Telecom Order
|
Ottawa, 29 April 1997
|
Telecom Order CRTC 97-568
|
The Commission has received applications from Bell Canada (Bell) on 13 December 1996, for approval of revisions to Item 50 of its Access Services Tariff for Interconnection with Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) and to Item 24, Resale and Sharing, to flow through to Alternate Providers of Long Distance Services (APLDS) the Carrier Access Tariff (CAT) charges applicable to traffic originating or terminating in the territories of the Independent Telephone Companies (the Independents).
|
File No.: Tariff Notices 5893 and 5894
|
1. Bell noted that, in Telecom Orders CRTC 95-534 and 95-767, the Commission approved such a flowthrough arrangement whereby APLDS paid the difference between the Independents CAT charges and the Bell per-minute contribution charge on which Bell's APLDS per-trunk charges were based.
|
2. Bell, in the current tariff notices, proposed changes to the flowthrough arrangement to revise the Bell per-minute contribution amounts, to revise the definition of Independent Telephone Company, and to clarify that APLDS would incur the Independents' CAT charges regardless of whether the APLD has a settlement agreement with the Independent or connects indirectly through Bell's facilities or resold services.
|
3. By Telecom Orders CRTC 96-1595 and 96-1596, dated 23 December 1996, the tariff revisions proposed in Bell's Tariff Notices 5893 and 5894 were given interim approval.
|
4. Comments were received from AT&T; Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T; Canada LDS), dated 13 January and 30 January 1997, and from Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), dated 22 January 1997.
|
5. AT&T; Canada LDS and Call-Net (the parties) argued that Bell's toll service rates are established in relation to supporting cost studies which include a component for Independents CAT charges payable by Bell for assumed average customer traffic patterns.
|
6. The parties argued that the proposed tariff changes depart from the Commission's policy that, generally, all facilities and services provided for in the telephone companies' General Tariffs should be made available to IXCs under the same conditions as to other customers.
|
7. AT&T; Canada LDS indicated that Bell does not pay the Independent's CAT for traffic originated or terminated in the territories of Télébec ltée and Québec-Téléphone but pays a lesser amount in accordance with its settlement arrangements.
|
8. Bell, in replies dated 24 January 1997 and 12 February 1997, refuted the claims of the parties and indicated that the calling patterns of the APLDS, which are using Bell's toll services primarily to terminate traffic in the Independents' territories, are creating a subsidy by Bell to its competitors which is not consistent with the principle of competitive equity.
|
9. Bell observed that particularly as regards the treatment of contribution, the Commission has established differences in the application of certain tariffs to APLDS, charging explicit contribution in addition to the tariff.
|
10. Bell noted that, contrary to AT&T; Canada LDS' claim, the sum of Bell's remittances to Québec-Téléphone and Télébec ltée under settlement agreements exceeds the contribution requirements and toll costs of those companies.
|
11. Bell argued that, despite the availability of trunk-side interconnections, APLDS were using resold Bell toll services as a more economical alternative for the termination of traffic in the Independents' territories.
|
12. The Commission is of the view that the resale of Bell toll services to, in effect, reduce the contribution obligations of APLDS at Bell's expense does not achieve competitive equity.
|
13. The Commission notes that APLDS have the option of obtaining trunk-side access to Independents' territories either through a serving Bell class 4 switch or at the Independent's switch in locations where equal access facilities are available.
|
14. The Commission is in receipt of a letter from Québec-Téléphone, dated 19 February 1997 and a reply from Bell, dated 2 April 1997, concerning the disposition of CAT charges collected which the Commission will address separately.
|
15. In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:
|
The tariff revisions proposed in Tariff Notices 5893 and 5894 are given final approval.
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
