|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-53
|
|
Ottawa, 12 August 2003 |
|
Conditions of service for wireless competitive local exchange
carriers and for emergency services offered by wireless service
providers
|
|
Reference:
8669-M16-01/01 and
8669-C12-01/01 |
|
In Conditions of service for
wireless competitive local exchange carriers and for
9-1-1 services offered by wireless service providers, Public Notice
CRTC 2001-110, 31 October 2001, the Commission sought comments on the
terms and conditions under which a wireless competitive local exchange
carrier (wireless CLEC) should be permitted to provide local exchange
service. The Commission also sought comments on issues relating to the
provision of 9-1-1 services by wireless service providers (WSPs). |
|
In this Decision, the Commission
confirms that wireless CLECs are required to provide equal access for
long distance calling with respect to mobile originating calls, subject
to an Interexchange Carrier's willingness to interconnect in areas
served by the wireless CLEC. The Commission is suspending the obligation
of wireless CLECs to provide equal access with respect to mobile
terminating calls and mobile call forwarded calls. The Commission also
confirms that incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) are relieved of
their obligation to interconnect their interexchange networks with a
wireless CLEC for the purpose of carrying toll calls originated by the
end-users of the wireless CLEC. |
|
With respect to public safety
obligations, the Commission is continuing to require wireless CLECs to
provide wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 (wireless E9-1-1) in all areas where
they operate as CLECs, and where wireless E9-1-1 network access services
are available. In this Decision, the Commission finds that it would not
be appropriate to continue to require wireless CLECs to enter subscriber
records in Automatic Location Identifier (ALI) databases. Therefore,
wireless carriers no longer have the option to operate as wireless CLECs
by including subscriber records in ALI databases. |
|
For competitive equity vis-à-vis
wireline local exchange carriers, the Commission will allow wireless
carriers to operate as wireless CLECs in communities where either no
9-1-1 service is offered or where only basic 9-1-1 service is offered.
In such communities, the wireless CLEC must provide a level of 9-1-1
service that is comparable to that provided by the ILEC. |
|
To enhance public safety, the Commission
is requiring WSPs to provide wireless
E9-1-1 service to their subscribers in communities where wireless E9-1-1
network access service is available from an ILEC. |
|
The Commission also directs WSPs and
wireless CLECs to maintain toll-free telephone access to and continuous
staffing (i.e., 24 hours per day, seven days per week) of at least one
of their operations centres, in order to promptly assist authorized
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) personnel seeking subscriber
information in emergency situations. Furthermore, all WSPs and wireless
CLECs are required to provide subscribers with information regarding the
availability, characteristics and limitations of the wireless emergency
service that they provide. |
|
Finally, the Commission has concluded
that, with regards to mandated emergency services, WSPs and wireless
CLECs should be afforded limitation of liability protection with respect
to their end-users under section 31 of the Telecommunications Act
that is consistent with the limitation of liability approved for the
ILECs. The Commission has also found that a wireless carrier subscribing
to an ILEC's wireless E9-1-1 network access service should enjoy
inter-carrier limitation of liability protection comparable to that of
the ILEC. |
|
Introduction
|
|
Background
|
1. |
In Regulation of wireless services,
Telecom Decision CRTC 94-15, 12 August 1994 (Decision
94-15), the
Commission decided to refrain from exercising its powers under sections
25, 29 and 31 and subsections 27(1), (5) and (6) of the
Telecommunications Act (the Act) in respect of the provision of
cellular service and public cordless telephone service by Canadian
carriers other than incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). |
2. |
Subsequently, in Regulation of mobile
wireless telecommunications services, Telecom Decision CRTC
96-14,
23 December 1996 (Decision 96-14), the Commission concluded that all
public switched mobile voice services (other than those offered in-house
by an ILEC) were or would be subject to competition sufficient to
protect the interest of users. Accordingly, the Commission decided to
refrain from exercising its powers under sections 24 (in part),
25, 29, 31 and subsections 27(1), (5) and (6) of the Act in respect to
public switched mobile services provided by Canadian carriers other than
by ILECs. |
3. |
The regulatory regime established by
Decision 96-14 was subsequently extended to public switched mobile voice
services offered in-house by ILECs in a series of decisions:
NBTel Inc. – Forbearance from Regulating Cellular and Personal
Communications Services, Telecom Decision CRTC
98-18, 2 October
1998; Forbearance from Regulation of Mobile Wireless Services
Provided by Municipally Owned Telephone Companies, Telecom Decision
CRTC 98-19, 9 October 1998; Telecom Order
CRTC 99-991, 13 October 1999; SaskTel - Transition to federal
regulation, Decision
CRTC 2000-150, 9 May 2000; and CRTC refrains from regulating
O.N.Telcom's delivery of mobile wireless services, Order CRTC
2001-501, 29 June 2001. |
4. |
In Local competition, Telecom
Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 (Decision
97-8), the Commission
established the terms and conditions for local competition. In that
decision, the Commission indicated that, among other things, competitive
local exchange carriers (CLECs) would be required to provide equal
access to inter-exchange service providers (IXSPs) and to provide 9-1-1
service. The Commission also indicated that its framework was intended
to be technologically neutral: |
|
This framework encourages efficient interconnection arrangements
while remaining neutral in terms of technology. Thus, for example,
should a wireless service provider (WSP) wish to become a competitive
local exchange carrier (CLEC), it will be subject to the same terms
and conditions set out in this Decision as wireline CLECs as long as
it accepts the obligations applied to CLECs by the Commission in this
Decision.
|
5. |
In Telecom Order CRTC
98-1, 7 January 1998
(Order 98-1), the Commission clarified Decision
97-8 regarding the
obligations of wireless CLECs. Specifically, the Commission stated: |
|
The Commission also considers that CLECs, including wireless CLECs,
need only provide 9-1-1, MRS [ Message Relay Service] and equal access
in the serving area or areas where they operate as a CLEC. Stentor's
contention that customers of wireless CLECs should have access to
these services wherever they roam, would impose a far greater
obligation on wireless CLECs than on wireline CLECs, and would
effectively prevent wireless providers from selecting their own CLEC
serving areas. The Commission therefore finds that the imposition of
such additional obligations on wireless CLECs would not be consistent
with the intention of the Commission to establish a framework that is
neutral in terms of technology.
|
6. |
On 3 May 2000, Microcell Telecommunications
Inc. (Microcell Telecom) filed, for approval, a General Tariff on behalf
of Microcell Connexions Inc. (Microcell Connexions) which proposed to
operate as a CLEC in all exchanges where it had points of
interconnection as a wireless service provider (WSP). In General
Tariff approved on an interim basis with modifications for Microcell
Connexions Inc., Order CRTC
2000-831, 8 September 2000, as corrected by Order CRTC
2000-831-1, 2
October 2000 (collectively, Order
2000-831), the Commission approved Microcell Connexions' proposed General Tariff, on an interim basis,
subject to certain changes. In General Tariff approved on an interim
basis with modifications for Clearnet PCS Inc., Order
CRTC 2000-830, 8 September 2000, as corrected by Order CRTC
2000-830-1,
11 October 2000, the Commission also approved Clearnet PCS Inc.'s
proposed General Tariff, on an interim basis, subject to the same
changes that it made in Order 2000-831. In these Orders, the Commission
also clarified the equal access and 9-1-1 service obligations of
wireless CLECs. |
7. |
In order to further clarify the regulatory
framework for wireless carriers, which term includes wireless CLECs and
WSPs as distinct subclasses, the Commission initiated the present
proceeding via Conditions of service for wireless competitive local
exchange carriers and for 9-1-1 services offered by wireless service
providers, Public Notice CRTC
2001-110, 31 October 2001 (Public
Notice 2001-110). In this Public Notice, the Commission sought comments
on a wide range of topics, including appropriate terms and conditions to
govern services offered by wireless CLECs, ILECs' associated
interconnection obligations and on 9-1-1 services offered by WSPs. |
|
The Public
Notice 2001-110 proceeding |
8. |
In Public Notice 2001-110, the Commission
invited comments on a large number of specific issues relating to three
broad areas of concern: |
|
· Equal access obligations of wireless
CLECs; |
|
· Public safety obligations of wireless
CLECs and WSPs; and |
|
· Limitation of liability protection for
WSPs. |
9. |
The Commission made the following Canadian
carriers parties to the Public Notice
2001-110 proceeding: Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, Bell Mobility
Inc.
(Bell Mobility), The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, Microcell
Telecom, MTS Communications Inc., NorTel Mobility Inc., Northern
Telephone Limited, Northwestel Inc., Prince Rupert City Telephone,
Rogers Wireless Inc. (RWI), Saskatchewan Telecommunications and TELUS Communications
Inc. |
10. |
In addition, the following persons
registered as interested parties to the proceeding: Mr. Bohdan Zabawskyj,
Alberta E9-1-1 Advisory Association (AEAA), Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association (CWTA), City of Calgary (Calgary),
Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Montréal), Consumers' Association of
Canada
(CAC) and Action réseau consommateur (ARC), gouvernement du Québec,
Greater Vancouver Regional District, GT Group Telecom Services Corp.,
l'Union des municipalités du Québec (UMQ), Lemay-Yates Associates Inc.,
Navigata Communications Inc., NBI/Michael Sone Associates, Ontario 9-1-1
Advisory Board (OAB), Primus Telecommunications Inc. (Primus), Simon
Fraser University and View Communications Inc. |
11. |
At the request of a number of parties, the
Commission modified the process set out in Public Notice 2001-110 and
permitted parties to file comments by 14 December 2001, first round
reply comments by 17 January 2002 and second round reply comments by
28 January 2002. |
12. |
The following parties filed comments on or
before 14 December 2001: ARC, CAC and Fédération des associations
coopératives d'économie familiale (collectively referred to as
ARC et al.); AEAA; Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications
Inc., Northwestel Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively
referred to as Bell Canada et al.); Bell Mobility; Microcell Telecom on
behalf of Microcell Connexions and Microcell Solutions (collectively
referred to as Microcell); Montréal and UMQ (collectively referred to as
Montréal/UMQ); OAB; Primus; RWI; TELUS Communications Inc and
TELE-MOBILE COMPANY (collectively referred to as TELUS); and Greater
Vancouver Regional District on behalf of the B.C. 9-1-1 Service
Providers Association (Vancouver). |
13. |
The following parties filed first round
reply comments: ARC et al.; AEAA; Bell Canada et al.; Bell Mobility;
Microcell; OAB; RWI; and TELUS. |
14. |
The following parties filed second round
reply comments: ARC et al.; AEAA; Bell Canada et al.; Bell Mobility;
Microcell; Montréal/UMQ; OAB; RWI; TELUS and Vancouver. |
15. |
In addition to the submissions filed by
registered parties, the Commission also received written submissions
from the following: Central York Fire Services; Corporation of the
County of Essex; County of Oxford; County of Elgin; London Police;
Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs; Ontario Association of Chiefs of
Police; and York Regional Police. |
|
Equal access obligations of wireless CLECs
|
|
Background
|
16. |
In Order
2000-831 in which the Commission
clarified the obligations of wireless CLECs, the Commission stated, with
respect to equal access: |
|
23. The Commission considers that, consistent with the principle
of end-user
choice, the end-users of a mobile wireless CLEC
should have equal
access to the IXSP of their choice on mobile
originating calls, wherever
they roam in the serving area or areas where the
wireless CLEC
operates.
|
|
24. The Commission further considers that end-users of a mobile
wireless
CLEC should have equal access to the IXSP of
their choice on mobile
terminating calls, where roaming outside the
local calling area associated
with the end-user's home exchange. Although the
roaming subscriber
does not dial the long distance call, the
subscriber causes the call by
roaming, and is responsible for the
applicable charges.
|
|
25. The Commission thus finds that Decision
97-8 requires that Microcell
provide enhanced equal access products to the
end-users of any affiliated
reseller, as long as they are roaming within the
serving areas where the
company is operating as a CLEC.
|
|
26. Accordingly, the Commission directs Microcell to provide
equal access
on mobile originating calls, where Solutions' [
Microcell Solutions Inc., a
reseller of Microcell] end-users are roaming
within Microcell's CLEC
serving areas and on mobile terminating calls,
where an end-user is
roaming outside the local calling area associated
with the home exchange.
This requirement is subject to Microcell's
ability to provide equal access
and the IXSP's ability to provide the service.
|
17. |
In light of billing and routing issues
associated with roaming calls, the Commission went on to relieve the
ILECs of the obligation to interconnect their interexchange networks
with Microcell Telecom's network for the purpose of carrying toll calls.
The Commission also requested the CRTC Interconnection Steering
Committee (CISC) Network Working Group (NTWG) to address possible
solutions to these interexchange billing and routing issues. |
18. |
On 8 December 2000, the CISC NTWG filed
Report on Billing and Routing Alternatives Associated with Roaming
End-customers of Mobile Wireless CLECs. The report concluded that
Microcell Telecom was able to provide equal access for mobile
originating calls (MOCs). |
19. |
The CISC NTWG submitted a second report,
Equal Access Mobile Terminating Calls, on 1 May 2001. This report
indicated that Microcell Telecom did not have the ability to provide
equal access for mobile terminating calls (MTCs) or mobile call
forwarded calls (MCFCs). |
|
Positions of parties
|
|
Microcell
|
20. |
Microcell submitted that it was already
operating as a wireless CLEC in Alberta and British Columbia in
accordance with the conditions set out in Order
2000-831. Microcell
noted that pursuant to that order, its equal access obligations as a
wireless CLEC were subject to its ability to provide equal access and
the IXSP's ability to provide the service. |
21. |
According to Microcell, there were
significant technical differences between equal access for MOCs and
equal access for MTCs or MCFCs. While MOCs presented a number of
difficulties, especially in respect of billing by the IXSP, it was
technically feasible to provide equal access for MOCs. However,
Microcell submitted that its research with its two equipment vendors
revealed equal access for MTCs and MCFCs to be impractical. |
22. |
Microcell noted that, to its knowledge, no
other wireless provider in the world was actively pursuing the
possibility of equal access for MTCs and MCFCs. In Microcell's view,
those parties who claimed that it should be possible to provide equal
access of this type, within a limited time period such as one or two
years, had not researched the issue and had no support for their claim. |
23. |
Microcell also submitted that Bell Canada
and other ILECs were simply trying to protect their dominant position in
the local market and their interconnection revenues when they argued
that Microcell should be prohibited from acting as a CLEC until equal
access on MOCs, MTCs and MCFCs was fully implemented. |
24. |
In response to the idea that equal access
on MOCs could be limited to calls originating in a caller's home
exchange, Microcell submitted that this was not possible. Microcell
indicated that it could not validate whether a call originated within
the caller's home exchange since the physical boundaries of the exchange
did not coincide with the boundaries of the areas served by cell sites.
According to Microcell, a caller placing a call from within the caller's
home exchange could actually be served by a cell site outside the
exchange boundary or vice versa. Furthermore, Microcell's
Mobile Switching Centres did not validate the Calling Party; thus the
phone number and home exchange of the call-originating mobile subscriber
were not used for routing purposes. Consequently, in Microcell's
submission, it was not possible to restrict equal access to within the
home exchange. |
25. |
Microcell argued that its service did not
need to be identical to or an equivalent substitute to wireline local
exchange service in order for Microcell to qualify as a CLEC. In
Microcell's view, its service was actually superior to wireline service.
Microcell submitted that what was important was that it was meeting all
of the CLEC obligations set out in Decision 97-8, as clarified and
interpreted by the Commission in Order
98-1 and Order
2000-831. Microcell also submitted that its service satisfied the basic service
objective established by the Commission in Telephone service to
high-cost serving areas, Telecom Decision CRTC
99-16,
19 October 1999 (Decision 99-16). In Microcell's view, its participation
in the local market as a wireless CLEC enhanced competition and was in
the public interest. |
26. |
In Microcell's submission, it would be best
if the Commission recognized the technical differences between wireless
and wireline networks and did not attempt to impose on wireless CLECs
equal access obligations which only made sense in the wireline context.
Accordingly, Microcell submitted that the equal access obligations for
wireless CLECs should be removed altogether. |
|
Comments of other parties
|
27. |
ARC et al. submitted that the CLEC
obligations should remain technologically neutral and should be the same
for all CLECs. In ARC et al.'s view, true local competition existed only
where competitive service providers were offering substitutable
services. ARC et al. submitted that it was not yet clear whether
wireless service would become a full substitute for wireline service for
most Canadians. ARC et al. argued that if a CLEC could not, or chose not
to offer basic residential service, as defined by the Commission, it was
questionable whether it should be granted CLEC status with its
corresponding rights to access the national subsidy fund. |
28. |
In ARC et al.'s view, equal access was a
cornerstone of toll competition and toll competition should not, and
need not, be sacrificed in the name of local competition. In
ARC et al.'s submission, a wireless CLEC should be required to comply
fully with the equal access obligations established by Decision
97-8.
ARC et al. submitted that the equal access obligations should be
suspended for a wireless CLEC for technical reasons, only if it were
likely that a technical solution would be found within a reasonable
period, such as one year. Even then, in ARC et al.'s view, it would be
preferable to defer granting the service provider CLEC status until the
technical solution was available. |
29. |
Bell Canada et al. argued that the
Commission should maintain the CLEC obligations set out in Decision
97-8
since they were technologically neutral and promoted end-user choice.
Bell Canada et al. did not consider it necessary or appropriate to
revise or review the definition of equal access given that local
exchange carriers (LECs) and IXSPs had configured their networks to
satisfy the equal access requirements which, in turn, benefited
end-users. In Bell Canada et al.'s submission, the Commission should
deny CLEC status to a WSP until such time as the Company could fulfil
all such obligations, including the obligation to provide full equal
access to IXSPs. |
30. |
Bell Mobility submitted that it was
important to distinguish between wireless CLECs and WSPs in general. In
Bell Mobility's view, the Commission had relied on market forces to
govern the behaviour of WSPs and should continue to do so. However, Bell
Mobility also submitted that WSPs that choose to become wireless CLECs
should be required to meet all of the CLEC obligations, including the
requirement to provide equal access. |
31. |
Primus submitted that the Commission had
made it extremely clear that wireless CLECs should be subject to the
same equal access provisions as wireline CLECs. Primus argued that
wireless CLECs should continue to be required to meet all CLEC
obligations, including all equal access obligations. In Primus' view, if
a proposed CLEC could not fulfil all of the obligations set out by the
Commission, then CLEC status should be denied until such time as it
could fulfil such obligations. |
32. |
Nonetheless, Primus submitted that, as a
last resort, equal access could be implemented on MOCs until such time
as a technical solution was available for MTCs. In Primus' view, if this
approach were adopted, then the Commission should impose a strict time
line for the implementation of full equal access by wireless CLECs. |
33. |
TELUS submitted that the principles of
technological neutrality and regulatory symmetry must be upheld with
respect to CLEC obligations. TELUS argued that if Microcell, or any
other service provider, using any type of technology, was unable to
provide equal access to IXSPs, such service provider should be denied
CLEC status. |
34. |
TELUS submitted that removing, even on a
temporary basis, the equal access obligations of wireless CLECs or any
other type of LECs offering roaming capabilities would lead to
unintended consequences by virtue of providing the less regulated
providers with artificial advantages over other LECs. TELUS submitted
that should the Commission choose to permit Microcell to operate as a
CLEC, in spite of its inability to fulfil its obligations, then it would
be incumbent upon the Commission to examine the removal of equal access
obligations for all LECs. |
35. |
TELUS submitted that, in order to maintain
technological neutrality, the Commission should consider defining "equal
access" to be an arrangement that would allow a local exchange service
customer within its home exchange to access long distance companies with
equal ease and quality of connection. For the purposes of this
definition, TELUS proposed that the "home exchange" would be defined in
accordance with the ILEC exchange boundary as directed in Decision
97-8.
A subscriber would be considered to be in the subscriber's home exchange
when the subscriber was physically located within the geographical
boundaries of the exchange where the subscriber's Billing Telephone
Number was assigned. |
36. |
TELUS argued that a wireless CLEC could
comply with this approach by configuring its cell sites to conform to
exchange boundaries. According to TELUS, when providing service to a
subscriber outside of the subscriber's home exchange, a wireless CLEC
would no longer be operating as a CLEC, but instead would be providing
service as a WSP. |
|
Commission findings and determinations
|
37. |
As noted above, Decision
97-8 envisioned a
market for local exchange services where LECs could use distinct
technologies, while adhering to a common set of regulatory obligations.
Those obligations were designed to be technologically and competitively
neutral. |
38. |
In Order
98-1, the Commission reaffirmed
that the framework for local competition was intended to be neutral in
terms of technology. Consequently, the Commission rejected a suggestion
that wireless CLECs be required to meet the CLEC obligations wherever
they provide roaming service to subscribers, and not merely in those
areas where they serve as a CLEC. The Commission indicated that such an
approach would impose far greater obligations on wireless CLECs than on
wireline CLECs and would effectively prevent WSPs from selecting their
own CLEC serving areas. |
39. |
There is nothing on the record of this
proceeding that would cause the Commission to change its views on the
importance of technological and competitive neutrality. |
40. |
In the Commission's view, the removal of
all equal access obligations for wireless CLECs would create competitive
inequity vis-à-vis other LECs which must meet equal access obligations,
would eliminate options for subscriber choice and would represent a
permanent loss of competitive opportunities for IXSPs. Consequently, the
Commission rejects Microcell's suggestion that the equal access
obligation be eliminated for wireless CLECs. |
41. |
The question, therefore, is not whether the
equal access obligation should be retained, but whether the requirements
of that obligation have been properly specified for wireless CLECs or
whether those requirements should be reformulated. In light of the
technical issues identified above, the Commission is of the view that
this question should be addressed in two parts: first, with respect to
MOCs; second, with respect to MTCs and MCFCs. |
|
The equal access obligation with respect to MOCs
|
42. |
In Order
2000-831, the Commission concluded
that the principle of end-user choice warranted requiring a wireless CLEC to provide equal access on MOCs wherever the wireless carrier
operates as a CLEC, irrespective of the home exchange of the subscriber. |
43. |
The 8 December 2000 CISC NTWG report and
the record of this proceeding indicate that this approach is capable of
implementation by wireless CLECs. |
44. |
As noted above, in this proceeding TELUS
proposed that the requirements of Order
2000-831 should be revised so
that wireless CLECs would be required to provide equal access for MOCs
only when a subscriber places toll calls from the subscriber's home
exchange. In response to this suggestion, Microcell submitted that, for
technical reasons, it would be impractical for a wireless CLEC to
attempt to imitate a wireline LEC by limiting equal access to calls
placed from a subscriber's home exchange. |
45. |
The Commission is of the view that TELUS'
proposal is impractical from a technical perspective. Among other
things, imperfect alignment of radio coverage to exchange boundaries and
dynamic fluctuations in radio coverage would make it difficult, if not
impossible, to implement this approach in a satisfactory manner. |
46. |
In addition, the Commission remains of the
view that, in light of the principle of end-user choice, a subscriber
roaming outside the subscriber's home exchange should not be denied the
benefit of equal access when it is available to other subscribers within
the relevant exchange. |
47. |
In light of the above, the Commission
concludes that a wireless CLEC must provide equal access for all MOCs
originating within the areas served by the wireless CLEC, as a CLEC,
subject only to the willingness of IXSPs to make their interexchange
services available to the wireless CLEC's subscribers in the relevant
locations. |
|
The equal access obligation with respect to MTCs and MCFCs
|
48. |
In Order
2000-831, the Commission concluded
that a wireless CLEC should provide equal access in respect to MTCs
since the long distance charges are caused and payable by the subscriber
roaming outside the subscriber's home exchange. The Commission did not
expressly address MCFCs in Order
2000-831. |
49. |
As noted above, the 1 May 2001 consensus
report of the CISC NTWG indicated that Microcell was not able to provide
equal access on MTCs and MCFCs. Microcell confirmed this conclusion in
its 14 December 2001 comments in this proceeding. While parties differed
in their expectations as to when a standard-based solution to this
problem might be available, no party disagreed with either the CISC NTWG
report or with Microcell's 14 December 2001 submission that the problem
was not resolved at present. In addition, no party suggested that any
other WSP would be in a better position than Microcell to provide equal
access for these types of calls, should that WSP choose to become a CLEC. |
50. |
The Commission is of the view that the
development of a standard-based solution to this problem, its adoption
by equipment manufacturers and its deployment by service providers will
likely take some time. Indeed, given the apparent lack of interest in
this issue outside of Canada, it is conceivable that such a solution may
not be developed in the foreseeable future. |
51. |
Nonetheless, since wireless CLECs may be
able to support equal access for MTCs and MCFCs at some point in the
future, the Commission considers it appropriate to retain this
requirement as part of the obligation for wireless CLECs to provide
equal access, subject to the IXSPs' willingness to make their services
available to a wireless CLEC's subscribers in the relevant location. |
52. |
At the same time, in light of the
consensus report filed by the CISC NTWG on
1 May 2001 and the record of this proceeding, the Commission hereby
suspends the requirement for wireless CLECs to make available equal
access on MTCs and MCFCs until such time as it is demonstrated to be
viable from both a technological and an economic perspective. |
|
Interconnection obligations of IXSPs to wireless CLECs
|
53. |
As noted above, in Order
2000-831, the
Commission relieved ILECs of their obligation under Decision
97-8 to
interconnect their interexchange networks with a wireless CLEC. The
Commission took this step because of the billing and routing issues
associated with roaming. Microcell emphasized the same billing and
routing issues in the present proceeding and no party contradicted
Microcell on this point. In these circumstances, the Commission
considers it appropriate to extend the relief granted in Order 2000-831.
Therefore, ILECs shall continue to be relieved of their obligation to
interconnect their interexchange networks with a wireless CLEC for the
purpose of carrying toll calls originated by the end-users of the
wireless CLEC. |
|
Public safety obligations for wireless CLECs and WSPs
|
|
Background
|
|
Different forms of 9-1-1 services and underlying 9-1-1 network
access services
|
54. |
There are several forms of emergency
services, in different communities in Canada. In some communities in
Canada, there is no 9-1-1 emergency service at all. Some communities
have basic 9-1-1 service, which is a dialled 9-1-1 service, that routes
9-1-1-dialled calls, without any additional information, to a public
safety agency which is not necessarily a designated 9-1-1 Call Centre.
In many of the ILECs' serving areas, where there is a designated
9-1-1 Call Centre, it is referred to as a Public Safety Answering Point
(PSAP). |
55. |
The highest level of wireline 9-1-1 service
is referred to as wireline enhanced
9-1-1 (wireline E9-1-1) service. In furnishing wireline E9-1-1 service,
the LEC provides information (the subscriber's telephone number,
customer name and billing address) to the Automatic Location Identifier
(ALI) database. This information appears at the PSAP at the same time as
the 9-1-1 voice call. In Bell Canada – Revenue requirements for 1993
and 1994, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-12, 30 August 1993, the
Commission approved a province-wide wireline E9-1-1 service for
Bell Canada. Since then, the Commission has approved similar
province-wide wireline E9-1-1 service for most of the other ILECs. Each
CLEC offers the same service to its subscribers, using the ILEC's
wireline
E9-1-1 network access service as an underlying service. |
56. |
More recently, certain ILECs, wireless
carriers and PSAPs have collaborated to introduce wireless enhanced
9-1-1 (wireless E9-1-1) service in some communities. The provision of
wireless E9-1-1 service by a wireless carrier to its subscribers is
established by using the ILEC's wireless E9-1-1 network access service
as an underlying service. Wireless
E9-1-1 provides a superior form of emergency service for wireless
callers, as compared to emergency services offered by a wireless carrier
using the ILEC's wireline
E9-1-1 network access service. When a wireless carrier provides wireless
E9-1-1 service in a geographical area from which a 9-1-1 phone call is
placed by a mobile subscriber, the PSAP operator will receive wireless
cell site location information and the 10-digit call back number at the
same time as the 9-1-1 phone call from the wireless caller. |
57. |
The Commission has approved the provision
of wireless E9-1-1 network access service on an interim basis in
TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. – Wireless service provider
enhanced provincial 9-1-1 network access service, Order CRTC
2001-96, 2 February 2001 (Order 2001-96); TELUS Communications Inc.
– Wireless service provider enhanced provincial 9-1-1 network
access service, Order CRTC 2001-97, 2 February 2001 (Order 2001-97)
and Bell Canada – Wireless service provider enhanced
9-1-1 service, Order CRTC
2001-902, 21 December 2001 (Order
2001-902). Wireless carriers (service is available to either WSPs
or wireless CLECs) have individually elected to offer the wireless
E9-1-1 service to their subscribers in some communities where the
wireless E9-1-1 network access service is available from the ILEC. |
|
Wireless CLEC requirements vis-à-vis 9-1-1 service
|
58. |
In Order
2000-831, the Commission noted the
submission of AEAA, which had acknowledged that wireless subscriber
records were not as useful as having an actual location record
delivered. The Commission also noted the submission of Bell Canada,
Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications
Inc., NBTel Inc. and Newtel Communications Inc. (Bell Canada et al.),
which had submitted that Bell Canada, as well as other ILECs, had in the
past offered to make available to WSPs a trunk-side routing arrangement
that would improve 9-1-1 call routing accuracy. |
59. |
In its determination, the Commission stated
that it agreed with AEAA that, in emergency situations, the information
contained in wireless subscribers' records could be of value to the PSAPs.
The Commission stated that it considered that until wireless E9-1-1 was
implemented, Microcell Telecom should support the inclusion of the
subscriber records of its resellers' end-users in the ALI databases. |
60. |
Accordingly, in Order
2000-831, the
Commission directed Microcell Telecom to update the relevant ALI
databases with the subscriber records of its resellers' end-users where
it was operating as a CLEC. The Commission also directed Microcell
Telecom to use the trunk-side routing arrangements referenced in the
comments of Bell Canada et al. The Commission noted that Microcell
Telecom had expressed concerns regarding these trunk-side routing
arrangements for 9-1-1 service, and the Commission requested the CISC
Inter-carrier Operations Group – Emergency Services (9-1-1) to address
any operational issues associated with its directives. |
61. |
Finally, in Order
2000-831, the Commission
directed Microcell Telecom to implement wireless E9-1-1 as soon as the
service became available in any of the ILEC's serving areas where the
company would be operating as a CLEC. |
|
Positions of parties
|
62. |
AEAA submitted that all WSPs, not merely
wireless CLECs, should be required to implement wireless E9-1-1 service.
AEAA also submitted that WSPs should be required to create verifiable
subscriber records that could be made available to PSAPs. However, given
the lack of reliability in current subscriber records, AEAA submitted
that input of subscriber records into the ALI database should be held in
abeyance. AEAA also submitted that all wireless CLECs and WSPs should be
required to inform their subscribers of the limitations of
wireless 9-1-1 service. |
63. |
In ARC et al.'s view, there should be no
distinction between wireless CLECs and other WSPs with respect to public
safety issues. ARC et al. submitted that all WSPs should be required to
offer 9-1-1 services as an option to their subscribers. ARC et al. also
submitted that the Commission should focus on functionality when
assessing the inclusion of WSP subscriber records in the ALI database.
In ARC et al.'s view, WSPs should be required to improve their
subscriber records and should give subscribers the option of having
their records included in the ALI database. ARC et al. also emphasized
that consumer education was critical and submitted that WSPs and
wireless CLECs should be required to inform their subscribers of the
unique nature and limitations of wireless
9-1-1 service. |
64. |
Bell Canada et al. submitted that the
Commission should maintain the obligation on wireless CLECs to provide
9-1-1 service and to implement wireless E9-1-1 service when possible.
However, Bell Canada et al. argued that market forces, not regulation,
should govern the provision of emergency services by WSPs. With respect
to the ALI database, Bell Canada et al. argued that there were too many
technical and administrative problems associated with
inputting subscriber records to make this a reasonable obligation to
impose on wireless CLECs. Bell Canada et al. submitted that this
obligation should be eliminated so that the relevant parties could focus
their energies on pursuing more effective solutions. Bell Canada et al.
also suggested that this matter could be referred to the Emergency
Services Working Group of CISC. |
65. |
Bell Mobility submitted that WSPs and
wireless CLECs operated under distinct regulatory regimes and should
continue to do so. In particular, Bell Mobility submitted that the
Commission should rely on market forces with respect to WSPs, as it had
in the past, and should not mandate public safety obligations for WSPs.
Bell Mobility submitted that WSPs had voluntarily offered 9-1-1 service
and further indicated that Bell Mobility itself intended to implement
wireless E9-1-1 service. In Bell Mobility's view, while wireless CLECs
should be required to provide 9-1-1 service and implement wireless
E9-1-1 service when possible, this requirement should not be mandated
for WSPs. |
66. |
Bell Mobility considered it reasonable for
wireless CLECs to inform their subscribers of the particular nature and
limitations of wireless 9-1-1 service. As regards the ALI database,
Bell Mobility submitted that wireless CLECs did not maintain reliable
subscriber records and, hence, should not be required to input those
records into the ALI database. |
67. |
Microcell submitted that wireless CLECs
should be required to provide 9-1-1 service and wireless E9-1-1 service
when possible. In regard to the latter obligation, Microcell emphasized
that wireless CLECs were reliant on the ILECs to provide the required
wireless E9-1-1 interconnection services and, consequently, the
obligation on wireless CLECs should not be absolute, but contingent on
the necessary service being available from the ILEC. |
68. |
Microcell argued against wireless CLECs
being required to input subscriber data into the ALI database on several
grounds. First, Microcell submitted that providing a PSAP with the fixed
address of a mobile customer was of little value and could actually be
misleading. Second, Microcell submitted that PSAPs would be unable to
see the ALI records in real-time and very few (i.e., only 2%) would be
able to access these records manually. Third, there were no plans to
develop or implement standards which would permit real-time access of
ALI records. Fourth, wireless CLECs would have to totally redesign their
up-front activation systems which would, in turn, increase costs, raise
privacy issues for subscribers and possibly irritate subscribers. |
69. |
Microcell submitted that it had
consistently argued that the way to maximize the public safety benefits
from wireless telephony was to pursue proven wireless E9-1-1 technical
solutions, augmented by timely subscriber information retrieval services
operated by wireless carriers' security departments. Microcell submitted
that this position appeared to be shared by Montréal/UMQ and Vancouver. |
70. |
Microcell submitted that the subscriber
notification proposals advocated by certain other parties would be
either impractical or inappropriate. Microcell argued that disclaimers
could easily be misconstrued by subscribers and could prove to be
counterproductive. |
71. |
Montréal/UMQ submitted that the obligations
established in Order 2000-831 should be maintained for wireless CLECs
and should be extended to WSPs. In particular, in their view, the
Commission should direct all WSPs to implement wireless E9-1-1 service
and also require them to develop and offer a service for providing the
geographical location of callers. Montréal/UMQ acknowledged the marginal
utility of inputting WSP subscriber records into the ALI database.
Consequently, they requested that the Commission require all WSPs to
maintain a security response service on a 24 hour per day, seven-day per
week basis. This service would be accessible by PSAPs via a confidential
security number. Montréal/UMQ also submitted that WSPs should be
required to inform their subscribers, at least annually, that it would
be helpful to PSAPs if subscribers provided address information to their
WSP. |
72. |
OAB submitted that the fact that 35 to 40
percent of 9-1-1 calls originated from WSP subscribers was indicative of
the importance of wireless services in emergency situations. OAB argued
that PSAPs needed accurate subscriber information in order to respond to
wireless emergency calls. Consequently, in OAB's view, all WSPs should
be required to input subscriber information into the ALI database.
However, OAB submitted that, in light of the lack of reliability of
wireless subscriber records, this obligation should be suspended until
proper records could be created. OAB also submitted that the deployment
of wireless E9-1-1 services should not eliminate the obligation to
populate ALI databases with wireless subscribers' records. |
73. |
OAB submitted that the obligation of
wireless CLECs to provide 9-1-1 and wireless
E9-1-1 service should be extended to WSPs and that the Commission should
set target time frames for all WSPs to commence deployment of wireless
E9-1-1 service once it is commercially available. In OAB's submission,
this would ensure that the same level of
9-1-1 service would be available to all Canadian wireless customers,
regardless of their choice of service provider. |
74. |
RWI submitted that it did not make sense to
input wireless CLEC or other WSP subscriber records into the ALI
database given the lack of reliability and utility of such records. RWI
also submitted that the ALI database could only be accessed manually by
PSAPs and, therefore, it would be just as efficient for the PSAP to call
the Company directly. In light of these factors, RWI submitted that the
obligation in Order 2000-831 that wireless CLECs populate the ALI
database should be eliminated. |
75. |
RWI submitted that WSPs did not offer local
exchange services in competition with the ILECs. In addition, RWI argued
that the Commission had not found wireless services to be substitutable
for local exchange services but, instead, the Commission had concluded
that wireless services were discretionary services. Accordingly, in
RWI's view, CLECs and WSPs were subject to very different regulatory
regimes. RWI submitted that CLEC obligations should not be imposed on
WSPs, only on those WSPs who might choose to become wireless CLECs. RWI
argued that market forces would ensure that WSPs offered 9-1-1 service
and, eventually, wireless E9-1-1 service. |
76. |
RWI submitted that the imposition of CLEC
obligation on WSPs, without any coincident extension of any CLEC-related
benefits to WSPs, would be unfair. RWI submitted that, rather than
adopting an inequitable and piecemeal approach to the extension of
specific CLEC obligations to WSPs, the Commission should undertake a
broader consultation whereby all of the principal elements of the two
regimes could be considered, and the rights and obligations
appropriately balanced. |
77. |
TELUS submitted that wireless CLECs should
be required to provide wireless
E9-1-1 service to their end-users, where it is available, since wireless
E9-1-1 service is a closer equivalent to 9-1-1 service provided by
wireline LECs to their end-users than the alternative arrangement which
is simply line-side 9-1-1 service. TELUS submitted that the Commission
should not require wireless CLECs to input subscriber information in the
ALI databases given the general lack of reliability and the limited
usefulness of such data. |
78. |
TELUS argued against imposing wireless CLEC
obligations on WSPs. In TELUS' submission, WSPs were already responding
to the market demand for 9-1-1 services. Similarly, TELUS was of the
view that the wireless industry was already keeping customers informed
of the limits of wireless 9-1-1 service and, therefore, it would not be
appropriate to mandate education programs. |
79. |
Vancouver stated that 40% of emergency
calls originate from mobile subscribers. Vancouver did not support the
inclusion of WSP subscriber records in the ALI database given that the
reliability of these records would be suspect. Vancouver submitted that
it would be preferable if all WSPs became wireless CLECs and implemented
wireless
E9-1-1 service. Vancouver indicated that if this were to occur,
Vancouver would wish to rely on a wireless CLEC's security desk in order
to trace an incomplete call or do any other kind of follow-up. Vancouver
submitted that all WSPs should be required to have security departments
which were staffed on a 24 hour per day, seven day per week basis and
which could be accessed from the PSAP by a toll-free number. |
|
Commission findings and determinations
|
80. |
Public Notice 2001-110 identified numerous
public safety issues for consideration. Those issues are addressed below
under the following broad categories: |
|
· Public safety obligations of wireless
CLECs / wireless E9-1-1 and ALI; |
|
· Public safety obligations of wireless
CLECs / PSAP queries; |
|
· Public safety obligations of wireless
CLECs / subscriber notification; |
|
· Public safety obligations of WSPs. |
|
Public safety obligations of wireless CLECs / wireless E9-1-1 and
ALI
|
81. |
As noted above, in Order
2000-831, the
Commission directed Microcell to implement wireless E9-1-1 service in
those areas where it operated as a CLEC, as soon as the wireless E9-1-1
network access service became available. The Commission also directed
Microcell to support the inclusion of subscriber records in ALI
databases where it wished to operate as a wireless CLEC and could not
offer wireless E9-1-1 service to its subscribers. |
82. |
The parties who commented on public safety
issues agreed that, in the wireless context, wireless E9-1-1 service
provides a superior form of emergency service and closer equivalent to
the E9-1-1 service provided by wireline carriers. When a wireless CLEC
provides wireless E9-1-1 service to its mobile subscribers, the PSAP
operator receives wireless cell site location information, which sets
out an approximate location of the call, and the 10-digit call back
number, at the same time as the 9-1-1 phone call. By contrast, where
wireless E9-1-1 network access service is not available and a wireless
CLEC can only offer emergency services using the ILEC's wireline E9-1-1
network access service, the PSAP will only have access to information
that is included in the ALI database,
i.e., phone number, customer name and billing address. |
83. |
A strong consensus emerged in the present
proceeding that the Commission should retain the obligation on wireless
CLECs to implement wireless E9-1-1 service when wireless
E9-1-1 network access services are available. In the Commission's view,
there is no reason to modify this obligation. On the contrary,
competitive equity and public safety concerns argue for the continuation
of this obligation. The Commission has decided, therefore, that this
obligation should be maintained as a public safety obligation for all
wireless CLECs. |
84. |
The Commission notes that Order
2000-831
required wireless CLECs to provide information for the ALI database
until they offer wireless E9-1-1 service to their subscribers. On the
question of whether wireless CLECs should continue to be required to
provide information for the ALI database, the parties who commented on
this issue acknowledged that there were problems with the accuracy of
wireless subscriber records and with the availability of customer data
for many wireless subscribers. |
85. |
The Commission recognizes the reported
difficulties associated with inputting wireless subscriber records into
the ALI database. The Commission also notes that there have been
improvements in the geographical availability of wireless E9-1-1 network
access services and options for more accurate location-based wireless
emergency services. In light of these developments, the Commission is of
the view that it would be more effective and cost-efficient for all
parties to focus on improvements to the wireless emergency services and
underlying network access services. Given these circumstances, the
Commission finds that it would not be appropriate to continue to require
wireless CLECs to enter subscriber records in ALI databases. The
Commission concludes that wireless carriers, therefore, no longer have
the option to operate as wireless CLECs by including subscriber records
in ALI databases. |
86. |
The Commission notes that there are some
communities where neither wireless E9-1-1 nor wireline E9-1-1 services
are offered. In these communities, the ILEC may provide basic
9-1-1 service, or there may be no 9-1-1 service at all. Under the
current regulatory framework, ILECs, WSPs and wireline CLECs may operate
in such communities, but under the formulation of their obligations set
out above, wireless carriers would not be able to obtain CLEC status.
For competitive equity towards wireline LECs, the Commission considers
that wireless carriers should be able to operate as wireless CLECs in
communities where neither wireless E9-1-1 nor wireline E9-1-1 services
are offered. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that in a community
where the ILEC provides basic 9-1-1 service, the wireless carrier must
provide a comparable level of service, in order to attain or maintain
status as a wireless CLEC. Similarly, in a community where the ILEC
provides no 9-1-1 service, a wireless carrier may operate without
providing such service. |
87. |
The Commission notes that in communities
with basic 9-1-1 service or with no
9-1-1 capabilities, superior forms of 9-1-1 service may be introduced
over time. The Commission considers that when enhanced 9-1-1 services
are introduced in a community where a wireless carrier already operates
as a wireless CLEC, the ILEC is to plan the introduction of both
wireline E9-1-1 and wireless E9-1-1 network access services. When and
where this occurs, the Commission considers that the wireless CLEC, like
other CLECs, must fulfil its 9-1-1 obligations, in order to maintain its
status as a CLEC. Should the wireless CLEC not fulfil such requirements,
it must relinquish its status as a CLEC in that community. In the latter
case, the wireless carrier must notify, in writing, both the Commission
and the relevant ILEC of its change in status. |
|
Public safety obligations of wireless CLECs / PSAP queries
|
88. |
A number of parties argued that wireless
CLECs should be required to provide a mechanism for handling queries by
PSAPs for more information about a subscriber who has placed a 9-1-1
call. In particular, it was suggested that a wireless CLEC should be
required to staff its operations centre on a continuous basis (i.e., 24
hours per day, seven days per week) so as to be able to respond to
queries for subscriber information by authorized PSAP personnel. It
was also suggested that wireless CLECs should be required to maintain a
toll-free number for this purpose. |
89. |
In the Commission's view, this type of
mechanism would be a cost-effective way of improving emergency services
since it would augment the information available through wireless E9-1-1
service capabilities. The Commission therefore requires wireless CLECs
to establish and maintain by 14 October 2003 toll-free telephone
access to and continuous staffing of at least one of their operations
centres, in order to promptly assist authorized PSAP personnel seeking
subscriber information in emergency situations. |
|
Public safety obligations of wireless CLECs / subscriber
notification
|
90. |
A number of parties argued that public
safety would be improved if wireless subscribers were fully aware of the
attributes of their wireless emergency service. The Commission agrees.
In the Commission's view, wireless subscribers may not be aware that
emergency calls dialled using the 9-1-1 format may be routed to a public
safety agency which is not necessarily a designated 9-1-1 Call Centre.
Subscribers may also not be aware that, due to radio coverage, some
emergency calls may reach a 9-1-1 Call Centre that does not provide
emergency services in the caller's specific location. In addition,
subscribers may not be aware that their specific location, phone number
or identity may not always be immediately available to the 9-1-1 Call
Centre's personnel. |
91. |
In the Commission's view, it would improve
public safety if wireless CLECs were to provide subscribers with
information regarding the availability, characteristics and limitations
of the wireless emergency service that they offer. This information
should be provided to (1) new subscribers upon service initiation,
(2) in a one-time information campaign to existing subscribers, and
thereafter, (3) periodically to existing subscribers, for example when
they renew their mobile handset. The Commission directs each wireless
CLEC to file by 13 November 2003 a proposal for the
implementation of this requirement. Upon receipt and review of these
proposals, the Commission will determine what further action is
required. |
|
Public safety obligations of WSPs
|
92. |
Wireless carriers, where they operate as
WSPs, are not currently subject to mandatory
9-1-1 service requirements. Parties to the present proceeding were
divided on the question of whether such obligations of wireless CLECs
should be extended to WSPs. PSAPs and public interest groups sought
uniform public safety obligations for WSPs and wireless CLECs. Carriers,
both wireless and wireline, generally opposed this approach and argued
in favour of reliance on market forces. |
93. |
The Commission notes the statistics
provided by OAB and Vancouver which indicate that a significant
percentage of emergency calls originate from wireless subscribers. The
Commission also notes that these statistics were derived from calling
data at some of Canada's largest 9-1-1 call centres. In the Commission's
view, this evidence demonstrates that wireless services play an
increasingly important role in public safety in Canada. |
94. |
The Commission is of the view that given
the increasing public reliance on wireless services in emergency
situations, it is appropriate to impose some public safety obligations
on all WSPs. Accordingly, the Commission requires all WSPs to : |
|
· provide wireless E9-1-1 service to their
subscribers in communities where wireless
E9-1-1 network access service is available from an ILEC; |
|
· establish and maintain by 14 October
2003 toll-free telephone access to and continuous staffing of at
least one of the WSP's operation centres, in order to promptly assist
authorized PSAP personnel seeking subscriber information in emergency
situations; and |
|
· file by 13 November 2003 a
proposal for providing the WSP's subscribers with
initial and periodic notification of the availability, characteristics
and limitations of the
9-1-1 service offered by the WSP. |
|
Limitation of liability for WSPs and CLECs
|
|
Background
|
95. |
As noted above, in Decision
96-14, the
Commission forbore from exercising its powers under various sections of
the Act with regards to mobile wireless telecommunications service,
including section 31, which pertains to limitations of liability. |
96. |
In addition, in Decision
97-8, the
Commission forbore from exercising its powers under section 31 in
respect of services provided by CLECs to their end-users. However, with
respect to liability as between carriers, the Commission noted that
under section 31 of the Act, the ILEC's liability to other carriers may
be limited. In Decision 97-8, the Commission retained its powers under
section 31 of the Act, in respect of CLECs' provision of services to,
and agreements with, other Canadian carriers. |
97. |
In Telecom Order CRTC
97-1959, 30 December
1997 (Order 97-1959), the Commission approved, on an interim basis, a
proposed Interconnection Agreement for the Provision of 9-1-1 Service to
a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (the ILEC-CLEC Interconnection
Agreement), filed by Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor), on behalf
of BC TEL, Bell Canada, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS NetCom Inc., The
New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited and TELUS Communications Inc.
In Order
97-1959, the Commission ordered the ILEC-CLEC Interconnection Agreement
to be modified in order to revise section 7 to make the Companies'
limitations of liability consistent with the limitations of liability
set out in their respective Terms of Service. |
98. |
By letter dated 3 March 1998, Stentor filed
the revised ILEC-CLEC Interconnection Agreement, with modifications
pursuant to Order 97-1959. In this letter, Stentor submitted that the
required changes were not appropriate and requested that the Commission
grant approval to the originally filed agreement. |
99. |
In the tariff application proceedings that
led to Orders 2001-96,
2001-97 and
2001-902, interested parties
suggested that the liability for WSPs should be symmetrical to that of
the ILECs. In Orders 2001-96,
2001-97 and
2001-902, the Commission
granted interim approval to proposed wireless E9-1-1 service tariffs and
related agreements between the applicant ILEC and the WSP that would
subscribe to the service (the WSP E9-1-1 Agreements). The limitation of
liability provisions granted interim approval in these Orders were
modelled on those that Stentor had filed with its 3 March 1998 letter,
and were drafted so as to limit the liability of the ILECs only. |
100. |
In the present Public Notice 2001-110
proceeding, the Commission asked for comments on limitations of
liability for wireless carriers and on the appropriateness of any other
related measures. |
101. |
Having determined in Decision
97-8 not to
forbear with respect to the application of section 31 to limitation of
liability provisions relating to interconnection arrangements between CLECs and other Canadian carriers, in Model tariff for the
interconnection services of competitive local exchange carriers,
Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-54,
3 September 2002 (Decision 2002-54), the Commission approved a model
tariff for CLECs which included an intercarrier limitation of liability
provision. |
|
Positions of parties
|
102. |
Bell Canada et al. argued that the
consideration of legal liability issues should be reviewed during the
Commission's consideration of the ILEC's wireless E9-1-1 network access
service tariff applications. |
103. |
Bell Mobility supported the extension of
the limitation of liability protections to WSPs as, in its view, this
would promote the implementation of emergency response services. |
104. |
Microcell submitted that extending
limitation of liability protection to wireless CLECs and WSPs was not a
precondition for these carriers to provide 9-1-1 services since they
were already doing so. However, Microcell supported granting such
protection to wireless CLECs and WSPs since the ILECs benefited from
Commission approved limitation of liability provisions. |
105. |
RWI submitted that WSPs should be given the
same limitation of liability as ILECs, otherwise WSPs who were not
affiliated with an ILEC would be at a competitive disadvantage. |
106. |
TELUS supported granting WSPs limitation of
liability protection comparable to that granted to ILECs. TELUS
suggested using the ILECs' General Terms of Service relating to
liability as a model for the limited liability provision for WSPs. |
|
Commission findings and determinations
|
|
Limitation of liability relating to the provision of 9-1-1 services
to end-users
|
107. |
In this Decision, the Commission is
requiring wireless carriers to provide wireless
E9-1-1 service to their subscribers in certain circumstances. Given the
potential for claims by subscribers against wireless carriers in
connection with the provision of these emergency services, the
Commission will now resume the exercise of its powers under section 31
of the Act on a limited basis (i.e., in connection with the emergency
services provided by wireless carriers on a mandatory basis). |
108. |
The Commission finds that the limitation of
liability provision set out in Appendix A to this Decision is to apply
to wireless carriers in respect of emergency services provided to
end-users on a mandatory basis. The provision is based on the limitation
of liability provision approved for TELUS Communications Inc. in CRTC
approves amalgamated Terms of Service for TELUS Communications Inc.,
Order CRTC 2001-552,
9 July 2001. In order to implement this determination and ensure
awareness of the limitation of liability, the Commission directs
wireless carriers to include such provisions in their end-user service
contracts. |
|
Inter-carrier limitation of liability relating to the provision of
9-1-1 services
|
109. |
As noted above, ILECs enjoy limitation of
liability both for wireline E9-1-1 and wireless E9-1-1 network access
services, pursuant to the ILEC-CLEC Interconnection Agreement and the
WSP E9-1-1 Agreements, respectively. Further to Decision
2002-54, CLECs
also receive limitation of liability protection in respect of
interconnection arrangements between CLECs and other Canadian carriers.
Under a forbearance regime, WSPs have not benefited from any limitation
of liability provisions that the Commission has approved. |
110. |
Upon examination of the agreements, the
Commission notes that the degree of liability protection that CLECs
receive under the model CLEC tariff approved in Decision
2002-54 is considerably less than that which the ILECs receive under the
ILEC-CLEC Interconnection Agreement and the WSP E9-1-1 Agreements. |
111. |
The Commission notes that parties that
commented on this issue generally supported the introduction of
limitations of liability provisions for wireless carriers. The
Commission is of the view that a wireless carrier subscribing to an
ILEC's wireless E9-1-1 network access service should enjoy limitation of
liability protection comparable to that of the ILEC. |
112. |
Accordingly, the Commission is of the view
that the WSP E9-1-1 Agreements should be modified to incorporate the
limitation of liability provision set out in Appendix B of this
Decision. This provision is based on the existing limitation of
liability provision contained in the WSP E9-1-1 Agreements modified in
order to give comparable limitation of liability to wireless carriers.
Thus, the Commission directs ILECs offering WSP E9-1-1 service to
include the wording set out in Appendix B, changing the parties' names
as appropriate, in their WSP E9-1-1 Agreements referenced in their
tariffs and to modify existing signed WSP E9-1-1 service agreements
accordingly. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This document is available in
alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the
following Internet site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca |