|
Telecom Order CRTC 2005-186
|
|
Ottawa, 19 May 2005 |
|
Bell Canada
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notices 829
and 829A (National
Services Tariff) |
|
Customer specific arrangement
|
1. |
The Commission received an application by
Bell Canada, dated 7 October 2004, requesting approval of Tariff Notice
829 (TN 829), under National Services Tariff item 720.5, related
to services provided under Customer Specific Arrangement (CSA) contract
number P1-59. On 29 October 2004, Bell Canada requested approval
of Tariff Notice 829A (TN 829A), which proposed increases to
long distance rates for three countries. TN 829, as amended by TN
829A, replaced Tariff Notice 751 (TN 751), which had been filed pursuant
to Regulatory safeguards with respect to incumbent affiliates,
bundling by Bell Canada and related matters, Telecom Decision
CRTC 2002-76, 12
December 2002. |
2. |
The CSA filed under TN 829 is a Type 2 CSA
consisting of a bundle of the following General Tariff services:
Business Primary Exchange Local, Centrex III, and Megalink, and the
following forborne services: Long Distance and Toll-free, and Frame
Relay. The minimum contract period for this CSA is three years. |
3. |
On 8 December 2004, MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS
Allstream) filed comments with respect to Bell Canada Tariff Notices 817
to 843 inclusive and requested, among other things, that the Commission
deny these Tariff Notices. |
4. |
MTS Allstream submitted that Bell Canada's
Tariff Notices related to arrangements (or renegotiated versions
thereof) that were subject to a pending application, filed by Allstream Corp.1
(Allstream) and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net) on 23 January 2004.
MTS Allstream submitted that, absent a ruling on the Part VII
application that sought, among other things, denial of the backlog of
the Bell Nexxia Inc.'s (Bell Nexxia's) Type 2 CSAs, these Tariff Notices
should not be approved. |
5. |
MTS Allstream submitted that many of the
proposed rates, and terms and conditions were either inconsistent with
the Commission's criteria for just and reasonable rates, or were
otherwise unjustly discriminatory or granted Bell Canada an undue
preference. |
6. |
MTS Allstream noted that Bell
Canada's appeal of Review of Bell Canada's customer-specific
arrangements filed pursuant to Telecom Decision 2002-76,
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-63,
23 September 2003 (Decision 2003-63)
was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal, and the stay previously
granted by the Court was lifted. MTS Allstream submitted that, despite
these developments, the company had not disclosed the full rates,
and terms and conditions of a large number of the Bell Nexxia CSAs
on the public record, contrary to the requirements of Decision 2003-63.
MTS Allstream claimed that this allowed Bell Canada to continue to
conceal the details of these arrangements until it had renegotiated
them to the company's satisfaction. |
7. |
MTS Allstream submitted that allowing Bell
Canada to renegotiate such arrangements while they were subject to the
Commission's consideration prevented a new supplier from competing for
the customer's business. |
8. |
With respect to TN 829, MTS Allstream
submitted that services had changed from those indicated in TN 751. MTS
Allstream commented that services such as other access services, local
channels and Centrex Microlink Access services no longer appeared to be
offered in TN 829, while rebates for Frame Relay services appeared to
have been added. MTS Allstream also submitted that Bell Canada had
relied on the imputation test filed with TN 751, rather than filing a
new imputation test. |
9. |
In reply on 20 December 2004, Bell Canada
submitted that it had provided all the requested documentation to the
Commission and had fully disclosed the details of its outstanding CSAs.
|
10. |
With respect to MTS Allstream's claims that
services had changed in TN 829, Bell Canada stated that local channels
had not been removed but were part of Centrex Microlink Accesses
included in Centrex III service as indicated in the proposed tariff
pages associated with TN 829. Bell Canada further stated that the other
access services had not been removed but were part of the Megalink
service. |
11. |
With respect to MTS Allstream's comments
regarding Frame Relay rebates, Bell Canada replied that no rebates were
provided to the customer. Bell Canada stated that discounted rates were
contemplated in the original arrangement for this service and no
additional discounts had been included in TN 829. |
12. |
Bell Canada submitted that the imputation
test for TN 751 had been submitted in accordance with the Commission's
requirements and a revised imputation test for this CSA was not required
by the Commission. Furthermore, Bell Canada submitted that all services
reflected in the proposed tariff pages for TN 829 were included in the
TN 751 imputation test. |
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
13. |
The Commission notes that in Part VII
application by Allstream Corp. and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. regarding
Bell Canada Type 2 CSAs, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-22,
7 April 2005 (Decision 2005-22),
it denied the Part VII application filed by Allstream and Call-Net
on the basis that a blanket denial of all the Bell Nexxia CSAs would
not be appropriate, and that each CSA should be considered individually
to determine whether Bell Canada had complied with the requirements
set out in Decision 2003-63.
In Decision 2005-22,
the Commission also noted that since the dismissal of its appeal of
Decision 2003-63
by the Federal Court of Appeal, Bell Canada had refiled proposed tariff
pages for the Bell Nexxia CSAs under new TN numbers, consistent with
the tariff requirements set out in Decision 2003-63.
|
14. |
The Commission notes that there has been
no change with respect to the services contemplated in this tariff
application. The Commission is satisfied that the services, rates,
and terms and conditions provided are properly identified in the proposed
tariff pages and meet the requirements specified in Decision 2003-63.
The Commission is of the view that MTS Allstream's concerns with
respect to the level of public disclosure of the rates, and terms and conditions
applicable to TN 829 have been adequately addressed. |
15. |
With respect to MTS Allstream's comment that
Bell Canada had not filed a new imputation test for TN 829, the Commission
notes that if the costing adjustments specified in Decision 2003-63
were applied to the imputation test in connection with TN 751, this
CSA would pass the imputation test. Accordingly, the Commission
considers that TN 829 passes the imputation test. |
16. |
Consistent with Telecom Order CRTC 2004-428,
17 December 2004, which states that the safeguards identified in that
Order should be included in tariff pages that provide for automatic
renewal of a CSA and/or services within a CSA, the Commission considers
that such safeguards should also be reflected in the tariff pages
associated with TN 829. |
17. |
In light of the above, the Commission
approves on a final basis the application by Bell Canada, with the
tariff pages amended to indicate that: |
|
- at least 60 days before contract expiry, Bell Canada is to notify
the customer of the CSA either on its monthly bill or by letter that
the contract or services will be automatically renewed unless the
customer indicates otherwise; and
|
|
- within 35 days following automatic renewal, Bell Canada is to
notify the customer of the CSA either on its monthly bill or by letter
that the contract has been renewed and that the customer may terminate
the contract without penalty within 30 days of the date of this
notice.
|
18. |
Bell Canada is to issue tariff pages
forthwith. |
|
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
|