|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-35
|
|
See also: 2005-35-1
Ottawa, 15 June 2005 |
|
List of services within the scope of the proceeding on forbearance
from the regulation of local exchange services
|
|
Reference: 8640-C12-200505076 |
|
In this Decision, the Commission
determines the list of services that are to be included in the scope of
the proceeding on forbearance from the 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. The Commission invited comments on the appropriateness
of a transitional regime that could provide incumbent local exchange
carriers (ILECs) with more regulatory flexibility prior to forbearance.
The Commission also invited comments on Aliant Telecom Inc.'s
(Aliant Telecom's) Part VII application for forbearance from
regulation of residential wireline local services in specified exchanges,
filed on 7 April 2004. |
2. |
In Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission established a procedure that allowed the ILECs1
to identify, and other parties to comment on, which tariffed local
exchange services were within the scope of the proceeding. The Commission
stated that it would issue a determination on the list of services
to be considered within the scope of the proceeding. |
3. |
In paragraph 22 of Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission stated that it considered that: |
|
… local exchange services used by residential and business
customers to access the public switched telephone network (PSTN) are
within the scope of this proceeding, as are the services charges and
any features related to the provision of these services. The scope of
this proceeding does not include: public telephone services,
customer-specific arrangements (CSAs) and bundles that do not include
local exchange services, point-to-point services, operator services,
mobile and exchange radio services, and competitor services.
|
4. |
Further, in paragraph 23 of Public Notice
2005-2, the Commission
noted that: |
|
… some local exchange services that are within the scope of this
proceeding use underlying access and transport services. An example of
such a service is Megalink, sometimes referred to as ISDN-PRI, a local
exchange service that requires components of Digital Network Access
(DNA) service. The Commission considers that the dependencies between
these underlying access and transport services and local exchange
services are relevant to this proceeding.
|
5. |
In paragraph 39 of Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission directed the ILECs to file with the Commission their
lists of tariffed local exchange services that they considered to
be within the scope of this proceeding. The Commission further directed
that, for each service, the ILECs were to provide: the tariff number
and a direct website link to the tariff, item number, service name,
service description, and basket to which the service was assigned.
Additionally, if the service was dependent on another service, the
Commission directed the ILECs to provide a description of the nature
of the dependency and an identification of the underlying service,
including: tariff number and a direct website link to the tariff,
item number (if tariffed), service name, and service description.
|
|
Process
|
6. |
The Commission received lists of tariffed
local exchange services from Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream
Inc. (MTS Allstream), Société en commandite Télébec (Télébec), and TELUS
Communications Inc. (TCI), dated 13 May 2005. The Commission received a
list of tariffed local exchange services from Saskatchewan
Telecommunications (SaskTel), dated 16 May 2005. |
7. |
The Commission received
comments from Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), the Canadian Cable
Telecommunications Association (CCTA), the Commissioner of Competition
(the Competition Bureau), FCI Broadband, and MTS Allstream, dated 20 May
2005.2 |
8. |
The Commission received reply comments
filed jointly by Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom, dated 27 May 2005, to
address the comments filed by Call-Net, the CCTA, and MTS Allstream. |
9. |
The Commission notes that Public Notice 2005-2
did not include a provision for reply comments with regard to the
tariffed local exchange services proposed by the telephone companies
for inclusion within the scope of the proceeding. However, the Commission
considers that the information provided by Bell Canada and Aliant
Telecom was not prejudicial to any other party and provided clarification
with respect to some issues in dispute over the service lists. Accordingly,
the Commission determines that the reply comments provided by Bell Canada
and Aliant Telecom will form part of the record of this proceeding. |
|
Positions of parties
|
10. |
Parties who provided comments on the ILECs'
lists of tariffed services raised questions with respect to the
following: |
|
- Digital Network Access service;
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Hotel-originated toll access channels;
|
|
- Foreign exchange service;
|
|
|
|
- 9-1-1 and message relay service.
|
|
Digital Network Access service
|
11. |
Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, SaskTel, and
Télébec included Digital Network Access (DNA) service in their filings
of the tariffed services they considered to be within the scope of the
proceeding. MTS Allstream and TCI did not include DNA service in their
respective filings. |
12. |
The CCTA submitted that DNA service was
not a local exchange service as it did not provide subscribers with
the ability to call and/or receive calls from any telephone with access
to the PSTN. The CCTA further submitted that in Commission denies
forbearance for digital network access services, Order CRTC 2000-653,
14 July 2000 (Order 2000-653),
the applicants3 defined DNA services as: |
|
Providing a subscriber with a dedicated digital point-to-point or
multipoint transport capability of DS-0 bandwidth or greater between
the subscriber's premises and a telecommunications carrier's central
office (CO) or point of presence (POP) in the same wire centre, for
the purposes of transmitting any form of information.
|
|
The CCTA concluded that, under this
definition, DNA service was not a local exchange service and was outside
the scope of the proceeding. |
13. |
MTS Allstream stated that DNA service
was a local access service that could be used to provision underlying
access and transport for local exchange services. The CCTA noted that
some ILECs had identified that Megalink/ISDN-PRI and digital exchange
access (DEA) services, all of which provided connectivity to the PSTN,
were dependent on DNA service in order for customers to use them.
The CCTA noted that the Commission had stated in Public Notice 2005-2
that dependencies between underlying access services, transport services,
and local exchange services were relevant to the proceeding. The CCTA
submitted, however, that these dependencies did not imply that the
underlying DNA service was a local exchange service within the scope
of the proceeding. MTS Allstream further submitted that, in Public
Notice 2005-2,
the Commission had clearly distinguished local exchange services from
local access services, such as DNA service. MTS Allstream submitted
that, as such, DNA service was outside the scope of the proceeding. |
14. |
MTS Allstream submitted that including
local access transport services would raise significantly different
issues from those raised by conventional local exchange services.
MTS Allstream did not object to including DNA service. However,
MTS Allstream did state that to properly take into account the
appropriate considerations for services such as DNA service, parties
would have to expand their submissions, which might affect the schedule
and timing of the public consultation scheduled for 26 to 29 September
2005. |
15. |
Call-Net submitted that the Commission
had only recently concluded an exhaustive market analysis of point-to-point
services in Competitor Digital Network Services, Telecom Decision
CRTC 2005-6,
3 February 2005 (Decision 2005-6).
Call-Net noted that in Decision 2005-6,
the Commission had concluded that: the ILECs were the dominant
suppliers of DNA and intra-exchange services used by competitors;
self-supply of DNA equivalent access and intra-exchange facilities
was limited and third-party supply of such facilities was even further
limited; hydro telecommunications service providers and cable companies
were, at that time, insignificant suppliers of DNA and intra-exchange
services; and there was a need for the ILECs to develop
and offer competitor digital network (CDN) services. Call-Net submitted
that these conclusions reaffirmed the Commission's determination in
Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision
CRTC 2002-34,
30 May 2002, that DNA service should be made available to competitors.
Call-Net submitted that DNA service was therefore outside the scope
of the proceeding. |
16. |
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom stated
that DNA service was within the scope of the proceeding as it applied
to local exchange services. Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom submitted
that DNA service was used to provide the underlying access component
of Megalink and DEA services. Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom
submitted that including DNA service in the proceeding was consistent
with the Commission's determinations specified in paragraph 23 of
Public Notice 2005-2. |
17. |
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom stated that
they had not proposed that the outcome of the proceeding become a
framework for forbearance from the regulation of DNA services.
Bell Canada indicated that it had filed a separate Part VII application
seeking forbearance for high-speed intra-exchange digital services, and
that the Commission had listed this application as a separate process in
CRTC 3-Year Work Plan - 2005-2008, 1 April 2005.
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom submitted that the underlying access
component of Megalink and DEA services, which, for the most part,
comprised DS-0 and DS-1 services, was not part of Bell Canada's Part VII
application. Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom submitted that the access
component needed to be considered as part of the proceeding,
irrespective of whether it was provided as an integral part of an ILEC's
tariff for the service, as in MTS Allstream's and TCI's respective cases
for their Megalink-equivalent ISDN-PRI services, or by reference to
another tariff, as in Bell Canada's and Aliant Telecom's respective
cases. Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom concluded that the underlying
access components for Megalink and DEA must be addressed by the
Commission when examining issues such as the relevant market and the
criteria for determining whether the relevant market was sufficiently
competitive for forbearance from the regulation of such services. |
|
Ethernet access service
|
18. |
Bell Canada, SaskTel, and Télébec included
Ethernet access service in their filings of the tariffed services they
considered to be within the scope of the proceeding.
|
19. |
Call-Net, the CCTA, and MTS Allstream
objected to including Ethernet access service in the proceeding for
various reasons, including their respective submissions that Ethernet
access was not a local exchange service. In their reply comments,
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom agreed that Ethernet access service
should be excluded from the scope of the proceeding. |
|
Generic services
|
|
Exchange rate bands
|
20. |
Call-Net submitted that Bell Canada's
General Tariff CRTC 6716, item 60, Exchange Rate Bands, and Aliant
Telecom's Tariff CRTC 21491, items 200.1 and 200.2, set out, among other
things, the classification of each exchange to various bands. Call-Net
submitted that these Tariffs governed the application of rates for
unbundled loops and various band-sensitive components of CDN service in
each exchange. |
21. |
Call-Net submitted that forbearance from
the regulation of the above tariffed services would permit Bell Canada
and Aliant Telecom to reclassify exchanges to various rate bands,
without seeking regulatory approval. In Call-Net's view, this, in turn,
would permit these ILECs to determine the application of loop rates in
specific exchanges or wire centres, and ultimately, would affect the
costing of loops for individual bands. Call-Net submitted that
forbearance from the regulation of these Tariffs was equivalent to
partial forbearance from the regulation of Competitor services with
band-sensitive rates. |
22. |
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom submitted
that it was their understanding that the tariffs pertaining to exchange
and band classifications were within the scope of the proceeding only in
respect of their association with local exchange services that were
otherwise within scope. |
|
Service charges
|
23. |
Call-Net and the CCTA noted that all of the
ILECs had proposed including some or all of their standard service
charge tariffs. Call-Net and the CCTA also noted that these service
charges were generally applicable to a variety of retail service
activities and to certain Competitor service elements or activities.
Call-Net submitted that when these service charges were applied in the
context of Competitor services, these charges were outside the scope of
the proceeding. |
24. |
Call-Net noted that the late payment charge
applied to all tariffed services, including Competitor services,
non-forborne inter-exchange private line services, and local
point-to-point services. Call-Net submitted that, of these, only late
payment charges assessed in respect of retail local exchange services
were within the scope of the proceeding. |
25. |
The CCTA and MTS Allstream noted that
Bell Canada had identified late payment charges and not sufficient funds
(NSF) cheque charges as local exchange services within the scope of the
proceeding. In both the CCTA's and MTS Allstream's view, these elements,
as part of Bell Canada's General Tariff 6716, applied to all services
within the Tariff, not just to local exchange services. The CCTA
submitted, as an example, that services such as lease of channels and
gateway access were not identified as local exchange services, but were
affected by the late payment charge or the NSF cheque charge. |
26. |
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom submitted
that NSF cheque, late payment, and service charges were within the scope
of the proceeding to the extent that they applied to local exchange
services and other services within the scope of the proceeding. |
27. |
Call-Net submitted that, in Bell Canada's
and MTS Allstream's territory, the diagnostic maintenance charge that
was applied to retail customers was also applied to competitors.
Call-Net submitted that Aliant Telecom's Local Network Interconnection
Tariff CRTC 21491, item 646.3(b)ii, required the application of a
diagnostic maintenance charge in similar circumstances, and made
reference to the application of the labour rates contained in item 270,
Customer Provided Terminal Equipment Maintenance. In Call-Net's view,
diagnostic maintenance charges applied to entrants were excluded from
the scope of the proceeding. |
28. |
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom submitted
that diagnostic maintenance charges were only within scope with respect
to the local exchange services within scope to which the maintenance
charges applied. |
29. |
The CCTA submitted that Bell Canada's,
MTS Allstream's, and TCI's respective service charge tariffs included
items applicable to both local exchange services and non-local exchange
services. The CCTA submitted, as examples, TCI's Tariff 1005, item 110,
and Bell Canada's Access Service Tariff 7516, item 10.1(d), each of
which, in the CCTA's view, was generally applicable. The CCTA also
submitted MTS Allstream's application of Tariff 24001, item 510 -
Services Charges to Tariff 24001, item 2600.3 - Mobile Telephone
Service, a non-local exchange service. |
30. |
The CCTA submitted that it did not dispute
that these types of tariff elements would not apply to local exchange
services if and when the Commission forbore from the regulation of local
exchange services. However, in the CCTA's view, the ILECs had failed to
identify whether the tariff items in their respective lists also applied
to non-local exchange services. The CCTA submitted that, to the extent
that tariff items identified by the ILECs were also applicable to
components of other tariffs, including tariffs related to Competitor
services, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to consider
forbearance from the regulation of these tariff items as part of this
proceeding. |
|
Hotel-originated toll access channels
|
31. |
Call-Net submitted that, according to item
430.4(a) of Bell Canada's General Tariff, toll access channels were
provided for "transmitting hotel-originated message toll calls" via a
"direct connection from a customer's premises to a company toll operator
centre or an alternative provider of long distance services (APLDS)
point of presence, and are provided for the purpose of establishing
connection to an outgoing long distance network only." In Call-Net's
view, when providing access to APLDS' networks, these toll access
channels were akin to unbundled local loops. Call-Net submitted that
toll access channels that provided access to APLDS' networks should be
considered Competitor services. Further, Call-Net submitted that
regardless of whether toll access channels provided access to ILECs' or
APLDS' toll networks, toll access channels did not provide access to the
local PSTN, and accordingly, were outside the scope of the proceeding.
|
32. |
In response, Bell Canada submitted that
hotel-originated toll access channels represented functional substitutes
for connections to a long distance carrier via a local exchange service,
and accordingly, were within the scope of the proceeding. |
|
Foreign exchange service
|
33. |
Call-Net noted that foreign exchange (FX)
service consisted of an exchange access component and an inter-exchange
distance component. In Call-Net's view, the inter-exchange distance
component was comparable to non-forborne analogue private line services.
Call-Net submitted that forbearance from the regulation of the
inter-exchange distance component of FX service amounted to forbearing
from certain analogue private line services. Call-Net submitted that the
inter-exchange distance component was outside the scope of the
proceeding. In their reply comments, Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom
agreed with Call-Net's position on this issue. |
|
Competitor services
|
34. |
Call-Net submitted that Bell Canada's
Integrated Voice Messaging Service (IVMS), MTS Allstream's Voice
Messaging Integration (VMI), and TCI's VMS Network Portability Access
Service were classified as Category I competitor services. |
35. |
Call-Net noted that, in Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission explicitly excluded Competitor services from the scope
of the proceeding. Call-Net submitted that the above-referenced services
were thus outside the scope of the proceeding. |
36. |
Bell Canada agreed with Call-Net that the
components of IVMS classified as Category I competitor services, namely
Bell Canada's General Tariff CRTC 6716, items 2025.4 and 2025.7, were
outside the scope of the proceeding. |
|
9-1-1 and message relay service
|
37. |
The CCTA noted that, in their lists, Aliant
Telecom and Bell Canada had included 9-1-1-related services: Aliant
Telecom's Provincial Enhanced 911 Service, General Tariff 21491, item
235; and Bell Canada's 9-1-1 Public Emergency Reporting Service, General
Tariff 6716, item 1400, respectively. The CCTA noted that, in the case
of Aliant Telecom, the same tariff item was charged to competitors that
used this service to provide 9-1-1 capability to their local exchange
service end-customers. The CCTA further noted that, in Bell Canada's
case, the referenced tariff also applied to wireless access services.
|
38. |
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom submitted
that they considered message relay service (MRS) and 9-1-1 to be within
the scope of the proceeding since these services had to be provided in
conjunction with local exchange services. In Bell Canada's view,
ancillary services, such as 9-1-1 and MRS, were within the scope of the
proceeding to the extent that they were provided in conjunction with
local exchange services. |
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
|
Digital Network Access service
|
39. |
The Commission notes Bell Canada's Part VII
application seeking forbearance from the regulation of high-speed
intra-exchange digital services includes DNA at DS-3 speeds and greater.
The Commission notes that DS-0 and DS-1 DNA services are neither
part of that application nor part of the process for that application
specified in CRTC 3-Year Work Plan - 2005-2008. |
40. |
The Commission notes that parties, including
Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom, generally agree that DNA is not
a local exchange service. The Commission also notes that the parties
generally agree that DNA service is used to support services such
as Megalink, DEA, and ISDN-PRI, which the ILECs correctly identified
as being within the scope of the proceeding. The Commission notes,
in particular, the CCTA's position that dependency of such services
on underlying access services, such as DNA service, does not imply
that underlying services are within the scope of the proceeding, and
MTS Allstream's position that, in Public Notice 2005-2,
the Commission clearly distinguished local exchange services from
local access services such as DNA service. |
41. |
The Commission considers that DNA service
itself is outside the scope of the proceeding because it is not a
local exchange service. However, the Commission notes that the dependencies
between local exchange services that meet the requirements of paragraph
22 in Public Notice 2005-2
and the underlying transport or access services, such as DNA service,
are relevant to the proceeding. |
|
Ethernet access service
|
42. |
The Commission considers that Ethernet
access service is outside the scope of the proceeding because it is not
a local exchange service. |
|
Generic services
|
43. |
The Commission notes that, in their
respective submissions, the ILECs included services and service charges
related to the provision of local exchange services that are also
applicable to various non-local exchange services. For the purpose of
this Decision, the Commission will describe such services as generic
services. |
44. |
The Commission notes that tariffs for
generic services apply not only to local exchange services but to other
telecommunications services that are not within the scope of this
proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission considers that generic services
are outside of the scope of the proceeding. The Commission notes,
however, that the tariffs for generic services apply only to tariffed
services. Accordingly, if the Commission forbears from regulating a
particular local exchange service, the relevant generic service tariffs
would no longer apply to that forborne service. |
45. |
Specifically, the Commission notes that exchange
rate band tariffed services are generic services. The Commission considers
that Bell Canada's General Tariff, item 60, is relevant to Bell Canada's
General Tariff 6716, item 70 - Primary Exchange Service - only to
the extent that item 60 provides the pricing structure for item 70.
The Commission considers that item 60 is a pricing structure applicable
to regulated services, and, as such, is intrinsic to the continued
price regulation of services outside the scope of this proceeding.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that item 60 fails to meet the
requirements set out in paragraphs 22 and 23 of Public Notice
2005-2. |
|
Hotel-originated toll access channels
|
46. |
The Commission notes that hotel-originated
toll access channels service, described in item 430.4(a) of Bell Canada's
General Tariff 6716, is provided in conjunction with a private branch
exchange (PBX) service, to offer hotel customers a dedicated connection
to a long distance carrier. The Commission considers PBX service to
be a local exchange service, and further considers hotel-originated
toll access channels service, when used in the fashion described above,
to be a feature related to the provision of PBX services in accordance
with paragraph 22 of Public Notice 2005-2.
Therefore, the Commission considers hotel-originated toll access
channels to be within the scope of the proceeding. |
|
Foreign exchange
|
47. |
The Commission notes that Aliant Telecom,
Bell Canada, and Call-Net agree that FX service consists of an exchange
access component and an inter-exchange distance component, and further,
that the inter-exchange component should be considered outside the scope
of this proceeding as it is comparable to non-forborne analogue private
line services. The Commission considers that FX service is outside the
scope of the proceeding as it provides users with a capability
equivalent to a private line between exchanges. |
|
Competitor services
|
48. |
The Commission notes that Public Notice 2005-2
specifically excluded Competitor services from the scope of the proceeding.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that competitor IVMS, VMI and
VMS network portability access are outside the scope of the proceeding.
|
|
9-1-1 and message relay service
|
49. |
The Commission notes that Bell Canada
and TCI included MRS as a local exchange service while other parties
excluded MRS. The Commission notes that ILEC relay services provide
the facilities and operators that facilitate communication between
the hearing and the hearing impaired. The Commission notes that competitors
also make use of these facilities and operators for the purpose of
providing MRS to their customers. In the Commission's view, MRS is
both an operator service and a Competitor service, and for these reasons,
is specifically excluded from this proceeding by Public Notice 2005-2. |
50. |
The Commission notes that ILEC 9-1-1
services provide facilities to public safety answering points for the
purposes of providing emergency services to the public. The Commission
considers that such facilities do not provide access to the PSTN for the
purposes of local calling but, instead, tunnel through the PSTN in order
to provide access to emergency services. |
51. |
In light of the above, the Commission considers
that 9-1-1 service is not a local exchange service as specified in
paragraphs 22 and 23 of Public Notice 2005-2. |
|
Other matters
|
|
Bundles
|
52. |
The Commission notes that in their service
lists, the ILECs indicated their view that bundles containing local
exchange services should be considered within the scope of the
proceeding. |
53. |
The Commission notes that, in this
Decision, it is making a determination on the individual services that
are considered to be within the scope of the proceeding. The Commission
also notes that bundles are simply combinations of individual services
under a rate structure and that tariff approval is not required for a
bundle that does not include any tariffed service. In light of the
above, the Commission considers it unnecessary to include service
bundles within the scope of this proceeding. |
|
Construction services
|
54. |
The Commission notes that all ILECs
submitted some construction service charges to be considered within the
scope of the proceeding. The Commission notes that the tariffs for
construction service charges apply to both local exchange services and
other telecommunications services outside the scope of the proceeding.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that construction service charges
are outside of the scope of the proceeding. The Commission notes,
however, that the tariffs for construction service charges apply only to
tariffed services. Accordingly, if the Commission forbears from
regulating a particular local exchange service, the relevant
construction service charge tariffs would no longer apply to that
forborne service. |
|
Conclusion
|
55. |
In light of the above, the Commission finds
that the tariff items listed in Attachment 1 to this Decision
contain the existing local exchange services and dependencies that the
Commission considers to be within the scope of this proceeding. The
Commission notes that some of the ILECs' tariffs contain groupings of
services, some of which may not be local exchange
services or dependencies within the scope of the 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
|