|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-54
|
|
Ottawa, 3 September 2002
|
|
Model tariff for the interconnection services of competitive
local exchange carriers
|
|
Reference: 8657-C12-02/01
|
1. |
In this decision, the Commission directs all competitive local
exchange carriers (CLECs) to adopt the model tariff for their
General Tariffs. The Commission also directs all CLECs to file,
within 60 days of the date of this decision, amended tariff pages,
reflecting the relevant terms, conditions and rates of the model
tariff.
|
|
Background
|
1. |
Since the introduction of local competition, all service
providers that intend to be competitive local exchange carriers
(CLECs) have been required to file tariffs that set out the rates,
terms and conditions for the provision of interconnection services
to other telecommunications service providers.
|
2. |
The CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) Tariff Ad Hoc
Working Group (TAWG) was formed with the mandate to develop a model
tariff for CLECs that reflected the Commission's determinations with
respect to the various tariff items that should be contained in a
CLEC's General Tariff. The Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Model
Tariff (the model tariff) was completed in March 2001. The TAWG also
developed the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) Model
CLEC Tariff User's Guide (the User's Guide). The User's Guide
provides instructions about how the model tariff is to be used and
adapted to reflect the CLEC's specific circumstances.
|
3. |
The CISC Steering Committee approved the model tariff and the
associated consensus report on 1 May 2001.
|
4. |
In The Commission seeks comments from CLECs on the adoption of
the model tariff, Public Notice CRTC 2001-102, 28 September 2001
(Public Notice 2001-102), the Commission stated that, on a
preliminary basis, it considered that the tariffs of the CLECs
should be based on the model tariff and that it intended to grant
final approval to the General Tariffs of CLECs that adopted the
rates, terms and conditions set out in the model tariff. The
Commission directed CLECs to show cause why their respective General
Tariffs should not be based on the model tariff, and why the rates,
terms and conditions set out in the model tariff should not apply to
them.
|
5. |
In Public Notice 2001-102, the Commission called for comments on
the model tariff and the model tariff was posted on the CISC
website.
|
6. |
The Commission received comments from TELUS Communications Inc.
(TCI) dated 26 October 2001, and from Futureway Communications Inc.
(Futureway) dated 29 October 2001.
|
7. |
In the following sections, the Commission addresses the comments
received from TCI and Futureway.
|
|
Provision relating to the obligation to provide service
|
8. |
Futureway noted that model tariff Item 102.3.1 – Obligation to
provide service, stated:
|
|
Except as otherwise expressly specified elsewhere in this
tariff, and subject to Items 102.3.2 and 102.3.4 below, all of the
interconnection services available to Telecommunications Providers
under this tariff are provided by [the Company/CLEC] pursuant to
an obligation to serve.
|
9. |
Futureway submitted that the Commission should replace the phrase
"an obligation to serve" with the phrase "the CLEC's
obligations established by the Commission in Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, Local competition, 1 May 1997". Futureway also
submitted that the heading associated with this item should be
changed to "Provision of Service". In Futureway's view,
the phrase "obligation to serve" has a specific meaning in
the context of the Commission's regulation of the incumbent local
exchange carriers (ILECs), and its use in the CLECs' General Tariff
could create the false impression that the obligations imposed on
ILECs are now imposed on CLECs.
|
10. |
The Commission is of the view that this tariff provision is
clearly limited to the interconnection services that CLECs are
required to provide to other local exchange carriers, interexchange
service providers and wireless service providers (WSPs) pursuant to
Decision 97-8. In the Commission's view, this tariff provision
cannot be misconstrued as referring to an obligation to provide
service to end-customers. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the
changes to the model tariff proposed by Futureway are not necessary.
|
|
Items that are not applicable and/or not required
|
11. |
Futureway submitted that it should not be required to include in
its tariff those items from the model tariff that are not applicable
to its current operations. Futureway maintained that it would file
amendments to its tariff when it proposed to provide any such items.
|
12. |
The Commission notes that the model tariff has been developed to
reflect the full range of interconnection services that a CLEC may
be interested in offering. A CLEC may choose not to offer a specific
interconnection service that it is not required to provide. Further,
if a CLEC does not operate in a specific territory, then that CLEC
is under no obligation to include the rates for that territory in
its tariff.
|
|
Wording of the "Late payment charge" provision
|
13. |
TCI noted that the current late payment charge in the model
tariff is described as "the compound rate of 1.25% a month
(16.07% a year) of the unpaid amount". TCI suggested that the
following wording would be more appropriate:
|
|
The late-payment charge is based on the (the Canadian Chartered
Bank chosen by the Company/CLEC) Prime Rate plus 7% converted to a
monthly compound rate and rounded up to the nearest quarter
percentage point.
|
14. |
In TCI's view, this revised wording would alleviate the
requirement for a tariff revision to be filed each time the compound
rate changes as a result of fluctuations in the prime rate. TCI
further noted that this wording was approved in CRTC approves
amalgamated Terms of Service for TELUS Communications Inc.,
Order CRTC 2001-552, 9 July 2001.
|
15. |
The Commission has revised the late payment charges provision in
the model tariff to be consistent with the provision approved for
other CLECs and ILECs. In the Commission's view, these revisions
should address TCI's concerns.
|
|
Appropriateness of the terms, conditions and rates in the model
tariff
|
|
Termination of traffic within an ILEC local calling area
|
16. |
TCI submitted that the rates associated with "Termination of
Traffic from Exchanges within an ILEC Local Calling Area" are
not consistent with TCI's rates.
|
17. |
The Commission acknowledges that the rates in the model tariff
are not consistent with TCI's rates. The Commission notes that the
rates in the model tariff are different than those of TCI because
the service provided by the CLECs is not comparable to the service
provided by the ILECs. The ILEC routes a CLEC's traffic from the
originating exchange for termination in a different exchange within
the ILEC's local calling area associated with that exchange. In
comparison, a CLEC generally performs only the termination function.
The Commission therefore concludes that it is appropriate for the
CLECs to charge the rates set out in the model tariff, as these are
commensurate with the service they provide.
|
|
Interconnection with WSPs
|
18. |
TCI submitted that in the tariff provisions for interconnection
with WSPs, various rate elements associated with line-side access
telephone numbers for Alberta and British Columbia are
incorrect. TCI noted that the rates in the model tariff apply on a
per-telephone number basis whereas, in the company's serving
territory, the rates actually apply on a per block of numbers basis.
In addition, TCI stated there are additional service charges that
apply in its British Columbia serving territory that are not
described in the model tariff.
|
19. |
The Commission notes that the tariffs for interconnection with
WSPs vary considerably among the ILECs. Most of the ILECs' tariffs
provide for rates associated with telephone numbers on a per number
basis. In order to maintain consistency in the rates for CLECs that
operate in several territories, TCI's per block rates were converted
to per number rates. Further, the Commission notes that it has, in
several previous rulings, approved the conversion of per block rates
to per number rates in the general tariffs of some CLECs and remains
of the view that this variation is acceptable.
|
20. |
The Commission notes that the additional service charges referred
to by TCI that apply in its British Columbia serving territory
relate to charges per block of numbers. The model tariff reflects
only the lowest service charge. The Commission notes that the
application of a single service charge is consistent with the
approach adopted in all other serving territories.
|
21. |
In view of the above, the Commission considers that the model
tariff need not be modified to reflect the rates on a per block
basis in the manner suggested by TCI. However, the Commission
recognizes that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances for a
CLEC to adopt tariff provisions for interconnection with a WSP that
are equivalent to those of the ILEC in the territory where the CLEC
operates. The Commission is prepared to consider applications for
such tariff amendments on a case-by-case basis.
|
22. |
TCI noted that, except in its City of Edmonton serving territory,
there are no rates and charges for telephone number reservations
applicable in its Alberta serving territory. TCI noted, however,
that the model tariff provides for such a service. The Commission is
of the view that a CLEC should not be prevented from offering a
service that the ILEC does not offer. The Commission therefore
concludes that these provisions are appropriate in the model tariff.
|
|
Time frame for filing tariff amendments
|
23. |
Futureway submitted that the Commission should grant existing
CLECs six months to file the required tariff amendment with the
Commission. Futureway argued that time and administrative effort
would be needed to amend and file their general tariffs for final
approval. In Futureway's view, this would be a significant
administrative project for smaller CLECs that have limited
resources.
|
24. |
The Commission considers that a six-month implementation period
is excessive given that the model tariff has been developed to
simplify the process for both the CLECs and the Commission. The
Commission finds that a period of 60 days from the date of this
decision provides sufficient time for the CLECs to adapt the model
tariff to their specific requirements and file revised General
Tariffs for final approval.
|
|
Adoption of the model tariff
|
25. |
The Commission notes that there were no significant objections
raised by the CLECs in connection with the adoption of the model
tariff and consequently is satisfied that it is appropriate to
require that the tariffs of the CLECs be based on the model tariff.
This will allow the Commission to approve the general tariffs of
CLECs on an expedited basis.
|
26. |
In light of the above, the Commission determines that all CLECs'
General Tariffs are to be based on the model tariff. The Commission
directs all existing CLECs with General Tariffs that have been
approved on an interim basis to file revised General Tariffs that
reflect the relevant rates, terms and conditions contained in the
model tariff within 60 days of the date of this decision.
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request
and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|