|
Telecom Order
|
|
Ottawa, 1 April 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-307
|
|
AT&T Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS) filed an application,
dated 18 December 1997, pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules
of Procedure, which requested resolution of two billing disputes with Bell Canada
(Bell) concerning the flowthrough of independent telephone company Carrier Access Tariff
(CAT) charges.
|
|
|
|
File No.: 8622-A4-10/97
|
|
1. By Telecom Order CRTC 97-568 dated
29 April 1997, the Commission gave final approval to Bell Tariff Notices 5893 and
5894 allowing Bell to bill additional amounts to alternate toll providers who use its
retail toll services to originate or terminate calls in the territories of the independent
telephone companies. Bell bills as an additional amount the independent company CAT less
Bell's average contribution rate. In the territories of companies such as
Québec-Téléphone and Télébec ltée, where Bell has a settlement arrangement and does
not directly pay the CAT, the Commission approved the flowthrough of the CAT rate.
|
|
2. Stentor provided its comments on 19 January 1998 and AT&T Canada LDS
replied on 29 January 1998.
|
|
3. In the first billing dispute AT&T Canada LDS noted that Bell does not pay the
Northern Telephone Limited (Northern) CAT but has an interconnection arrangement with
Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (the telecommunications operating division of
which is now known as O.N. Tel) who are Northern's only toll carrier. AT&T Canada LDS
submitted that, because O.N. Tel does not have a CAT, the flowthrough arrangement approved
for Bell does not apply and Bell should not be allowed to recover the Northern CAT through
the flowthrough arrangement for traffic originating or terminating in Northern territory.
|
|
4. AT&T Canada LDS further argued that the Commission in approving the flowthrough
arrangement noted the existence of alternatives for toll providers to avoid the
flowthrough charge. Without using Bell retail toll services, toll providers could either
negotiate interconnection directly with the independent companies or connect through a
Bell class 4 access tandem switch serving the independent territory. AT&T Canada
LDS stated that for O.N. Tel it does not have these alternatives since Bell does not have
an access tandem switch serving O.N. Tel and AT&T Canada LDS has been unable to
negotiate an interconnection agreement with O.N. Tel. AT&T Canada LDS submitted that
it is inappropriate to permit the charge of flowthrough contribution in these
circumstances.
|
|
5. Stentor noted that, through Bell's interconnection arrangements with O.N. Tel, an
amount equivalent to the Northern CAT is recovered from Bell.
|
|
6. The Commission considers that, in this case, the fact that O.N. Tel does not have
its own CAT but recovers an amount equivalent to the Northern CAT from Bell does not
change the intent of the flowthrough arrangement. The Commission therefore disagrees with
AT&T Canada LDS' position and considers that the recovery by Bell of the Northern CAT
in accordance with the provisions of the approved flowthrough arrangement for traffic
originated or terminated in Northern territory is appropriate.
|
|
7. The Commission notes that there are exchanges served by O.N. Tel, other than those
served by Northern, for which no CAT has been established. The Commission determines that
the flowthrough arrangement should not apply for these exchanges until a CAT has been
established.
|
|
8. AT&T Canada LDS in the second billing dispute objected to the attempt by Bell to
charge flowthrough amounts for traffic which AT&T Canada LDS originates in other
Stentor-member territories, which may transit Bell territory, for termination in the
territories of the Quebec independent companies.
|
|
9. Stentor submitted that AT&T Canada LDS is using a "loophole" in Bell's
tariff to avoid paying the flowthrough amount and that this does not create competitive
equity among toll providers. Stentor requested the Commission to ratify, under Section
25(4) of the Telecommunications Act, the charging of the flowthrough amounts by
Bell on behalf of other Stentor companies.
|
|
10. The Commission agrees with Stentor that by routing traffic through other
Stentor-member companies, AT&T Canada LDS is avoiding the Bell flowthrough arrangement
that the Commission found to be consistent with achieving competitive equity among toll
providers serving the independent territories. However, the Commission disagrees that the
ratification of the charging by Bell of the flowthrough amounts, in part based on the Bell
average contribution rate, is appropriate where the traffic is originated under the
tariffs of other companies.
|
|
11. Accordingly, the Commission denies the Stentor request to ratify the charging of
flowthrough amounts determined pursuant to Bell's tariff for traffic originating from the
territories of other Stentor-member companies pursuant to the tariffs of those companies.
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|