ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to Robert Olenick (Tbaytel)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 23 June 2017
Our reference: 8740-T8-201704437
Mr. Robert Olenick
1046 Lithium Drive
Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 6G3
RE: Tariff Notice 173 – CLEC General Tariff
On 23 May 2017, the Commission received an application by Tbaytel, under Tariff Notice 173, in which the company proposed to introduce its General Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) Tariff.
Commission staff is continuing its analysis of this application.
Paragraph 28(1) (a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may require parties to file information or documents where needed.
Tbaytel is requested to provide comprehensive answers, including rationale and any supporting information, to the attached question by 30 June 2017.
Original signed by Valerie Plaskacz for
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
c.c.: Joanne Baldassi, CRTC, 819-997-3498, email@example.com
Request for information
In its application, Tbaytel indicated that it intends to provide service initially in the Province of Ontario in the Fort Frances exchange, which is part of Bell Canada’s ILEC territory.
As set out in the May 2010 Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Model Tariff User’s Guide (https://crtc.gc.ca/cisc/eng/cisf3g5.htm), CLECs are required to obtain the Commission’s approval for tariffs setting out rates, terms and conditions for the following services:
- provision of subscriber listings to local exchange carriers (“LECs”) (Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8 (“Decision 97-8”), para. 227) - CLECs to file intercarrier tariffs for the provision of subscriber listings to LECs that contain rates capped at the rates approved for ILECs
- services provided to other LECs (Decision 97-8, para. 279) - CLECs to file tariffs for services provided to other LECs
- interexchange equal access (Decision 97-8, para. 190) - CLECs to file proposed tariffs and justify any departure from the terms and conditions contained in ILECs' tariffs
- interconnection for wireless service providers (“WSPs”) (Decision 97-8, para. 192) - CLECs to file proposed tariffs providing for WSP interconnection that are equivalent to the terms and conditions contained in the ILECs' tariffs, justifying any departure therefrom.
In addition, in Telecom Order 99-1127, at paragraph 36 the Commission clarified that … "Decision 97-8 requires a CLEC to either file rates for services that are capped at the ILEC's rates in each territory where it operates, or else to adequately justify any (higher) proposed rates."
Tbaytel has proposed to include Tbaytel’s ILEC rates from its own serving territory in its General CLEC tariff rather than Bell Canada’s rates. In addition, at least some of the rates proposed by Tbaytel are higher than the current rates set out in Bell Canada’s Access Services Tariff CRTC 7516. For example, under Part B, Item 201 – Compensation for Traffic Termination, the rates proposed by Tbaytel are higher than those set out in Bell Canada’s Access Services Tariff CRTC 7516, item 105(4)(d)(1).
- Given the Commission’s determinations in Decision 97-8 and Telecom Order 99-1127 described above, provide adequate justification for why Tbaytel’s proposed rates in the Fort Frances exchange are more appropriate than Bell Canada’s rates, in cases where Tbaytel’s rates for the same services are higher than Bell Canada’s.
- Date modified: