|
Telecom Order CRTC 2006-295
|
|
Ottawa, 1 November 2006 |
|
Bell Canada
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notice 6971 |
|
Destandardization of Type C local loop service
|
|
In this Order, the
Commission approves Bell Canada's application to destandardize
Type C local loop service. |
1. |
The Commission received an
application by Bell Canada, dated 21 July 2006, proposing revisions to
its Access Services Tariff (AST) item 105, Local Network Interconnection
and Component Unbundling (AST item 105), to destandardize Type C local
loop service and remove it from AST item 105 as it was a redundant
service. |
2. |
Bell Canada indicated that it
would continue to offer and provide the functionality associated with
Type C local loops through its Competitor Digital Network (CDN) or
Digital Network Access (DNA) services, as applicable. |
|
Background
|
3. |
In New procedures for
disposition of applications dealing with the destandardization
and/or withdrawal of tariffed services, Telecom Circular CRTC
2005-7, 30 May 2005 (Circular 2005-7), the Commission indicated that in
order for it to properly assess a proposal for the destandardization
and/or withdrawal of a tariffed service, the applicant must file an
application containing the following information: |
|
a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn;
|
|
b) proposed date for destandardization;
|
|
c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service;
|
|
d) type of destandardization;
|
|
e) rationale for the application;
|
|
f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it was
reasonable interms of equivalent functionality, availability in the
same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and
ongoing costs to the customer);
|
|
g) the transition plan;
|
|
h) relevant information concerning existing customers, such as the
number of customers affected;
|
|
i) a copy of the notice to affected customers; and
|
|
j) any other information the applicant believed was relevant.
|
4. |
The Commission further
indicated in Circular 2005-7 that if the applicant considered that
certain criteria did not apply to a particular application, the
applicant was expected to provide submissions on why it believed those
criteria should not apply. |
5. |
The Commission noted in
Circular 2005-7 that the applicant had to provide notice to each
customer affected by its application to destandardize and/or withdraw a
particular service, and that the notices should be sent to affected
customers on the date the application was filed. In the notice, the
applicant had to include items a) to g) set out in paragraph 3 above, as
well as clear and detailed information as to how an affected customer
could participate in the Commission's process, including the date when
comments must be received by the Commission. Further, the Commission
noted in Circular 2005-7 that interested parties should be allowed
45 calendar days to comment on an applicant's destandardization and/or
withdrawal application. |
|
Bell Canada's application
|
6. |
Bell Canada provided the
following information in support of its application, in conformance with
the criteria established in Circular 2005-7: |
|
a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn
|
|
Bell Canada proposed to destandardize AST item 105 Type C local
loop service.
|
|
b) proposed date for destandardization
|
|
Bell Canada requested that the Commission grant interim approval
of the proposed destandardization of Type C local loop service, with
an effective date of 4 September 2006.
|
|
c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service
|
|
Not applicable – Bell Canada submitted that it was not proposing
to withdraw Type C local loop service at this time.
|
|
d) type of destandardization
|
|
Bell Canada proposed to destandardize Type C local loop service
by discontinuing the offering of this service for new installations,
moves, rearrangements, or other changes at the same or different
premises. Bell Canada submitted that customers wishing to expand
their Type C local loop service could do so by using CDN or DNA
services, as applicable.
|
|
e) rationale for the application
|
|
Bell Canada indicated that AST item 105 Type C local loop service
was provided at the rates, terms, and conditions specified in AST
item 130, Competitor Digital Network (CDN) Services, or at the
rates, terms, and conditions specified in National Services Tariff
item 301.3, Digital Network Access (DNA) – Rates and Charges.
Bell Canada submitted that there was no difference in functionality
between a CDN or DNA Access at DS-1 speed and a Type C local loop.
However, the company noted that it incurred incremental costs to
support Type C local loops under AST item 105 in addition to CDN and
DNA services.
|
|
Bell Canada submitted that Type C local loops had become
redundant and, in view of the incremental costs to maintain the
service, the company proposed to destandardize Type C local loop
service.
|
|
In order to ensure that the destandardization of Type C local
loop service from AST item 105 did not impact customers, Bell Canada
indicated that it would continue providing in-service Type C local
loops to customers currently subscribing to the service. Customers
that wished to expand or change their Type C local loop service
could do so by using CDN or DNA services, as applicable. Similarly,
new customers would be offered and provided CDN or DNA services in
place of Type C local loops.
|
|
f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it was
reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the
same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and
ongoing costs to the customer)
|
|
As noted above, the company would continue to offer and provide
in-service Type C local loops to existing customers. Customers that
sought to increase their number of in-service Type C local loops or
change their Type C local loops would be provided the functionality
associated with Type C local loops through the company's CDN or DNA
services. The company submitted that its CDN and DNA services were
available in the same geographical areas as the Type C local loops
offered under AST item 105, and provided identical functionality as
Type C local loop service.
|
|
g) the transition plan
|
|
Bell Canada submitted that customers who maintained their
existing in-service Type C local loops would not be transitioned to
another service. Bell Canada further submitted that customers that
expanded or changed their Type C local loop service would be able to
do so using CDN or DNA services, as applicable.
|
|
h) relevant information concerning existing customers, such as the
number of customers affected
|
|
Bell Canada submitted that all of its customers that subscribed
to Type C local loop service also subscribed to its CDN and DNA
services and, as such, were familiar with existing CDN and DNA
ordering systems and processes. Bell Canada was of the view that
customers who wished to expand or change their Type C local loop
services would require little or no assistance in the transition
from ordering Type C local loops to ordering CDN or DNA services.
|
|
i) a copy of the notice to affected customers
|
|
Bell Canada indicated that it had issued a letter on 21 June 2006
to its customers for Type C local loop service describing the
proposal to destandardize that service. Bell Canada noted that the
letter included information regarding its intent to work with
customers affected by the destandardization of Type C local loops
for the purpose of assisting these customers in the ordering of CDN
and DNA services. Further, Bell Canada noted that the letter invited
customers to provide comments on the proposal by 30 June 2006, and
provided them with information regarding Circular 2005-7.
|
|
Bell Canada also noted that it had copied the affected customers
with this application. Bell Canada indicated that each of these
customers was an experienced participant in Commission proceedings
and was aware of how to participate in the destandardization
process.
|
|
j) any other information the applicant believed was relevant
|
|
No additional information was filed.
|
7. |
The Commission received no
comments on this application. |
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
8. |
The Commission finds that
Bell Canada has fulfilled the customer notification and evidentiary
requirements of Circular 2005-7, with one exception. The Commission
notes that Bell Canada, by letter dated 21 June 2006, notified its
customers for Type C local loop service of its proposal to destandardize
such service, and invited customers in that letter to provide comments
on Bell Canada's proposal by 30 June 2006. However, as set out in
paragraph 23 of Circular 2005-7, interested parties should be allowed 45
calendar days to comment on a company's destandardization and/or
withdrawal application. The Commission notes, however, that 45 calendar
days have passed since the company filed its application, and no
comments were received from interested parties. |
9. |
The Commission considers
Bell Canada's application to destandardize Type C local loop service to
be reasonable. In light of the above, the Commission approves
Bell Canada's application, effective the date of this Order. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This document is available
in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF
format or in HTML at the following Internet site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca |