|
Telecom Order CRTC 2006-215
|
|
Ottawa, 18 August 2006 |
|
Bell Canada
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notices 6929
and 6929A |
|
Zero-dialed emergency call routing service
|
|
Background
|
1. |
In VoIP 9-1-1 call routing, Telecom
Decision CRTC 2006-5,
30 January 2006 (Decision 2006-5),
the Commission directed Aliant Telecom Inc.1
(Aliant Telecom), Bell Canada, MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream),
and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) to file revisions to
their respective tariffs to allow voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
service providers access to zero-dialed emergency call routing service
(0-ECRS). |
2. |
In Decision 2006-5,
the Commission further directed Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream,
and SaskTel to include provisions in their respective Resale and Sharing
tariffs in order to explicitly include the condition that local VoIP
service providers are to abide by the directions set out by the Commission
in paragraphs 52, 68, 93, 94, and 98 of Emergency service
obligations for local VoIP service providers, Telecom Decision
CRTC 2005-21,
4 April 2005. |
|
The application
|
3. |
The Commission received an application by
Bell Canada, dated 2 March 2006 and amended 30 May 2006, in which
the company proposed revisions to its General Tariff item 24 - Resale
and Sharing as well as to its Access Services Tariff item 315 - Zero-Dialed
Emergency Call Routing Service in order to reflect the Commission's
directives in Decision 2006-5.
Bell Canada submitted that the proposed modifications to the
0-ECRS further reflected a rate increase that would enable the company
to recover its costs associated with the changes to 0-ECRS. |
4. |
Bell Canada filed an economic study in
support of its original application and a revised economic study in
support of its amended application (the economic studies). |
|
Process
|
5. |
The Commission received comments from Xit
télécom inc., on behalf of itself, Télécommunications Xittel inc., and
9141-9077 Québec inc. (collectively, Xit télécom), dated 27 March 2006,
and reply comments from Bell Canada, dated 7 May 2006. |
6. |
The Commission also received comments from
the Ontario 9-1-1 Advisory Board (Ontario 9-1-1 Board), dated 18 May
2006, and from l'Association des centres d'urgence 9-1-1 du Québec
(l'Association 9-1-1 du Québec), dated 22 May 2006. |
7. |
The Commission addressed interrogatories to
Bell Canada on 24 April 2006 and 13 June 2006 with regard to the
economic studies. Bell Canada filed responses to these interrogatories
dated 4 July 2006. |
8. |
In Telecom Order CRTC 2006-168,
6 July 2006, the Commission approved Bell Canada's application on
an interim basis. |
|
Positions of parties
|
9. |
Xit télécom suggested technological
enhancements to Bell Canada's platform in order to allow more advanced
Internet Protocol (IP) applications. Xit télécom also submitted that the
Commission should only consider the increase to Bell Canada's 0-ECRS
rate if the service could be used to route enhanced 9-1-1 calls. |
10. |
Xit télécom noted that Bell
Canada's costs were significantly higher than those of other incumbent
local exchange carriers and submitted that the study period should be at
least five years to ensure an orderly transition to an environment where
centralized emergency call services would be able to handle IP calls on
a native basis. |
11. |
The Ontario 9-1-1 Board and l'Association
9-1-1 du Québec noted that Bell Canada's original application had put in
place a method for the routing of VoIP calls via the existing provincial
system. The Ontario 9-1-1 Board further indicated that this method
allowed VoIP 9-1-1 calls to be presented to the Primary Public Safety
Answering Points like any other 9-1-1 call and allowed for the use of
the 9-1-1 system to route calls to the appropriate emergency service. |
12. |
The Ontario 9-1-1 Board argued, and
l'Association 9-1-1 du Québec generally agreed, that the Commission must
mandate VoIP service providers to use Bell Canada's 0-ECRS to route VoIP
9-1-1 calls placed within their territory. |
13. |
Bell Canada questioned the relevance of Xit
télécom's comments and submitted that the issues Xit télécom raised
exceeded the scope of the proceeding. In this regard, Bell Canada
submitted that, at the time it filed its application, the evolution of
9-1-1 service in the context of VoIP telephony was the subject of
ongoing discussions with the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee
(CISC). |
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
14. |
The Commission notes that Xit télécom's
comments on the transition of emergency call services to IP relate to
technical issues that are presently before CISC. Accordingly, the
Commission finds these comments to be outside the scope of this
proceeding. |
15. |
The Commission considers that the Ontario
9-1-1 Board's and l'Association 9-1-1 du Québec's request that the
Commission mandate VoIP service providers to use 0-ECRS for the routing
of VoIP 9-1-1 calls is a request for a change in policy that ought to
have been filed as a Part VII application. Therefore, the Commission is
not addressing this issue in this Order. |
16. |
With respect to Xit télécom's comments on
the economic studies and proposed rate changes, the Commission considers
that Bell Canada's responses to interrogatories related to the economic
studies are satisfactory. The Commission further considers that the
amended economic study accurately reflects the company's cost of
providing 0-ECRS. |
17. |
The Commission notes that in Regulatory
framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34,
30 May 2002, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34-1,
15 July 2002 (Decision 2002-34),
0-ECRS was classified as a Category I competitor services. |
18. |
The Commission notes that the proposed rates
reflect a 15 percent mark-up over the costs of providing 0-ECRS. The
Commission notes that this is in accordance with the Commission's
determinations in Decision 2002-34
with regard to the level of the mark-up specified for Category I competitor
services. |
19. |
In light of the above, the Commission
approves on a final basis Bell Canada's application. |
|
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
|