ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 29 June 2016
Our reference: 8740-B20-201406596
By Email
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Senior Legal Counsel
Bell Canada
Floor 19
160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
RE: Bell Canada (NST) Tariff Notice 932 (Ex-Parte)
Dear Sir:
On 15 July 2014, the Commission received an application by Bell Canada under Tariff Notice (NST) 932, in which it proposed revisions to the National Services Tariff to introduce Special Facilities Service – Item 724.27 – Large Customer Value Added Services.
In its application, the company requested that the Commission treat its application on an ex parte basis. Bell Canada requested that public disclosure of its proposed tariff not be required unless and until it is awarded the customer’s business. It indicated that the proposed arrangement was the subject of a bidding process initiated by the customer. It further requested that, should the Commission deny the application or should the customer not accept the proposal, the filing not be placed on the public record.
In Bell Canada – Ex parte application, Telecom Order 2014-386, 23 July 2014, the Commission approved on an interim basis the ex parte application, subject to the condition that the company advise the Commission of the outcome of the selection process as soon as possible and notify the Commission whether the customer has awarded the contract to Bell Canada.
By letter, dated 17 June 2016, Bell Canada indicated that the customer had not accepted its proposal. It requested withdrawal of Tariff Notice 932 and again requested that the application not be placed on the public record. The company submitted that knowledge of the details of the arrangement proposed for this specific customer would be prejudicial to its competitive position in future negotiations of a similar nature with other customers.
Given that the customer has not accepted the company’s proposal, the tariff item would not be required. Therefore, the request to withdraw the application is acceptable. Consequently, this application is closed.
In addition, the company’s request not to place the application on the public record is reasonable as it would be prejudicial to its competitive position.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c: Joseph Cabrera, CRTC, (819) 934-6352, joseph.cabrera@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: