| |
Telecom Order CRTC 2006-183
|
| |
Ottawa, 18 July 2006 |
| |
Bell Canada
|
| |
Reference: Tariff Notice 6948 |
| |
Changes to Competitor Digital Network Service tariff
|
|
1. |
The Commission received an application by
Bell Canada, dated 15 May 2006, proposing revisions to its Access
Services Tariff (AST), item 130, Competitor Digital Network (CDN)
Services. |
|
2. |
Bell Canada submitted that its proposed
revisions were required to improve the clarity of its CDN service
tariff, to reflect Competitor Digital Network Services, Telecom
Decision CRTC 2005-6,
3 February 2005, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-6-1
dated 28 April 2006 (Decision 2005-6),
and to reflect a Commission staff letter dated 10 May 2005 (10 May
Commission staff letter) to parties to the proceeding begun by Competitor
Digital Network Access service proceeding, Telecom Public Notice
CRTC 2002-4, 9 August
2002. |
| |
Background
|
|
3. |
In Decision 2005-6,
the Commission approved rates and terms for the CDN service of the
major incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). This service replaced
the ILECs' Competitor Digital Network Access (CDNA) service, which
made certain digital network access facilities available as a Competitor
Service on an interim basis between 1 June 2002 and 2 February 2005.
The Commission approved rates and terms for these access facilities
on a final basis. It also approved, effective 3 February 2005, CDN
service rates for ILEC facilities and functionalities that had not
been available as part of the CDNA service: additional access facilities,
intra-exchange facilities, channelization facilities for a competitor
that was not co-located in a given ILEC wire centre and certain metropolitan
interexchange facilities. To date, competitors have migrated
circuits leased under other Bell Canada tariffs to the CDN service
tariff without the payment of termination charges. |
|
4. |
In Decision 2005-6,
the Commission also directed the ILECs to file, within 30 days of
the date of that Decision, their deferral account draw-down estimates
associated with the CDN service approved in that Decision. In the
10 May Commission staff letter, competitors were required to provide
CDN-eligible demand information to the appropriate ILEC by 27 June
2005, and the date by which ILECs were to file their deferral account
draw-down estimates associated with Decision 2005-6
was extended to 27 July 2005. |
| |
The application
|
|
5. |
Bell Canada proposed to specify in item
130.3(c) of its AST that, when a customer was newly co-located in a
serving wire centre, Bell Canada would re-rate all existing CDN central
office channelizing services within that serving wire centre in
accordance with its retail tariff (channelization term). |
|
6. |
Bell Canada proposed to include in item
130.3(h) of its AST a term providing that, if a competitor submitted a
list of circuits for migration from other Bell Canada service tariffs
to the CDN service tariff on or before 27 June 2005, CDN service rates
would apply as of 3 February 2005 without termination charges, provided
the arrangement did not require modification to meet the terms of the
CDN service tariff (notification term). Bell Canada also proposed to
include in item 130.3(h) of its AST a term providing that "Those
circuits submitted after 27 June 2006 will be subject to contract
termination charges as per the specific services' tariff, in addition to
the applicable CDN service charges" (termination charge term). |
|
7. |
Finally, Bell Canada proposed to add item
130.3(p) to its AST, which would provide that each channel within a
multi-channel CDN service component must comply with the prohibition on
simple resale of the CDN service (simple resale term). |
| |
Process
|
|
8. |
MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream) filed
comments on 15 June 2006. Bell Canada filed reply comments on 23 June
2006. |
| |
Positions of parties
|
|
9. |
MTS Allstream opposed Bell Canada's proposed
changes to its CDN service tariff and submitted that the proposed
terms were not supported by Decision 2005-6
or the 10 May Commission staff letter. |
|
10. |
MTS Allstream argued that Bell Canada's
channelization term was unnecessary because its tariff already provided
that CDN central office channelization is available only in a serving
wire centre if the competitor is not co-located in that wire centre. MTS
Allstream objected to Bell Canada's notification term on the basis that
various activities (e.g. confirmation by Bell Canada that circuits were
CDN-eligible) would have to take place after 27 June 2005. MTS Allstream
also submitted that, subsequent to 27 June 2005, the Commission
clarified certain determinations with respect to CDN service
eligibility. MTS Allstream also argued that Bell Canada's simple resale
term was unnecessary because it would repeat the existing tariff
prohibition on simple resale. |
|
11. |
In its reply, Bell Canada argued that its
proposed channelization term responded to requests from customers for
increased tariff clarity, and that this term would minimize costs
associated with customer inquiries. |
|
12. |
With respect to its notification term,
Bell Canada argued that MTS Allstream's CDN service tariff contained
an almost identical provision, except that Bell Canada's proposed term
was less restrictive than MTS Allstream's tariff item. Bell Canada
submitted further that it had selected 27 June 2005 as the date by which
notification of migration was to be provided because it was the date set
out in the 10 May Commission staff letter for the identification by
competitors to the ILECs of CDN-eligible demand. |
|
13. |
With respect to its simple resale term,
Bell Canada argued that this proposed term responded to requests from
customers for increased tariff clarity due to differences in
practices among ILECs. In this regard, Bell Canada noted that under its
proposal both CDN and non-CDN circuits could be terminated on a CDN
channelized component as long as the non-CDN circuits were not used for
simple resale. Bell Canada submitted that this was less restrictive than
the CDN service tariff of TELUS Communications Company, which provides
that all such circuits were to be CDN-eligible. |
| |
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
|
14. |
The Commission notes that Bell Canada's proposed
channelization term reflects the Commission's determinations in Decision
2005-6 with respect
to the provision of channelization as a component of the CDN service,
and considers that its inclusion in Bell Canada's CDN service
tariff would enhance the clarity of that tariff. The Commission therefore
considers that Bell Canada's proposed channelization term should be
approved. The Commission also considers that Bell Canada's proposed
simple resale term is appropriate and would enhance the clarity of
its CDN service tariff. |
|
15. |
With respect to Bell Canada's notification
term, the Commission notes that Decision 2005-6
did not specify a date by which competitors were to notify the ILECs
of their wish to migrate circuits leased under other service tariffs
to the CDN service. The Commission considers, however, that Bell Canada's
proposed term is consistent with the Commission's determination in
Decision 2005-6 to
compensate Bell Canada from its deferral account for lost revenue
due to the migration of retail services used by competitors to the
CDN service approved in that Decision and with the dates set out in
the 10 May Commission staff letter. |
|
16. |
With respect to MTS Allstream's submission
that various confirmation activities would occur after the proposed
27 June 2005 deadline, the Commission notes that the relevant date
(that is, on or before 27 June 2005) for the application of CDN service
rates as of 3 February 2005 would remain the date the list was provided
to Bell Canada. The Commission also notes that MTS Allstream's own
CDN service tariff contains a comparable term with the same dates.
With respect to MTS Allstream's submission that the Commission clarified
certain service eligibility requirements after June 2005, the Commission
notes that its determinations in Rogers Telecom Holdings Inc. –
Application with respect to Competitor Digital Network Access service,
Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-8,
15 February 2006, related to the eligibility of certain circuits for
CDNA, not the CDN service. The Commission also notes that Bell Canada's
proposed notification term would not apply to these CDNA circuits
because its CDN tariff provides that CDNA circuits are migrated to
the CDN service without notification. The Commission therefore considers
that Bell Canada's proposed notification term should be approved. |
|
17. |
The Commission notes that, to date, Bell
Canada has not applied termination charges with respect to services
migrated to the CDN service. With respect to Bell Canada's termination
charge term, the Commission notes that competitors have been in a
position since 3 February 2005 to determine if they wish to obtain
service under Bell Canada's CDN service tariff or under its other
service tariffs. The Commission therefore agrees that it would be
appropriate for Bell Canada to apply termination charges in respect of
other services leased by a competitor when that competitor subsequently
wishes to avail itself of the CDN service tariff. |
|
18. |
The Commission considers, however, that
Bell Canada should notify its CDN service customers of item 130.3(h) of
its AST by posting this item on its website within seven days of the
date of this Order. The Commission further considers that Bell Canada's
proposed date of 27 June 2006 (by which competitors would provide Bell
Canada with a list of circuits to be migrated to the CDN service without
the application of termination charges) should be amended to 11 August
2006 to reflect the time required for this posting after the issuance of
this Order. Finally, the Commission considers that, for greater clarity,
Bell Canada should amend the last sentence of item 130.3(h) of its AST
to read: "Those services leased under other service tariffs that are
submitted for migration to the CDN service tariff after 11 August 2006
will be subject to contract termination charges as per the specific
services' tariff, in addition to the applicable CDN service charges." |
|
19. |
In light of the above, the Commission
approves Bell Canada's application with the modifications set out in
the preceding paragraph. The Commission therefore directs Bell Canada to
issue revised tariff pages reflecting the Commission's determinations in
this Order and to notify its CDN service customers of item 130.3(h) of
its AST by posting this item, amended as set out in the preceding
paragraph, in an appropriate location on its website within seven days
of the date of this Order. |
| |
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
|
