ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Faye Hughes (Bruce Telecom)

This page has been archived on the Web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, 22 November 2016

Our reference:  8740-B7-201610965


Ms. Faye Hughes
Regulatory Analyst
Bruce Telecom
3145 Hwy. 21 North, Box 80
Tiverton, ON  N0G 2T0

RE:  Bruce Telecom Tariff Notice No. 155 – SIP Trunking Service

Dear Ms. Hughes:

On 14 October 2016, the Commission received an application from Bruce Telecom, under Tariff Notice 155 (TN 155), in which the company proposed to modify its General Tariff (CRTC 25340) to introduce Section 925 – SIP Trunking Service.

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.

Bruce Telecom is requested to provide comprehensive answers, including rationale and any supporting information, to the attached questions by 6 December 2016.


Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications sector

c.c: Rudy Rab, CRTC, 819-994-3416,

Attach. (1)


Request for information

  1. In Regulatory framework for the small incumbent local exchange carriers and related matters (Telecom Policy CRTC 2013-160), the Commission permitted rate ranges in baskets 1, 2 and 4 and specified that, for services other than residential private exchange services (PES) in high-cost service areas (HCSAs), the minimum rate in a range must be based on a Commission-approved rate for the same service or on a cost study. 

    In its 14 October 2016 application, Bruce Telecom is proposing that the SIP Trunking Service be included in basket 4, and has proposed rate ranges for the various monthly rates and service charges associated with the service.

    Confirm whether Cochrane used Commission-approved rates or cost studies in establishing the proposed minimum rates.

    If Commission-approved rates for the same services were used in establishing the proposed minimum rates, confirm which Commission-approved rates were used.

  2. In Viability of proposals for the provision of E9-1-1 service for nomadic and fixed/non-native VoIP subscribers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-387, the Commission directed all Canadian carriers that offer nomadic and fixed/non-native VoIP services to ensure that customers are able to update their most likely physical address online. In reaching its decision, the Commission considered that this type of measure ensures the availability of additional information that could prove to be crucial in an emergency situation, and that its implementation would enhance public safety.

    Proposed Section 925.1(f) states in part:

    SIP Trunking Service includes the e-mail address which customers may use to input and update as needed the most likely address and location information for telephone numbers provided with the SIP Trunking Service. Allow five (5) business days for any location update to be changed in the 9-1-1 web portal.

    Explain how the provisions of proposed Section 925.1(f) conform to the Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-387 requirement that all Canadian carriers that offer nomadic and fixed/non-native VoIP services are required to ensure that customers are able to update their most likely physical address online.

  3. The term “Trunk Group” (distinct from the terms “SIP Trunk Group” and “Standard Trunk Group”) is referenced in Subsections 1.01, 1.06, and 3.01 (Note 1 and Note 2) of proposed tariff item 925; however, this term is not defined in the tariff.

    Confirm whether these references to “Trunk Group” were intended to be references to “SIP Trunk Group” or “Standard Trunk Group” and revise the proposed tariff pages accordingly where this is the case. 

    If any references to “Trunk Group” are correct as written, revise the proposed tariff pages to include a definition of “Trunk Group”.

Date modified: