|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-40
|
|
Ottawa, 13 July 2005 |
|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-2
- Public Interest Advocacy Centre's request to strike portions
of Bell Canada's and Télébec's joint submission pertaining
to discretionary services
|
|
Reference: 8640-C12-200505076 |
|
In this Decision, the Commission finds
that portions of the submission filed jointly by Bell Canada and Société
en commandite Télébec requesting forbearance from the regulation of
discretionary services are outside the scope of the proceeding on the
forbearance from regulation of local exchange services. |
|
Introduction
|
1. |
In Forbearance from regulation of local
exchange services, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-2,
28 April 2005 (Public Notice 2005-2),
the Commission initiated a proceeding and invited comments on a framework
for forbearance from the regulation of residential and business
local exchange services, and among other things, invited comments
on Aliant Telecom Inc.'s (Aliant Telecom's) Part VII application
for forbearance from regulation of residential wireline local services.
|
2. |
In paragraph 20 of Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission identified the scope of the proceeding as follows:
|
|
In this proceeding, the Commission will determine the framework,
including the criteria, for forbearance from the regulation of
residential and business local exchange services. The Commission
will also determine whether there should be a transitional regime
that provides ILECs with more regulatory flexibility prior to
forbearance and, if so, what should be the criteria under which:
1) the competitive safeguards on promotions specified in Decision
2005-25 and the no-contact restriction
under the winback rules should be lessened or removed; 2) the
ex parte filing of tariff applications for promotions
should be permitted; and 3) the waiving of service charges
for residential local winbacks should be permitted. In this proceeding,
the Commission will also apply this framework and these criteria
to make a determination on Aliant Telecom's forbearance application.
|
3. |
In paragraph 10 of Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission noted: |
|
The Commission intends, in this proceeding, to use these criteria
to decide upon Aliant Telecom's forbearance application, and, in
future proceedings, to use them to decide upon future applications for
forbearance from regulation of local exchange services.
|
4. |
In paragraph 43 of Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission invited parties to file written submissions with respect
to the issues described in the Public Notice, serving a copy on all
other parties, by 22 June 2005. The Commission received numerous submissions
by various parties. |
5. |
The Commission received a letter from the
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), dated 24 June 2005, requesting
that portions of Bell Canada's and Société en commandite Télébec's
(collectively, the Companies') joint submission asking for immediate
forbearance from the regulation of discretionary services be struck from
the record. |
|
Process
|
6. |
The Commission issued a letter, dated 29
June 2005, stating that parties wanting to file comments on PIAC's 24
June 2005 request were required to do so by 30 June 2005, that the
Companies were to file reply comments by 4 July 2005, and that PIAC was
to file reply comments by 5 July 2005. |
7. |
The Commission received comments from
Aliant Telecom, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), TELUS
Communications Inc. (TCI), MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), the
Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA), Xit télécom inc.
(Xit), and FCI Broadband (FCI), representing itself and
YAK Communications Inc., all dated 30 June 2005; reply comments from the
Companies, dated 28 June 2005 and 4 July 2005; and reply comments from
PIAC, dated 29 June 2005 and 5 July 2005. |
|
Positions of parties
|
8. |
FCI and Xit supported the
request made by PIAC. |
9. |
TCI and MTS Allstream submitted that the
sections of the Companies' submission to which PIAC objected related to
the criteria for forbearance and their application to the discretionary
services defined by the Companies. TCI and MTS Allstream submitted that
the criteria and their application were within the scope of the
proceeding, but the request for immediate forbearance was outside the
scope of the proceeding. |
10. |
Aliant Telecom submitted that the
Companies' submission, including the sections questioned by PIAC,
provided the Commission with comments on the framework for forbearance
from the regulation of local exchange services, including discretionary
services, and therefore, was within the scope of the proceeding. |
11. |
SaskTel submitted that it was in complete
concurrence with the Companies' proposal for immediate forbearance from
the regulation of discretionary services, and that examining the case
for immediate forbearance caused no prejudice to any party. Furthermore,
SaskTel identified the list of its own services that it submitted did
not warrant regulatory attention for the reasons provided in the
Companies' submission. |
12. |
The CCTA submitted that the decision of whether
to forbear from optional services must be examined in conjunction
with the question of whether to forbear from the regulation of local
exchange services. The CCTA submitted that it considered the Companies'
request for immediate forbearance from the regulation of optional
local services to be a request for forbearance effective at the issuance
of the Commission's final determinations in respect of the matters
arising out of Public Notice 2005-2. |
13. |
In reply, the Companies submitted that there
were certain services, i.e. discretionary services, that were not
of sufficient economic and social importance to warrant regulation,
regardless of the state of competitive activity. The Companies further
stated that their comments proposed a framework and criteria for forbearance
from the regulation of discretionary services, as contemplated in
Public Notice 2005-2,
and that granting PIAC's request would restrict the options that the
Companies could propose. The Companies also submitted that it would
be inefficient if their framework was accepted and, subsequently,
the Companies had to submit a new request for forbearance from the
regulation of discretionary services. |
14. |
The Companies also noted that PIAC's
request raised two issues: first, whether or not the proposed
forbearance framework to be applied to discretionary services was within
the scope of the proceeding, and second, whether a request for
forbearance from the regulation of any service, or services, was within
the scope of the proceeding. |
15. |
The Companies submitted that both the proposed
framework for forbearance from the regulation of discretionary services
and the Companies' request for forbearance, which they stated would
be effective at the issuance of the Commission's decision in this
proceeding, were within the scope of the proceeding. However, the
Companies indicated that paragraph 10 of Public Notice 2005-2
might have been interpreted by some parties as including only Aliant Telecom's
application for forbearance within the scope of the proceeding. The
Companies noted that if this was the intent of the Commission, only
the sentences of their submission that pertained to the Companies'
request for immediate forbearance should be removed. |
16. |
In reply, PIAC submitted that the
Companies' application for immediate forbearance did not set out a
framework for forbearance, did not propose forbearance criteria, and was
not a "future" application for forbearance. Rather, PIAC submitted, it
was an ad hoc application for immediate forbearance from the regulation
of selected services and was outside the scope of the proceeding. PIAC
also noted that SaskTel supported the Companies' request for forbearance
from the regulation of discretionary services and emphasized that
SaskTel also wanted forbearance from the regulation of certain services. |
|
Commission's analysis and determination
|
17. |
The Commission notes that the scope of the
proceeding was defined in paragraph 20 of Public Notice 2005-2. |
18. |
The Commission also notes that paragraph
10 of Public Notice 2005-2
states that the Commission "intends, in this proceeding, to use
these criteria to decide upon Aliant Telecom's forbearance application,
and, in future proceedings, to use them to decide upon future applications
for forbearance from regulation of local exchange services."
The Commission considers that it is clear that Public Notice 2005-2
did not invite new applications for forbearance as part of this proceeding,
but rather that the framework applicable to any future forbearance
requests for local exchange services would be developed as part of
this proceeding. |
19. |
In light of the above, the Commission determines
that the sections of the Companies' submission in the Public Notice
2005-2 proceeding, dated
22 June 2005, with respect to a proposed framework for forbearance
from the regulation of discretionary services are within the scope
of the proceeding, but the Companies' request for forbearance from
the regulation of discretionary services is outside the scope of this
proceeding. The Commission also notes that in its submission in the
Public Notice 2005-2
proceeding, dated 22 June 2005, SaskTel submitted that it was in complete
concurrence with the Companies' request for forbearance from the regulation
of discretionary services and submitted a list of its own services
for which it was requesting forbearance. The Commission considers
that those portions of SaskTel's Public Notice 2005-2
submission, dated 22 June 2005, relating to forbearance from the regulation
of discretionary services are equally outside the scope of this proceeding. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This document is available in alternative
format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF
format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|