Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15

Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services

Ottawa, 6 April 2006

Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15

Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services

1

14

18

24

169

282

474

481

490

512

• The ILEC has suffered a 25 percent market share loss in the relevant market for which forbearance is sought;

• The ILEC has, for the six months prior to the application, met individual standards for each of the 14 specified competitor quality of service (Q of S) indicators of the rate rebate plan (RRP) for competitors, when the results are averaged across the six-month period;

• The ILEC has put in place the necessary Competitor Services tariffs. In the case of an application for forbearance from regulation of residential local exchange services, the ILEC has an approved Competitor Services tariff for bundled asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL) available over loops not used for primary exchange service (dry loops) as well as in conjunction with primary exchange service (PES), and in the case of an application for forbearance from regulation of business local exchange services, the ILEC has an approved Competitor Services tariff for bundled ADSL available both over dry loops and in conjunction with PES as well as approved competitor Ethernet access service and transport service tariffs;

• The ILEC has, where the Commission has required it, implemented competitor access to its operational support systems in accordance with Competitive local exchange carrier access to incumbent local exchange carrier operational support systems, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-14, 16 March 2005; and

• The ILEC has demonstrated to the Commission's satisfaction that rivalrous behaviour exists in the relevant market.

I. Introduction

Process

• What local exchange services should be within the scope of the proceeding?

• What is/are the appropriate relevant market(s) for forbearance from the regulation of local exchange services, taking into consideration both services and geographic areas? (relevant market(s))

• What are the appropriate criteria to be applied to determine whether the relevant market(s) is/are sufficiently competitive for forbearance? (local forbearance criteria)

• What Commission powers and duties should be forborne? (scope of local forbearance)

• What post-forbearance criteria and conditions should apply and why? (review of local forbearance)

• What is the appropriate process for future applications for forbearance from the regulation of local exchange services? (application process)

• Should there be a transitional regime that provides ILECs with more regulatory flexibility prior to forbearance and if so, under what circumstances should the Commission: 1) lessen or remove the existing competitive safeguards for promotions defined in Promotions of local wireline services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-25, 27 April 2005 (Decision 2005-25) and the local winback rule as most recently amended in Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28, 12 May 2005, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28-1, 30 June 2005 (Decision 2005-28), 2) permit the ex parte filing of tariff applications for promotions, and 3) permit the waiving of service charges for residential local winbacks? (transitional regime)

• A determination on Aliant Telecom's forbearance application.

II. Relevant legislative background

III. Overview of local exchange services forbearance framework

• The first step is the identification of the relevant market. The relevant market is the smallest group of products and geographic area in which a firm with market power can profitably impose a sustainable price increase. The definition of the relevant market is based on the substitutability of the services in question.

• The next step involves determining whether a firm has market power with respect to the relevant market. As indicated, there cannot be sustainable competition in a market in which a firm possesses substantial market power. Market power can be demonstrated by the ability of a firm to raise or maintain prices above those that would prevail in a competitive market.

• The last step is to determine whether, and to what extent, forbearance should be granted.

IV. Relevant market(s)

Product

• Are the local exchange services provided by competitors in the same relevant market as those provided by the ILECs?

• Are mobile wireless services in the same relevant market as wireline local exchange services?

• Do business and residential local exchange services belong in the same relevant market?

• If business local exchange services belong in a separate relevant market from residential local exchange services, is there one relevant market for business local exchange services or are there multiple relevant markets for business local exchange services based on different product characteristics?

Commission's analysis and determinations

Are mobile wireless services in the same relevant market as wireline local exchange services?

Commission's analysis and determinations

Do business and residential local exchange services belong in the same relevant market?

• Residential and business local exchange services were marketed and offered differently;

• The prices for residential and business local exchange services were different and did not move together;

• Business customers were generally not permitted to use residential local exchange services for business purposes; therefore, it could not be expected that a residential local exchange service would be purchased as a replacement for a business local exchange service. Further, the features and functionalities of residential service would generally not meet the needs of a business customer;

• Although residential customers could subscribe to business local exchange services instead of residential local exchange services, such a choice would be unlikely given the price difference between the two groups of services; and

• The Commission has consistently tracked the development of competition in residential local exchange services market separately from competition in the business local exchange services market.

• Qualitative differences in supply and demand characteristics between the residential and business local exchange services markets existed;

• Business local exchange services customers had service requirements that were not easily substitutable with those of residential local exchange services customers, either in terms of functionality, use profiles or access technology; and

• The nature of customer inertia might be different in the two markets.

Commission's analysis and determinations

• the local exchange;

• the serving area of a full facilities-based CLEC;

• the local calling area (LCA);

• the local interconnection region (LIR);

• the province or the ILEC operating territory; and

• the census metropolitan area (CMA).

• The local exchange was a well-known administrative unit used by local telephone service providers for years, and by CLECs that describe their serving areas by local exchanges, and that utilize telephone numbers that are assigned by local exchange;

• It was unlikely that there would be "pockets" within a local exchange that were unserved by competitors, or would remain unserved for long once entry had occurred in the local exchange, since a local exchange was a relatively small area, and competitive entry and expansion throughout the local exchange was relatively inexpensive once entry had occurred in some portion of the local exchange; and

• There were no obstacles to obtaining data on competitive conditions within a local exchange.

Serving area of a full facilities-based CLEC

LCA

LIR

• In the absence of demand substitution, supply responses suggest a market definition based on one or more LIR(s);

• An LIR represents "a community of interest" – a grouping of locations across which consumers shared common economic and social interests, as established in Trunking arrangements for the interchange of traffic and the point of interconnection between local exchange carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-46, 14 July 2004 (Decision 2004-46). This included areas where consumers had access to similar advertisements and offers via the same local television programs, radio stations and newspapers;

• An LIR closely approximates the geographic boundaries that are likely to provide the basis for geographic price discrimination of local service. It would be very difficult for LECs to profitably sustain geographic price discrimination of residential local exchange service across multiple small markets. It is more reasonable to expect that geographic price discrimination in a competitive market will occur on the basis of an aggregation of local exchanges. Uniform pricing will occur as a result of the presence and service offerings of competitors across the contiguous exchanges rather than within individual local exchanges. It is highly unlikely that different competitive conditions in individual local exchanges will lead to geographic price discrimination on the basis of the local exchange. In a competitive environment, geographic price discrimination on the basis of the LIR is both more likely and more sustainable;

• An LIR represents a geographic market that is large enough to prevent targeted pricing; and

• An LIR provides the best means by which to measure market power. A narrow definition of the geographic market, such as the local exchange, fails to take into account an ILEC's ubiquitous and entrenched position across a much broader segment of its operating territory. The ILEC would retain the advantages of its incumbency position and could leverage these advantages to the detriment of competition in the case of premature forbearance on a narrow geographic basis. Through such means, an ILEC could prevent competition from expanding.

• The LIR reflected a community of interests—a grouping of locations across which consumers shared common economic and social interests, as established in Decision 2004-46. This included areas where consumers had access to similar advertisements and offers via the same local television programs, radio stations and newspapers;

• Each LIR described the area across which a facilities-based competitor could supply its services through a single POI; and

• Using the LIR, rather than the local exchange, would ensure that competitors would have the opportunity to establish themselves on a scale sufficient to discourage targeted pricing. A local exchange was simply too small a basis for a competitor to sustain operations and withstand targeting by ILEC.

Province or ILEC operating territory

CMA

Commission's analysis and determinations

• an area with a social and economic community of interest, that has substantially similar local telecommunications market conditions, including common pricing and marketing strategies, local service providers and local service offerings; and

• an area that is administratively practical, competitively neutral, and which has well-defined, stable boundaries.

V. Local forbearance criteria

Residential

• A full facilities-based CLEC offering residential local exchange service throughout its serving area; and

• That full facilities-based CLEC has five percent of the total residential network access lines (NALs) and NAL-equivalents in its serving area.

• A full facilities-based CLEC offering business local exchange service throughout its serving area; and

• That full facilities-based CLEC has five percent of the total business NALs and NAL-equivalents in its serving area.

• unbundling of essential and near essential facilities to provide circuit switched as well as Internet protocol (IP)-based local access and transport services;

• elimination of contractual and technical barriers to migrate Centrex local lines from an ILEC to a competitor;

• elimination of ILEC tariffs with long-term contracts and automatic renewal;

• Category I Competitor Services pricing which reflects actual costs to the ILECs;

• resolution of issues and successful implementation of competitor access to ILEC remotes to permit competitors to provide voice services to customers served by remotes;

• meeting competitor quality of service (Q of S) standards, to ensure that the ILECs do not use their control over facilities to delay delivery of essential and near essential services to competitors;

• competitor access to the ILEC's operational support systems (OSS), to provide CLECs with an equal opportunity to compete with the ILECs for local customers;

• full disclosure by the ILECs of all written and unwritten access agreements with multi-dwelling unit (MDU) owners;

• open ILEC-managed Internet platforms to competitors to allow customers more flexibility in supplier choice;

• access to third-party infrastructures including municipal and public lands, utility support structures, and commercial and residential MDUs for new entrants to effectively roll out their networks;

• resolution of issues related to local service inter-working for ILECs' Centrex and managed IP voice services; and

• all issues related to implementation of Decision 2004-46 and Decision 2005-28 resolved and Decision 2004-46 successfully implemented.

• The first part of the test would be a finding that a minimum 30 percent share of the relevant market was not served by the ILEC. This threshold reflected CCTA's proposed definition of the relevant market. The market share would serve as a necessary, but not sufficient basis for forbearance, and would provide an objective basis for proceeding to the second part of the test.

• The second part would rely on evidence that competitive alternatives exist in the relevant geographic market on a pervasive and sustained basis.

• full implementation of OSS access;

• full implementation and enforcement of Q of S for Competitor Services, that is, ensuring that the ILECs meet the standards set;

• full implementation of asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) unbundling from retail local service by all ILECs;

• access to the transmission path from ILEC remotes to support competitive provision of voice, video and data services to end users; and

• full compliance by all ILECs with their obligations to file tariffs for all local access and transport facilities and services capable of supporting voice, video and data services, such as Ethernet and ADSL facilities and next generation transport services.

• conclusive evidence that customers were no longer reluctant to change local service providers when offered lower prices from competitors;

• conclusive evidence that competitors had access to support structures on terms that were at least as favourable as the terms the ILECs enjoy and demonstration that delays, onerous and unnecessary requirements and additional costs of accessing the ILECs' support structure were eliminated;

• conclusive evidence that problems with access to rights-of-way and access to buildings no longer existed and that the ILEC proposing the forbearance of local exchange service did not have an advantage or receive any preference, not available to CLECs, with respect to any of these forms of access; and

• it had fulfilled its competitor Q of S obligations, and had consistently done so for a period of 24 months, for services needed by CLECs to provide local exchange services.

• the number and type of competitors (facilities-based and non-facilities-based);

• evidence of rivalrous behaviour in pricing and service differentiation;

• evidence of the substitutability of allegedly competing services, including an assessment of 9-1-1 service equivalency and the availability of message relay service (MRS) and privacy features;

• the existence of fair and rational interconnection arrangements (both circuit-switched and IP-based) between incumbents and new entrants, with characteristics that one would expect to be arrived at through free negotiations between parties of equal bargaining power; and

• the ability of competitors to secure access to municipal rights-of-way and multi-tenant buildings, whether residential or commercial.

• At least two independent facilities-based service providers must exist, the ILEC and a facilities-based entrant, capable of offering local service that has been determined to fall within the relevant product market for ILEC local service;

• The entrant was able to obtain and retain a customer base;

• The entrant's variable costs of providing local service are similar to or lower than the ILEC's variable costs of providing local service;

• Neither the ILEC nor the entrant was capacity-constrained;

• There was evidence of vigorous rivalry between the ILEC and the entrant in the provision of local service; and

• Industry characteristics are such that the ILECs are unlikely to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

• evidence of the existence of two or more providers offering business local exchange services in an LCA; and

• evidence of the loss of market share of five percent or more by the ILEC in the LCA. Such a loss would be measured from the time of entry of the alternate service provider(s).

• The ILECs must fully unbundle and tariff all of the underlying facilities and services used to provision ILEC local exchange services, including those used by the ILECs to provision IP-based local telephony services such as managed voice services;

• The issue of competitor access to ILEC remotes must be resolved, fully tested and implemented;

• ILECs must fully meet all competitor Q of S indicators;

• Competitor access to ILEC OSS must be fully tested and implemented;

• ILECs must fully comply with MDU rules;

• All issues related to local service interworking (including interworking relating to Centrex and IP-based local telephony services such as managed voice services) must be resolved;

• ILECs must demonstrate that all of their customer contracts for Centrex service, including all customer specific arrangements and Special Facility Tariffs that include Centrex-based services, have been amended so as to include transition provisions that allow end-user customers to migrate to the service platform of a competitor without penalty and within a reasonable period of time; and

• Any facility or service that was in the nature of an essential, near essential or bottleneck facility and/or service and that was used to provision a retail telecommunications service (whether wireline, VoIP, etc.) should be unbundled and made available through a Commission-approved tariff prior to the offering of the retail service in question.

• full unbundling of essential and near essential facilities by both the ILECs and the cable LECs;

• Competitor Category I Service rates for all ILEC and cable LEC services in the nature of an essential service;

• changes to ILEC Centrex contracts to facilitate switching service to a competitor;

• access to ILEC remotes; and

• ILEC compliance with local competition rules.

• The market was not workably competitive and forbearance was not appropriate if an ILEC had a market share of 70 percent or greater and a price premium of five percent or greater;

• Forbearance would not be appropriate if there was fewer than three facilities-based competitors, including the ILEC, providing service in the market;

• When an ILEC requests forbearance and has less than a 70 percent market share or the price differential was five percent or less, the ILEC must demonstrate that there was a steadily increasing competitor market share. In particular, the ILEC must be able to show that competitors' market share, in the relevant market, has increased by five percent or more, in each of the previous 2 years;

• The ILEC must demonstrate it had met or exceeded all of the competitor Q of S indicators;

• The Commission should reject an ILEC forbearance application if it had made a determination, within the previous 12 months of receiving the application, that the ILEC had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour or had violated any of the Commission's competition safeguards, including the winback and promotions restrictions and tariff obligations;

• The ILEC must demonstrate that access to MDUs, rights-of-way and support structures were available to local service providers on terms and conditions equal to or better than the terms and conditions available to the ILEC; and

• The Commission should assess the time to entry and sunk costs confronted by CLECs, when considering any application for local exchange service forbearance. This should include an opportunity for potential and existing competitors to identify and explain the nature and extent of these barriers to entry.

Commission's analysis and determinations

• A NAS is a wireline connection from a customer location to the PSTN which includes 1) a telephone number, 2) a connection to the PSTN and 3) access from the customer location to the service provider's office. This definition measures total physical line connections.

• A NAS-equivalent is also a wireline connection from a customer location to the PSTN. It also includes a telephone number and a connection to the PSTN, but, in the case of a NAS-equivalent, access from the customer's location to the service provider's office utilizes a broadband Internet access. This definition measures the total primary telephone numbers in service counted in the exchange that is native to the primary telephone number.

VI. Scope of local forbearance

Section 25

Commission's analysis and determinations

Section 29

Section 31

Commission's analysis and determinations

Section 24

Commission's analysis and determinations

• obligations common to all LECs;

• stand-alone PES; and

• other obligations.

• ILEC-initiated suspension or disconnection of service;

• deposit policy; and

• provision of telephone directories.

Section 27

Commission's analysis and determinations

Other issues relating to the scope of forbearance

• The Commission will forbear from all of its powers and duties under sections 25, 27(5), 27(6), 29 and 31 of the Act;

• The Commission will retain its powers under section 24 of the Act to maintain the specific conditions and obligations as set out above, and to impose such new conditions as may be necessary in the future;

• The Commission will retain its powers under subsection 27(1) of the Act in order to maintain a price ceiling on residential stand-alone PES and the other services identified above, and its powers under subsection 27(2) of the Act for the provision of Competitor Services as set out above, and to address any issues of unjust discrimination or undue preference; and

• The Commission will retain its powers under subsections 27(3) and (4) to the extent necessary to support its retained powers and duties under sections 24, 34 and 40 and subsections 27(1) and (2).

VII. Review of local forbearance

VIII. Transitional regime

..an ILEC is not to attempt to win back a business customer with respect to primary exchange service or local VoIP service, and in the case of a residential customer of local exchange service (i.e. PES or local VoIP service), with respect to any service, for a period commencing at the time of the local service request and terminating three months after that customer's primary local exchange service or local VoIP service has been completely transferred to another local service provider, with one exception: ILECs should be allowed to win back customers who call to advise them that they intend to change local service provider.

IX. Aliant Telecom's forbearance application

Commission's analysis and determinations

• Aliant Telecom LFR 12-01 Nova Scotia, Halifax CMA (Halifax LFR)

• Aliant Telecom LFR 11-01 Prince Edward Island, Prince Edward Island ER

• Aliant Telecom LFR 12-03 Nova Scotia, North Shore ER

• Aliant Telecom LFR 12-05 Nova Scotia, Southern ER

• Aliant Telecom LFR 12-01 Nova Scotia, Halifax CMA – 33 percent

• Aliant Telecom LFR 11-01 Prince Edward Island, Prince Edward Island ER – 13 percent

• Aliant Telecom LFR 12-03 Nova Scotia, North Shore ER – nine percent

• Aliant Telecom LFR 12-05 Nova Scotia, Southern ER – eight percent

X. Other implementation issues

• data gathering and calculating market share loss;

• process for applying for local forbearance; and

• process for applying for removal of the local winback rule

ILEC market share loss = TLWC – the ILEC local wireline connections
TLWC

¹ The Commission notes that while the industry uses the terms NAS and NAL interchangeably, the Commission uses each term for a specific purpose. For the purposes of the local forbearance framework established in this Decision the Commission has, for the reasons set out above, decided to use NAS.

² The Commission notes that this six‑month averaging does not apply to the RRP regime established in Decision 2005‑20.

Appendix A

Aliant Telecom – Newfoundland and Labrador

Aliant Telecom – New Brunswick

Bell Canada – Quebec

Bell Canada – Northern Ontario

Bell Canada – Southern Ontario

MTS Allstream – Manitoba

SaskTel – Saskatchewan

Télébec – Quebec

TCI – Quebec

TCI – Alberta

TCI – British Columbia

Appendix B

Competitor Q of S indicators

Indicators

Title

Standard

Appendix C

LEC obligations maintained on ILECs

• provide wireless service provider interconnection and equal access to inter-exchange service providers;

• provide reciprocal interconnection, bill and keep arrangements, and a POI;

• implement LNP as approved by the Commission;

• connect the caller with the appropriate emergency centre for 9-1-1 call direction and provide Automatic Location Identification information for E9-1-1 to be passed to the emergency centre where available;

• provide MRS;

• pay contribution based on a percentage of their Canadian telecommunication services revenues, subject to certain exceptions and less certain deductions. LECs are eligible to receive benefits from the contribution regime on a per-NAS basis;

• satisfy all existing and future regulatory requirements designed to protect customer privacy. These include the following: (1) delivery of the privacy indicator when invoked by an end-customer; (2) provision of automated universal per-call blocking of calling line identification; (3) provision of per line call display blocking to qualified end-customers; (4) disallowance of Call Return to a blocked number; (5) enforcement of the Commission's restrictions on Automatic Dialing-Announcing Devices, Automatic Dialing Devices, and unsolicited facsimiles; and (6) provision of universal Call Trace;

• comply with the Commission's rules regarding the confidentiality of customer information;

• provide, upon request, the following information:

• provide to customers the following information, prior to contracting for service:

• provide to subscribers, upon request, billing statements in Braille, large print, on computer diskette, or in any other alternative format mutually agreed upon between the LEC and the subscriber;

• provide to subscribers, upon request, bill inserts informing them about new services or changes in rates for existing services, and any bill inserts mandated from time to time by the Commission, in Braille, large print, on computer diskette, or in any other alternative format mutually agreed upon between the LEC and the subscriber;

• provide to visually-impaired subscribers an insert in Braille advising such subscribers of the availability, upon request, of billing statements and bill inserts in alternative formats;

• as a condition of providing telecommunications service in an MDU, LECs are required (1) to ensure that LECs serving end-users in a MDU have access to end-users in that MDU on a timely basis, by means of resale, leased facilities or their own facilities, at their choice, under reasonable terms and conditions; (2) to disclose on their website all terms and conditions, including fees, of any written access agreement concluded with the building owner of that MDU within 30 days of having reached or amended the agreement; (3) to disclose on its website, all terms and conditions, including fees, of any unwritten access agreement concluded with the building owner of that MDU, within 30 days of having received a request from any other LEC operating in the same area; (4) to disclose on its website all terms and conditions, including fees, of any written access agreement concluded with the building owner for the installation of telecommunications facilities during the construction of that MDU, within 10 days of having reached such an agreement; (5) to provide notice, on its website, of any unwritten access agreement concluded with the building owner for the installation of telecommunications facilities during the construction of that MDU, within 10 days of having reached such an agreement and to disclose on its website all terms and conditions, including fees, of such an agreement, within 10 days of having received a request from any other LEC operating in the same area;

• provision of 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service by LECs offering fixed local VoIP services, where the end-user is assigned an NPA-NXX native to any of the local exchanges within the region covered by the customer's serving public safety answering point (PSAP), to provide 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service;

• inclusion by all LECs, as a condition of providing telecommunications services to local VoIP service providers, in their service contracts or other arrangements with these service providers, the requirement that the latter provide, with their fixed local VoIP services, 9-1-1/E9-1-1 in accordance with the Commission's specifications;

• provision of 9-1-1 service by all LECs supporting nomadic local VoIP services or fixed/non-native local VoIP services, including ensuring that a 9-1-1 call originating from a local VoIP service is not routed to a PSAP that does not serve the geographic location from which the call is placed;

• inclusion by all LECs, as a condition of providing telecommunications services to local VoIP service providers, in their service contracts or other arrangements with these service providers, the requirement that the latter provide, with their nomadic local VoIP services or fixed/non-native local VoIP services, 9-1-1 service in accordance with the Commission's specifications;

• provision of initial customer notification to customers of local VoIP service, regarding any limitations that may exist with respect to 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service, before service commencement;

• notification to customers of local VoIP service, during service provision, of any limitations that may exist with respect to 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service;

• receipt, prior to commencement of local VoIP service, of the customer's express consent, by which the customer acknowledges his/her understanding of the 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service limitations;

• ensure that information regarding limitations on 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service is accessible to persons with visual disabilities;

• inclusion by all LECs, as a condition of providing telecommunications services to local VoIP service providers, in their service contracts or other arrangements with these service providers, the requirement that the latter abide by the Commission's directions on customer notification regarding the limitations on 9-1-1/E9-1-1 service;

• extension of the existing regulatory requirements designed to protect customer privacy apply to all local VoIP service providers, to the extent technically feasible; and

• receipt, prior to the commencement of service, of the customer's express acknowledgement of the extent to which the customer privacy safeguards are not available with their local VoIP services, and inclusion in their service contracts or other arrangements with local VoIP service providers the requirement that these service providers obtain the customer's express acknowledgement of the extent to which privacy safeguards are not available with their local VoIP services.

Appendix D

Application template for forbearance from the regulation of local exchange services

• The ILEC must identify whether the relevant product market is for residential or business local exchange services.

• The ILEC must list the relevant tariff items and numbers from which forbearance is being sought, for example, general tariffs, current promotions, all bundles, customer specific arrangements, Special Facilities Tariffs, etc.

• The ILEC must identify the relevant geographic market from the list of LFR included in Appendix A of this Decision using the unique four-digit LFR number and assigned name.

• TLWC for the relevant market (as calculated from the data published in the latest annual monitoring report);

• local wireline connections for the ILEC by wire centre; and

• ILEC market share loss calculated using the following formula:

• In the case of an application with respect to residential local exchange services, the ILEC has an approved Competitor Services tariff for bundled ADSL available over dry loops as well as in conjunction with PES.

• In the case of an application with respect to business local exchange services, the ILEC has an approved Competitor Services tariff for bundled ADSL available over dry loops and in conjunction with PES as well as approved competitor Ethernet access and transport service tariffs.

• information for customers, to be provided through billing inserts, marketing material and customer service representatives, that local exchange services have been forborne and what that will mean for customers, that is, what changes, if any, will occur to local exchange services, consumer rights, etc.;

• information on the ongoing availability of stand-alone PES at existing rates in the relevant market; and

• contact information, such as phone and fax numbers and web addresses, of relevant bodies that can address customers' questions and concerns. This would include the Commission and other government bodies, for example, the Competition Bureau and the relevant provincial Consumer Affairs office, that have the responsibility to address individual consumer concerns.

• Information material provided in the communications plan should be clearly visible, readily accessible and written in a style that is simple and user-friendly. The language used should reflect the circumstances in which the notification is provided. Avoid unnecessary use of upper case letters, narrow spacing or anything else that may impede readability. Written material must be in 12 point font or larger.

Appendix E

Application template for removal of local exchange services winback rule

• The ILEC must identify whether the relevant product market is for residential or business local exchange services.

• The ILEC must identify the relevant geographic market from the list of LFR included in Appendix A of this Decision using the unique four-digit LFR number and assigned name.

• total local wireline connections (TLWC) for the relevant market (as calculated from the data published in the latest annual monitoring report);

• local wireline connections for the ILEC by wire centre; and

• ILEC market share loss calculated using the following formula: