|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-23
|
|
Ottawa, 10 April 2003 |
|
GT Group Telecom Services Corp. v. Aliant Telecom Inc. –
Tariff violations and contraventions of the Telecommunications
Act
|
|
Reference: 8622-G7-03/02 |
|
In this decision, the Commission finds that Aliant Telecom
Inc. (Aliant Telecom) contravened sections 25(1) and 27(1) and
(2) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) when: |
|
· it charged Memorial University of
Newfoundland (Memorial) the 10-year Minimum Contract Period (MCP)
monthly rate for Provincial Centrex Service instead of the
applicable 3-year MCP rate for the first three years and the
applicable month-to-month rate thereafter, when the agreement
between Aliant Telecom and Memorial clearly stated that the MCP
was 42 months; |
|
· it transferred customers with
10-year MCPs, to the lower 5-year MCP rate prior to the expiry date
of their contracts without the customers paying the applicable early
termination charges for the unexpired portion of the MCP; and |
|
· it improperly charged Memorial
residential rates, instead of business rates, for modem pool lines. |
|
The Commission considers that Aliant Telecom's actions in
this instance are non-compliant and anti-competitive and undermine
fair and sustainable competition in its territory. The Commission is
thus taking measures to address Aliant Telecom's behaviour and
with a view to ensuring that it complies with its tariffs and the
Act. |
|
The application
|
1. |
On 26 April 2002, GT Group Telecom Services Corp. (Group Telecom)
filed an application alleging that Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom)
had violated its tariffs and the Telecommunications Act
(the Act) by: |
|
i) reducing the rate charged to Memorial
University of Newfoundland (Memorial) for Provincial Centrex Service
(PCS), from a 10-year Minimum Contract Period (MCP) rate of $27.00
per month to a 5-year MCP Band A rate of $25.30 per month without
requiring Memorial to pay termination charges and, in so doing, had
given an undue preference to itself; |
|
ii) charging Memorial residential rates
instead of business rates for modem pool lines; and |
|
iii) offering services at rates below
approved rates in response to a Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by
Memorial in February 2002. |
2. |
To address Aliant Telecom's alleged anti-competitive conduct
and to ensure that any services provided to Memorial by Aliant Telecom
complied with applicable tariffs and the Act, Group Telecom
requested that the Commission: |
|
i) require a sworn affidavit from Aliant Telecom
affirming that any services, either currently offered or provided to
Memorial, were in compliance with regulatory and statutory
requirements; |
|
ii) investigate instances of violation of
section 24 of the Act by Aliant Telecom in regard to services
it had offered to Memorial; |
|
iii) institute measures to ensure that,
on a going-forward basis, any offering or provision of regulated
services by Aliant Telecom to Memorial be compliant with all
relevant tariffs and with the Act; and |
|
iv) initiate a public proceeding to
determine additional remedies that may be appropriate in light of (i)
the Commission's finding in this proceeding, and (ii) Group
Telecom's evidence in the process initiated in Price cap review
and related issues, Public Notice CRTC 2001-37, 13 March 2001 (PN 2001-37)
regarding remedies or penalties for non-compliance. |
|
The process
|
3. |
On 8 May 2002, Memorial filed an intervention. Aliant Telecom
filed its answer on 9 May 2002, and Group Telecom filed its
reply on 14 May 2002. |
4. |
To clarify the record, in a Commission staff letter dated 17 June
2002, Aliant Telecom was requested to file additional material
and to provide comments on issues related to its compliance with its
regulatory obligations. Aliant Telecom filed the additional
material and comments on 21 June 2002, and Group Telecom filed its
reply on 26 June 2002. |
5. |
To complete the record, by in a Commission staff letter dated 8
November 2002, Aliant Telecom was requested to provide further
information, including identifying other customers
who were treated similarly to Memorial. Aliant Telecom
filed the information on 22 November 2002. Group Telecom
filed comments on 28 November 2002. Aliant Telecom
filed an answer on 3 December 2002 and Group Telecom filed a
reply on 6 December 2002. |
|
Background
|
6. |
NewTel Communications Inc. (NewTel) (which on 1 January 2001
amalgamated with Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel
Limited and NBTel Inc. to become Aliant Telecom Inc.) and
Memorial entered into an agreement for the provision of PCS that
came into effect on 1 April 1997 (the Agreement). Memorial had
approximately 3,000 PCS lines. The Agreement stated that it was a
10-year agreement with an MCP of 42 months. NewTel charged
Memorial a rate of $27.00 per Centrex line per month. |
7. |
On 1 April 1997, NewTel's tariffed PCS monthly rates, throughout
its territory, for customers with 2,501 to 5,000 lines were as
follows: |
|
· month-to-month rate of
$42.00; |
|
· 3-year MCP rate of $30.65; |
|
· 5-year MCP rate of $29.20;
and |
|
· 10-year MCP rate of
$27.00. |
8. |
In Order CRTC 2001-123, 8 February 2001 (Order
2001-123),
following a tariff application by Aliant Telecom on behalf of
NewTel, the Commission approved Band-specific PCS rates in NewTel's
territory. The Commission approved the following monthly rates for
NewTel customers in Band A with 2,501 to 5,000 PCS lines: |
|
· month-to-month rate of
$38.00; |
|
· 3-year MCP rate of $26.75;
and |
|
· 5-year MCP rate of $25.30. |
|
The customers referred to in this decision are located in Band A
in the former NewTel territory. |
9. |
Order 2001-123 did not modify the 10-year MCP monthly rate of
$27.00, which continues to be available to PCS customers with a
minimum of 1,000 lines, regardless of the Band in which the
lines are located. |
10. |
Pursuant to NewTel's tariff, business customers are charged the
monthly business rate for primary exchange service lines, including
modem pool lines. The applicable tariffed Band A rate for individual
lines is $32.00 per month. Prior to 15 May 2001, for residence
customers throughout NewTel's territory the rate for individual
lines was $19.95 per month. In Order CRTC 2001-374, 10 May 2001,
following a tariff application by Aliant Telecom on behalf of
NewTel, the Commission approved a revised residence rate for
individual lines of $21.95 per month, effective 15 May 2001. |
|
Compliance with regulatory obligations in providing PCS to
Memorial
|
|
Position of parties
|
|
Group Telecom
|
11. |
Group Telecom submitted that Aliant Telecom had violated its
tariff and sections 24, 25(1) and 27(2) of the Act by (a)
transferring Memorial from the 10-year MCP rate of $27.00 per month
to the revised 5-year MCP Band A rate of $25.30 per month approved
in Order 2001-123, without requiring Memorial to pay the applicable
termination charges, and (b) giving an undue preference to itself. |
12. |
Group Telecom submitted that Aliant Telecom's actions raised
serious concerns about Aliant Telecom's commitment to
regulatory compliance. |
|
Aliant Telecom
|
13. |
Aliant Telecom stated that the Agreement provided that,
while the parties committed, in principle, to a 10-year business
relationship, Memorial's total enforceable commitment for PCS was
for an MCP of 42 months. Aliant Telecom further stated that, at
the time of signing the Agreement, Memorial wanted the very best PCS
rates available but did not want a long-term commitment because it
wanted to have sufficient flexibility to seek telecommunications
services from an alternate service provider following the
introduction of local competition. |
14. |
Aliant Telecom stated that Memorial had paid the 10-year MCP
rate of $27.00 per month per PCS line and submitted that this rate
was consistent with the terms of the Agreement. Memorial paid this
rate until February 2001. Aliant Telecom further stated that,
effective 8 February 2001, the rate charged to Memorial was reduced
to the 5-year MCP rate of $25.30 per month per Centrex access line,
approved in Order 2001-123. In addition, Aliant Telecom stated
that it had changed the term of the Agreement to five years but
had retained 1 April 1997 as the commencement date. |
15. |
Aliant Telecom submitted that the Agreement advanced the
interests of competition because Memorial was not locked into a
longer-term agreement and could choose an alternate service provider
for its voice services after only 42 months. The intent of the
Agreement was also to respond to Memorial's needs, should Memorial
become justifiably dissatisfied with the service. |
16. |
Aliant Telecom stated that, in hindsight, the
characterization of the MCP as 42 months, and the structuring of the
Agreement in those terms, were inaccurate and inappropriate. Aliant Telecom
submitted, however, that the issue of the length of the MCP in the
Agreement was hypothetical since the 42-month MCP was never acted
upon. Moreover, if Memorial had been dissatisfied with the
service after 42 months, Aliant Telecom submitted that Memorial
could not have terminated the Agreement unless Aliant Telecom
had filed a tariff permitting such termination. Absent such a
tariff, if Memorial had unilaterally terminated the Agreement
without reasonable cause or justification, the Agreement provided
that the applicable tariff prevailed in case of conflict between the
Agreement and the tariff. Aliant Telecom submitted that, in
that event, Aliant Telecom could have taken legal action to
enforce the 10-year commitment. |
17. |
Aliant Telecom submitted that the concept of allowing a
customer to avoid completion of an MCP, where that customer agrees
to enter into another service, was permitted by the Commission in
circumstances such as those contemplated by NewTel's Terms of
Service, Item 10, Article 21.2(e), and Bell Canada's
National Services Tariff (NST), Section 3, 301.2(e) (Bell Canada's
NST). |
18. |
Aliant Telecom further submitted that in the current
competitive market, the rigid application of the 10-year MCP rate,
without contemplating the possibility of review, was very
unattractive to many customers. Aliant Telecom submitted that
the structure of the Agreement complied with the tariff and
addressed Memorial's concerns by creating an obligation on
NewTel to take steps to ensure that its service remained
competitive. Aliant Telecom submitted that it should be
permitted to decide whether to enforce the penalty provision in its
tariff for early termination, taking into consideration the
customer's reasons to terminate the Agreement prematurely. |
|
Group Telecom's further comments
|
19. |
Group Telecom disagreed with Aliant Telecom's submission
that the issue of the length of the MCP was hypothetical, given that
the Agreement clearly stated that the MCP was 42 months. Group
Telecom also disagreed with Aliant Telecom's reliance on
Bell Canada's NST to justify the avoidance of applying
termination charges. Group Telecom noted that Bell Canada's NST
allowed Bell Canada to waive termination charges when a customer
committed to another MCP. Group Telecom submitted that Aliant Telecom's
relevant tariff did not have such a clause, and that approved
tariffs always superseded a contract unless specific Commission
approval had been obtained to the contrary. |
|
Commission analysis and determinations
|
20. |
The Commission notes that Aliant Telecom, as well as other
major incumbent local exchange carriers, provide PCS with specific
MCPs, pursuant to approved tariffs. An MCP is the minimum time
period during which a customer agrees to subscribe to a service and
for which a particular rate will be in effect. The Commission
further notes that, in general, the longer the MCP, the lower the
rate per month per Centrex line. Once customers have entered into an
agreement for PCS with a specific MCP, they cannot shorten the MCP
without paying termination charges, unless otherwise provided for in
the applicable tariffs or in Commission determinations. In this
regard, the Commission notes that NewTel's PCS tariff does not allow
early termination without termination charges being applied. After
an MCP has elapsed, a customer can enter into another agreement with
the same or a different MCP or transfer to a month-to-month rate.
Customers on a month-to-month rate can also enter into
agreements with longer MCPs without incurring termination charges. |
21. |
The Commission notes that Item 10, Article 21.2(e) of NewTel's
Terms of Service provides as follows: |
|
where a customer replaces any Newfoundland Telephone service
with another Newfoundland Telephone service, the termination is
effective from the date of replacement, subject to the terms of
Newfoundland Telephone's tariffs and, notwithstanding
Article 1.3(c), the terms of the contract for the
service in question;
|
22. |
With respect to Aliant Telecom's reliance on Item 10,
Article 21.2(e) of NewTel's Terms of Service, the Commission
notes that this provision only applies in circumstances where a
customer replaces a service with a different service. In the present
case, the Commission notes that there was no substitution of one
service for another. Instead, Memorial continued to receive the same
service, namely PCS, but at a lower rate. Accordingly, the
Commission considers that Article 21.2(e) of NewTel's Terms of
Service has no application in the circumstances of this case. |
23. |
The Commission notes that while Aliant Telecom argued that
the Agreement was effectively a 10-year MCP, clause 2 of the
Agreement stated as follows: "This Ten Year Agreement has a
Minimum Contract Period ("the MCP") of 42 months,
commencing on the date that PCS is first activated for the
Customer." The Commission further notes that NewTel's PCS
tariff does not provide for a 42-month MCP. Instead, it stipulated
that customers could enter into agreements with month-to-month,
3-year, 5-year or 10-year MCPs. Given this, the Commission
considers that Memorial did not qualify for either a 5-year or a
10-year MCP rate. Instead, the Commission considers that, pursuant
to the Agreement's MCP of 42 months, Memorial qualified for a 3-year
MCP. Accordingly, consistent with the tariff and the Agreement, the
Commission finds that Aliant Telecom should have charged
Memorial the 3-year MCP rate applicable at that time, which was
$30.65 per month, for the first three years of the Agreement. |
24. |
The Commission notes that item 190.1(c)(ii) of NewTel's General
Tariff states that "[a]t the expiry of the 3-year,
5-year or 10-year MCP all locals will revert to one month rates
unless the customer enters into a new 3-year, 5-year or 10-year
MCP." In this case, Aliant Telecom and Memorial did not
enter into a new agreement after the expiry of the 3-year MCP.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that, consistent with the relevant
tariff and the Agreement, Aliant Telecom should have charged
Memorial the month-to-month rate after the expiry, in March 2000, of
the 3-year MCP. |
25. |
The Commission notes that section 25(1) of the Act prohibits a
Canadian carrier from providing a telecommunications service except
in accordance with a tariff filed and approved by the Commission.
The Commission further notes that section 27(1) of the Act provides
that every rate charged by a Canadian carrier shall be just and
reasonable and that section 27(2) of the Act provides that no
Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a
telecommunications service, give an undue or unreasonable preference
to any person, including itself. The Commission considers that for
services provided pursuant to a tariff, just and reasonable rates
are those set out in the tariff approved by the Commission. |
26. |
The Commission finds that in the circumstances of this case,
Aliant Telecom contravened sections 25(1) and 27(1) of the Act
by charging Memorial rates other than the applicable approved rates
set out in the tariff for PCS. Further, the Commission finds that
Aliant Telecom, by charging Memorial less than the applicable
rates set out in the tariff, conferred an undue preference upon
Memorial and itself and subjected competitors and potential
competitors to an undue disadvantage, all contrary to section 27(2)
of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission directs Aliant Telecom
to charge forthwith Memorial the approved tariff rate, if it has not
already done so. |
|
Compliance with regulatory obligations in providing PCS to
customers other than Memorial
|
|
Position of parties
|
27. |
In response to the 8 November 2002 letter requesting additional
information to complete the record of this proceeding, Aliant Telecom
stated that, following Commission approval of the lower 5-year MCP
rates for PCS in Order 2001-123, it had transferred all NewTel
10-year MCP customers who, in its view, qualified for the lower
5-year MCP rate, to the new 5-year MCP rate approved in Order 2001-123. Aliant Telecom submitted that customers would
naturally have migrated their service to the new tariff, and argued
that it was implicit in the tariff, that customers that met the
conditions and qualified for the lower rate should benefit from that
lower rate. Aliant Telecom submitted that customers who signed
contracts before the effective date of the new rate should also have
been entitled to the benefit of those lower rates. |
28. |
Group Telecom noted that despite Group Telecom being charged a
10-year MCP rate, Aliant Telecom did not advise it of its
eligibility for, nor did it transfer Group Telecom to, the lower
5-year MCP rate. Group Telecom submitted that Aliant Telecom
deliberately omitted to offer Group Telecom the lower rate because
it was a competitor of Aliant Telecom. Group Telecom further
submitted that NewTel's PCS tariff neither permitted the company to
provide PCS for less than the applicable MCP rate, nor did it
allow Aliant Telecom to move, at will, customers from a 10-year
MCP to a 5-year MCP. Group Telecom argued that Aliant Telecom's
actions demonstrated a deliberate pattern of wilful ignorance
of its regulatory obligations to the detriment of Group Telecom
and competition. |
29. |
In its response, Aliant Telecom stated that, when the lower
5-year MCP Band A rate for PCS was approved in Order 2001-123, it
was unclear to Aliant Telecom, because of the distribution of
Group Telecom's Centrex lines, whether Group Telecom would benefit
significantly from a transfer of its services to the lower 5-year
MCP rate. Aliant Telecom stated that, accordingly, the lower
5-year MCP rate was not applied to Group Telecom. Aliant Telecom
further stated that, as a result of Group Telecom's application to
the Commission, it had re-examined the distribution of Group
Telecom's access lines in light of the 5-year MCP rate, and
determined that Group Telecom did qualify for the reduced rate.
Aliant Telecom stated that it would retroactively credit Group
Telecom for any billing differential. |
|
Commission analysis and determinations
|
30. |
The Commission notes that item 190.1(c)(iv) of NewTel's
General Tariff provides that where a 10-year MCP is terminated prior
to the scheduled expiry date, the customer is required to pay the
total of the monthly access rates applicable to the unexpired
portion of the MCP. The Commission considers that transferring a
customer from a 10-year MCP to a 5-year MCP effectively
terminates the 10-year MCP, since the original terms and conditions
of the 10-year MCP are no longer in effect and are replaced by the
terms and conditions of the 5-year MCP. The Commission notes that
Aliant Telecom transferred customers with 10-year MCPs to the lower,
5-year MCP rate prior to the expiry date of their contracts without
the customers paying the applicable early termination charges. The
Commission therefore finds that Aliant Telecom contravened its
tariff and sections 25(1) and 27(1) of the Act by failing to charge
Memorial the applicable rates set out in the tariff. The Commission
further finds that in so doing, Aliant Telecom conferred an
undue preference upon its customers with 10-year MCPs and itself and
subjected competitors and potential competitors to an undue
disadvantage, all contrary to section 27(2) of the Act. Accordingly,
the Commission directs Aliant Telecom to migrate
forthwith those customers, including Group Telecom if applicable,
back to the rates, terms and conditions that applied immediately
before the transfer of their services to the 5-year MCP rate. |
|
Regulatory compliance with respect to modem pool lines
|
|
Position of parties
|
31. |
In its application, Group Telecom stated that it suspected that
Aliant Telecom was providing Memorial with 239 modem pool lines
at the monthly residence rate for individual lines rather than the
monthly business rate for individual lines in Band A. Group Telecom
submitted that, if its suspicions were correct, Aliant Telecom
would be in violation of its tariffs. |
32. |
In its response, Aliant Telecom confirmed that the lines in
question were being provided as modem pool lines. Aliant Telecom
submitted that the lines were originally billed to Memorial at the
monthly business rate but were subsequently changed to the monthly
residence rate by mistake. Aliant Telecom stated that, upon
verification, it had rectified the billing error and had
applied the proper monthly business rate for those lines. |
33. |
Group Telecom replied that Aliant Telecom's response
confirmed its suspicion that Aliant Telecom had violated its
General Tariff by charging Memorial the monthly residence rate, and
not the monthly business rate for the modem pool lines in question,
and had done so knowingly. Group Telecom submitted that in light of
Aliant Telecom's tariff violations and anti-competitive
behaviour, Aliant Telecom's claim that it had mistakenly billed
the lines was not credible. |
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
34. |
The Commission notes Aliant Telecom's admission that it had
improperly charged Memorial the monthly residence rate for
individual lines, instead of the monthly business rate for
individual lines in Band A, for the modem pool lines. The Commission
finds that by failing to charge Memorial the applicable rate set out
in the tariff, Aliant Telecom contravened its tariff and
sections 25(1) and 27(1) of the Act. Further, the Commission finds
that Aliant Telecom, by charging Memorial less than the applicable
rate set out in the tariff, conferred an undue preference upon
Memorial and itself and subjected competitors and potential
competitors to an undue disadvantage, all contrary to section 27(2)
of the Act. The Commission directs Aliant Telecom to
forthwith charge Memorial the appropriate monthly business rate for
individual lines in Band A for the modem pool lines, if Aliant Telecom
has not already done so. |
|
Aliant Telecom's response to Memorial's RFP
|
|
Position of parties
|
35. |
Group Telecom stated that, prior to the purported expiry of the
Agreement, Memorial had issued an RFP for the provision of its local
voice services, including its Centrex services. Group Telecom stated
that after having been informally advised on 12 April 2002 that it
had been awarded the contract, it was later informed, by a letter
dated 23 April 2002, that Memorial had awarded the contract to
Aliant Telecom. |
36. |
Group Telecom submitted that its proposal was priced
substantially lower than the approved rates that Aliant Telecom
could have legitimately offered to Memorial. Group Telecom
submitted that the rates in Aliant Telecom's proposal could not
have satisfied an imputation test applicable to such an arrangement.
Group Telecom submitted that the imputation test specified by the
Commission for such arrangements required that the price for the
service be designed to recover General Tariff rates applicable to
the components of the service available through the General Tariff
as well as the Phase II costs of the other components of the
service. Group Telecom argued that Aliant Telecom must have
offered discounts on these approved rates, which was not permitted
by Aliant Telecom's General Tariff. Group Telecom submitted
that, accordingly, Aliant Telecom's proposal was made in
contravention of section 24 of the Act, and was priced to ensure
that Aliant Telecom would continue to be Memorial's service
provider. |
37. |
Memorial denied Group Telecom's allegations with respect to the
events in connection with the bidding process. Memorial submitted
that it chose Aliant Telecom because it proposed a 3-year
agreement, while Group Telecom had offered a 5-year term. Memorial
stated that it preferred Aliant Telecom's 3-year term because
it gave Memorial the maximum flexibility in its communications
strategy. |
38. |
In response to Group Telecom's allegations set out above, Aliant Telecom
stated that: (i) its proposal to Memorial explicitly
provided that it was subject to Commission approval; and (ii) it had
filed a tariff application with the Commission that set out proposed
rates for PCS consistent with those offered in response to
Memorial's RFP, supported by the appropriate imputation test
information. In response to the letter dated 8 November 2002, Aliant Telecom
further stated that it had billed Memorial the rate of $25.30 per
month since 8 February 2001 and had not, at any time,
charged Memorial the rate proposed in
its tariff application. |
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
39. |
The Commission notes that section 24 of the Act states that the
offering and provision of any telecommunications service by a
Canadian carrier are subject to any conditions imposed by the
Commission or included in a tariff approved by the Commission. |
40. |
Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission concludes
that Aliant Telecom never provided PCS to Memorial at the rate
proposed in its tariff application.1 The Commission also
notes that the offering of PCS, as distinct from its provision, is
not subject to any conditions. Accordingly, the Commission finds
that Aliant Telecom did not offer PCS to Memorial in
contravention of section 24 of the Act. |
|
Relief
|
41. |
As noted in paragraph 2 above, Group Telecom requested that: |
|
i) Aliant Telecom file a sworn
affidavit affirming that any services, either currently offered or
provided to Memorial, were in compliance with regulatory and
statutory requirements; |
|
ii) the Commission investigate instances
where Aliant Telecom contravened section 24 of the Act in
respect of services it had offered to Memorial; |
|
iii) the Commission institute measures to
ensure that, on a going-forward basis, Aliant Telecom comply
with all relevant tariffs and with the Act when providing
non-forborne services to Memorial; and |
|
iv) initiate a public proceeding to
determine additional remedies that may be appropriate in light of
the Commission's finding in this proceeding, and Group Telecom's
evidence in PN 2001-37 regarding remedies or penalties for
non-compliance. |
42. |
Aliant Telecom submitted that the relief requested by Group
Telecom was not warranted and requested that the application be
dismissed in its entirety. |
|
Commission analysis and determinations
|
43. |
The Commission considers that Aliant Telecom's actions in
this instance are non-compliant and anti-competitive and undermine
fair and sustainable competition in its territory. The Commission
considers that measures are required to address Aliant Telecom's
behaviour with a view to ensuring that Aliant Telecom complies
with its tariffs and the Act. |
44. |
The Commission notes that under section 51 of the Act, the
Commission may order a person to do anything the person is required
to do under the Act and may forbid a person to do anything that the
person is prohibited from doing under the Act. The Commission
further notes that, pursuant to section 63 of the Act, a decision of
the Commission may be made an order of the Federal Court by
registering a copy of the decision with the Court. The decision can
then be enforced as if it were an order of the Court, with
violations treated as contempt of court. |
45. |
In light of the circumstances in this proceeding, the Commission
considers that the measures set out below are necessary and
appropriate: |
|
i) pursuant to section 51 of the Act, the
Commission orders Aliant Telecom, with respect to
Centrex service, to comply with sections 25 and 27(1) and (2) of the
Act, and forbids Aliant Telecom to do anything that would
contravene these sections in that regard; |
|
ii) Aliant Telecom has 30 days to
show cause why this decision should not be registered with the
Federal Court of Canada, pursuant to section 63 of the Act; |
|
iii) the Commission directs Aliant Telecom
to include a clause in all future agreements with its business
customers that clearly and expressly states that non-forborne
services, and bundled services that include non-forborne services,
are required to be provided, and shall only be provided, consistent
with Aliant Telecom's tariffs as approved by the Commission.
The Commission further directs Aliant Telecom to provide
in such agreements a list of all relevant tariffs, noting that the
listed tariffs may be amended from time to time. |
46. |
The Commission considers that the additional relief sought by
Group Telecom is not necessary at this time. |
47. |
In Measures with respect to incumbent telephone company
regulatory compliance, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-4,
10 April 2003, the Commission announces additional
measures with respect to compliance by incumbent telephone
companies, including Aliant Telecom, with the Act, applicable
tariffs and Commission decisions. |
|
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 |
Footnote: 1 Aliant Telecom's tariff application
was denied in Telecom Order CRTC 2002-344, 19 August 2002. |