. Further, incumbents can take alternative measures that do not require regulatory approval to reduce the incentive to exploit imbalance traffic patterns.
Given the above,no further action will be taken regarding the imbalance regime at this time.
Sincerely yours,
Original signed by
Chris Seidl
Executive Director
Telecommunications Sector
Distribution List
Parties to proceeding leading to Telecom Decision 2015-353:
Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., president@cnoc.ca
Comwave Networks, tchislett@comwave.net
MTS Inc. iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Rick Scheihauf, Fibernetics, regulatory@fibernetics.ca
Rogers Communications Partnership, RCI.Regulatory@rci.rogers.com
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Footnotes
- Footnote 1
-
Background information on the compensation regime for traffic imbalance (the imbalance regime) can be found at paragraphs 1 – 4 of Telecom Decision 2015-353.
- Date modified: