|
Order CRTC 2000-831
|
|
Ottawa, 8 September 2000 |
|
General Tariff approved on an interim
basis with modifications for Microcell Connexions Inc.
Tariff Notice 2 |
|
This order approves Microcell
Connexions Inc.'s proposed General Tariff on an interim basis, with the
changes listed below. Among other things, the order specifies the
circumstances under which Microcell must provide local service end-users
with equal access to the long distance service provider of their choice.
The Commission also exempts the long distance arm of the incumbent
telephone companies from interconnecting with Microcell. Finally, the
Commission issues a number of directives related to the provision of
9-1-1 service by Microcell. |
1. |
Microcell Telecommunications Inc. filed an
application on 3 May 2000 requesting approval of Microcell
Connexions Inc.'s (Microcell's) proposed General Tariff. |
2. |
Microcell proposed to operate as a
competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in all the exchanges where it
currently has points of interconnection as a wireless service provider
(WSP). The company intends to continue to operate as a WSP over the
remainder of the exchanges where it provides service. |
3. |
The Alberta E9-1-1 Advisory
Association (AEAA), on behalf of the public safety answering point (PSAP)
representatives from Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario,
filed comments expressing concerns with Microcell's failure to comply
with existing CLEC interconnection procedures on 31 May 2000. TELUS
Corporation filed comments on 2 June 2000. As well, Bell Canada, Island
Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc.,
NBTel Inc. and Newtel Communications Inc. (Bell Canada et al.) filed
comments on 5 June 2000. Microcell filed reply comments on 12 June
2000. |
4. |
Local competition, Telecom
Decision CRTC 97-8, dated 1
May 1997, established a framework for local competition that encouraged
efficient interconnection arrangements and was technology-neutral. In
particular, the Commission noted that should a WSP wish to become a CLEC,
it would be subject to the same terms and conditions as wireline CLECs,
as long as it accepts the obligations applied to CLECs in the decision. |
|
Microcell proposes to operate
as a wholesaler |
5. |
Microcell intends to operate as a wholesale
provider of local services to its affiliate, Microcell Solutions Inc.
(Solutions), and other resellers. |
6. |
Microcell noted that Telecom Order
CRTC 99-1127, dated 8 December 1999,
expressed concerns that this arrangement would permit the company to
circumvent many of its CLEC obligations. |
7. |
Microcell proposed to enforce its
obligation to provide equal access to Solutions' end-users through
contractual arrangements between itself and its affiliate. As well, the
company proposed to enforce its CLEC obligations to protect customer
privacy and the confidentiality of customer information through
contractual arrangements between itself and its resellers, including
Solutions. |
8. |
Microcell provided the wording for
a clause it proposed to include in its contracts with resellers,
including Solutions, to ensure that these resellers are bound by
Microcell's CLEC obligations. |
9. |
TELUS argued that the proposed clause was not
sufficient to address the Commission's concerns outlined in Order 99-1127. |
10. |
The Commission considers
Microcell's proposal reasonable that resellers of its local services,
including Solutions, abide by Microcell's CLEC obligations through
contractual arrangements. The Commission, however, shares the concerns
expressed by TELUS that the proposed wording is insufficient on its own
to ensure that the resellers will abide by Microcell's CLEC obligations. |
11. |
In Order 99-1127,
the Commission specifically identified the following as its main concerns
in respect of Microcell enforcing its CLEC obligations: |
|
a) end-users of affiliated resellers must have
equal access to the interexchange service provider (IXSP) of their
choice. |
|
b) Microcell must ensure that
resellers of its local services respect the obligations imposed on CLECs
to satisfy all existing and future regulatory requirements designed to
protect customer privacy including: |
|
i) delivery of the privacy
indicator when invoked by an end-customer; |
|
ii) provision of automated
universal per-call blocking of calling line identification; |
|
iii) provision of per-line call
display blocking to qualified end-customers; |
|
iv) disallowance of Call Return to
a blocked number; |
|
v) enforcement of the Commission's
restrictions on automatic dialling announcing devices, and unsolicited
facsimiles applicable in the incumbent local exchange carrier's (ILEC's)
territory where they operate; and |
|
vi) provision of universal call
trace. |
12. |
The Commission considers that the
contracts between Microcell and the resellers of its local services
should specifically identify the CLEC obligations set out in Decision 97-8
for which these resellers will be responsible. Microcell is directed to
make the necessary amendments to the contractual arrangements between
itself and its resellers to ensure that they are aware of the obligations
for which they are responsible. |
13. |
The Commission further considers
that Microcell should file for approval the agreement(s) it has with
Solutions, as well as a form of the agreement(s) that it proposes to
execute with unaffiliated resellers of its local services. |
|
Defining equal access for
mobile wireless CLECs |
14. |
Microcell proposed to provide its
customers (i.e., resellers) and Solutions' end-users with equal
access to the IXSP of their choice whenever they place an interexchange
call from within their home exchange. Microcell defined a "home
exchange" as an exchange where it plans to operate as a CLEC.
Microcell also indicated that if customers other than Solutions wish to
offer equal access to their end-users, it would accommodate such
offerings. |
15. |
Microcell further proposed to
offer enhanced equal access products that it argued were beyond those
required of other local exchange carriers (LECs). The company stated that
enhanced equal access products could provide end-users roaming outside
their home exchange with the ability to access the IXSP of their choice
on an equal access basis when originating calls. Microcell proposed to
provide enhanced equal access products on the basis of rates, terms, and
conditions to be negotiated with the IXSPs. |
16. |
Bell Canada et al. argued that,
consistent with the principle of end-user choice, wireless CLECs should
be required to provide equal access in the end-user's home exchange and
in an exchange where the end-user roams. Bell Canada et al. also
submitted that the obligation for Microcell to provide equal access
should extend to the wireless end-user's total toll calling requirements,
including calls destined to an end-user roaming outside the local calling
area. |
17. |
Bell Canada et al. noted that
this might not be technically feasible in certain instances, such as when
an end-user is roaming in a territory where service is actually provided
by another wireless carrier. Bell Canada et al. also submitted that in
some cases, a wireless end-user's preferred toll service provider may
choose not to provide service in all locations being served by Microcell.
Bell Canada et al. said the obligation for wireless CLECs to provide
equal access should be contingent on the technical feasibility of
wireless CLECs to provide equal access, and on the IXSP's ability to
provide the service. |
18. |
Microcell submitted that the
proposed extension of a wireless CLEC's mandated equal access obligations
to include roaming mobile originating and terminating calls is a request
to the Commission to interpret Decision 97-8
in a manner that is contrary to that decision and Telecom Decision CRTC 92-12,
dated 12 June 1992, entitled Competition in the provision of public
long distance voice telephone services and related resale and sharing
issues. Microcell argued that such an interpretation would impose
requirements on the company that exceed the equal access obligations
imposed on other local exchange carriers (LECs). |
19. |
Microcell noted that in paragraph
10 of Telecom Order CRTC 98-1, dated 7
January 1998, the Commission rejected a similar request from the ILECs: |
|
The Commission also considers
that CLECs, including wireless CLECs, need only provide 9-1-1, MRS and
equal access in the serving area or areas where they operate as a CLEC.
Stentor's contention that customers of wireless CLECs should have access
to these services wherever they roam, would impose a far greater
obligation on wireless CLECs than on wireline CLECs, and would
effectively prevent wireless providers from selecting their own CLEC
serving areas. The Commission therefore finds that the imposition of such
additional obligations on wireless CLECs would not be consistent with the
intention of the Commission to establish a framework that is neutral in
terms of technology. |
20. |
The Commission considers that Decision 97-8
does not support Microcell's contention that its proposal to provide
equal access within the home exchange is at least equivalent to what
other LECs are required to provide. |
21. |
Decision 97-8
required that a CLEC provide equal access to its end-users in order to
preclude exclusive arrangements, which would limit those end-users to
only the IXSP of the CLEC's choice. |
22. |
The Commission notes that
Microcell's basic proposal to provide equal access within an end-user's
home exchange would limit Solutions' end-users from having access,
through equal access arrangements, to the IXSP of Microcell's choice when
roaming outside their home exchange but within Microcell's CLEC serving
areas. Microcell's basic proposal is thus inconsistent with Decision 98-1. |
23. |
The Commission considers that,
consistent with the principle of end-user choice, the end-users of a
mobile wireless CLEC should have equal access to the IXSP of their choice
on mobile originating calls, wherever they roam in the serving area or
areas where the wireless CLEC operates. |
24. |
The Commission further considers
that end-users of a mobile wireless CLEC should have equal access to the
IXSP of their choice on mobile terminating calls, where roaming outside
the local calling area associated with the end-user's home exchange.
Although the roaming subscriber does not dial the long distance call, the
subscriber causes the call by roaming, and is responsible for the
applicable charges. |
25. |
The Commission thus finds that
Decision 97-8 requires that
Microcell provide enhanced equal access products to the end-users of any
affiliated reseller, as long as they are roaming within the serving areas
where the company is operating as a CLEC. |
26. |
Accordingly, the Commission
directs Microcell to provide equal access on mobile originating calls,
where Solutions' end-users are roaming within Microcell's CLEC serving
areas and on mobile terminating calls, where an end-user is roaming
outside the local calling area associated with the home exchange. This
requirement is subject to Microcell's ability to provide equal access and
the IXSP's ability to provide the service. |
|
Equal access and distance
sensitive pricing |
27. |
Microcell submitted that enhanced
equal access might not be compatible with all rating plans that are used
by IXSPs. In particular, the company noted that mobile-originated long
distance calling could not be billed according to a distance sensitive
rate plan unless the call is originated in a location known to the
alternate IXSP. |
28. |
Microcell indicated that if IXSPs
required more information about the location where a call originated, it
was willing to provide wireless call detail records at rates, terms, and
conditions to be negotiated between itself and the IXSPs. |
29. |
Bell Canada et al. and TELUS noted
that pursuant to Decision 97-8,
the ILECs are required to interconnect their interexchange networks with
every CLEC. Bell Canada et al. and TELUS submitted that with wireless
users roaming, it is not possible for an IXSP to determine where a
wireless call originated, and hence to apply distance-sensitive rates. |
30. |
TELUS was concerned that even when
a long distance call is originated within the local calling area and
routed back to the home exchange by Microcell, the IXSP would be unable
to rate the call correctly. |
31. |
Bell Canada et al. objected to
having to interconnect with mobile wireless CLECs unless: |
|
a) a technology solution is
developed so that the location where the call is originated is provided
through the CCS7 message; or |
|
b) the wireless CLECs provide the ILECs with
call detail records in suitable format. |
32. |
Bell Canada et al. submitted that
the interexchange operations of the ILECs should be provided the option
of not interconnecting with Microcell. |
33. |
At this time, the Commission
exempts the ILECs from having to interconnect their interexchange
networks with Microcell in view of the billing and routing issues raised
for IXSPs when a wireless CLEC's subscriber roams. The Commission also
exempts Microcell from having to file executed CLEC-IXC agreements with
the ILECs to achieve CLEC status. |
34. |
The Commission requests the CRTC
Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) Network Working Group to
address possible solutions to the interexchange billing and routing
issues raised by roaming subscribers of mobile wireless CLECs under the
equal access regime, and to report within 90 days of the date of this
order. |
|
Microcell's proposal to collect
and remit interexchange contribution |
35. |
Microcell proposed that,
consistent with the Commission's established contribution regime, the
following principles would be applied to determine contribution
eligibility and to calculate the applicable interexchange contribution
charges when a toll call is originated by and/or terminated to a mobile
end-user served by a reseller of Microcell's local services: |
|
a) contribution eligibility will
be based on the "physical location" of the calling or called
mobile end-user, with the "physical location" determined by the
location of the cell site in which the call is initiated, whether
originating or terminating with a mobile user; |
|
b) ILEC exchange boundaries will
be used to determine contribution applicability; and |
|
c) ILEC-specific per-minute contribution rates
will be used to calculate the contribution applicable to the originating
and/or the terminating end of an interexchange call. |
36. |
Microcell identified a few
instances where the assessment of contribution charges would be
inconsistent with how they would be assessed by wireline LECs under
similar circumstances. |
37. |
In view of the limitations of
wireless technology at this time, Bell Canada et al. considered
Microcell's proposal to handle the contribution assessment on toll
traffic to be reasonable. |
38. |
TELUS submitted that any call
carried by the IXSP, which cannot be correctly rated due to the roaming
nature of the call, may also be a call for which the LECs or toll transit
providers may be unable to calculate and remit the correct amount of
contribution. TELUS expected that there would be a large number of these
types of calls. |
39. |
TELUS submitted that all parties
interested in the integrity of the contribution system require adequate
time to assure themselves that Microcell's proposal will not adversely
affect them. TELUS noted that it has provided illustrations and
contributions at the CISC Network Working Group regarding this matter. |
40. |
The Commission considers
Microcell's proposal reasonable to collect and remit contribution on its
own long distance traffic on a per-minute basis, based on the ILECs'
exchange boundaries. |
|
Will Microcell be providing access tandem
functionality? |
41. |
Microcell offered an IXSP the
option of interconnecting either at the Microcell point of
interconnection (POI) in each exchange an IXSP wishes to serve, or at the
Microcell mobile switching centre serving all the POIs connected to that
centre. Microcell proposed to charge the rate for direct connection at a
POI, and the rate for access tandem connection at a mobile switching
centre. |
42. |
Bell Canada et al. and TELUS noted
that the ILECs' access tandem connection rate allows for the aggregation
of traffic over multiple switches, and routing to the access tandem
switch. Bell Canada et al. and TELUS questioned the extent to which
Microcell would be providing access tandem functionality. |
43. |
Microcell said it was aware that
this issue is being raised by other parties in the context of CLEC
networks other than its own. The company submitted that it was prepared
to accept suspension of its proposed access tandem definition and rates,
until this issue is resolved for other CLECs. |
44. |
The Commission considers that in
providing interconnection at its mobile switching centres, Microcell will
not be providing access tandem functionality. The Commission concludes
that it would not be appropriate to approve the "Access tandem"
definition and rates proposed by Microcell. Thus, the direct connection
rate of 0.3 cents will apply for IXSP interconnection whether at a POI or
a mobile switching centre. |
|
Identifying Microcell's obligations
regarding 9-1-1 service |
45. |
Microcell proposed to continue
employing the existing WSP 9-1-1 call routing arrangements, until such
time as the technical feasibility of Wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 (Wireless
E9-1-1) has been demonstrated and the service is available in each of the
ILECs' serving territories. The company noted that technical feasibility
should be demonstrated via a technical trial, followed by Commission
approval of a commercial Wireless E9-1-1 service offering. As this is
achieved on a province-by-province basis, Microcell proposed to file
9-1-1 service agreements between itself and municipalities, or 9-1-1
service tariffs, whichever is appropriate. |
46. |
The Commission notes that in
Order 2000-830, also issued today, it
has ruled that the ILECs must continue to provide 9-1-1 service to
Clearnet PCS Inc., as a CLEC, at WSP rates, in view of the reduced level
of service available to wireless carriers prior to the implementation of
Wireless E9-1-1. The Commission considers that the WSP rates for 9-1-1
service should also continue to apply to Microcell as a CLEC until
Wireless E9-1-1 is implemented. |
|
a) Should emergency services
have access to wireless CLECs' subscriber records? |
47. |
The AEAA requested that Microcell
be required to support the inclusion of wireless subscriber records
(i.e., phone number, name, and billing address) in the Automatic Location
Identifier (ALI) database. |
48. |
The AEAA acknowledged that
wireless subscriber records are not as useful as having an actual
location record delivered. The AEAA however noted that the phone number,
customer name, and billing address of a wireless CLEC subscriberwould
provide an immediate starting point for the PSAPs' legal and moral
obligation to locate callers who call 9-1-1 but cannot communicate. |
49. |
Bell Canada et al. submitted that
Bell Canada, as well as other ILECs, had in the past offered to make
available to WSPs a trunk-side routing arrangement that would improve
9-1-1 call routing accuracy. Bell Canada et al. noted that such an
arrangement could be made available prior to trials for Wireless E9-1-1. |
50. |
Microcell objected to having to provide
wireless subscriber records arguing that this information was meaningless
because wireless subscribers can roam. |
51. |
The Commission agrees with the
AEAA that, in an emergency, the information contained in wireless
subscribers' records could be of value to the PSAPs. The Commission
considers that, as a CLEC, Microcell should provide the end-users of its
resellers with 9-1-1 service functionality that is better than what it
currently provides them as a WSP. The Commission considers that until
Wireless E9-1-1 is implemented, Microcell should support the inclusion of
the subscriber records of its resellers' end-users in the ALI databases. |
52. |
The Commission directs Microcell
to update the relevant ALI databases with the subscriber records of its
resellers' end-users where it operates as a CLEC. Microcell is also
directed to use the trunk-side routing arrangement referenced in the
comments of Bell Canada et al. The Commission notes the concerns
expressed by Microcell regarding the trunk-side routing arrangement for
9-1-1 service that Bell Canada et al. mentioned in their comments and
concludes that any operational issues associated with its directives
should be resolved in the CISC Intercarrier Operations Group –
Emergency Services (9-1-1). The Commission requests the group to address
any operational issues associated with the above-noted directives to
Microcell. |
53. |
The Commission further directs
Microcell to implement Wireless E9-1-1 as soon as the service becomes
available in any of the ILECs' serving areas where the company will be
operating as a CLEC. |
|
b) Is there a need for legal
agreements? |
54. |
TELUS and the AEAA submitted that
Microcell's proposal to use the existing wireless arrangements for 9-1-1
service does not exempt the company from entering into 9-1-1 service
agreements and, where applicable, billing and collection agreements. The
AEAA and TELUS suggested that the CISC Intercarrier Operations Group –Emergency
Services (9-1-1) should be instructed to address the interconnection
issues associated with a wireless CLEC, as well as existing wireless
service providers related to 9-1-1 interconnection issues including: |
|
a) the Trunk-Side CLEC Interconnection
Document; |
|
b) master agreements that include
the Interconnection Agreement for the Provision of 9-1-1 Service to a
Competitive Local Exchange Carrier; and |
|
c) provincial agreements between CLECs &
Municipalities for the Provisioning of 9-1-1 Service, and Billing and
Collection (as applicable). |
55. |
The AEAA also requested that Microcell be
directed to execute the applicable 9-1-1 contracts with PSAP
municipalities and 9-1-1 platform providers. |
56. |
The Commission notes that some of the model
agreements will have to be amended to accommodate mobile wireless CLECs.
This task could be best handled by the CISC Intercarrier Operations Group
– Emergency Services (9-1-1). |
57. |
The Commission requests the CISC
Intercarrier Operations Group – Emergency Services (9-1-1) to start
reviewing and revising the documents identified in paragraph 54 of this
order to address interconnection issues for the provision of 9-1-1
service by a mobile wireless CLEC, including Wireless E9-1-1 service. |
58. |
The Commission reminds Microcell
that CLECs have the obligation to execute agreements between themselves
and the municipalities for the provision of 9-1-1 service, and as
applicable, billing and collection arrangements. The Commission finds
unacceptable Microcell's proposal to delay entering into agreements with
the municipalities regarding the provision of 9-1-1 service, and billing
and collection service, until Wireless E9-1-1 service is available. The
Commission expects that, as a CLEC, Microcell will either enter into
agreements with the municipalities to arrange for the provision of 9-1-1
service and, where appropriate, billing and collection service, or file
proposed tariffs for Commission approval, prior to the implementation of
Wireless E9-1-1. |
|
Disposition of the tariff filing |
59. |
Bell Canada et al. submitted that
amendments were required to Microcell's General Tariff to correct some
errors, and to ensure consistency with other CLECs' approved General
Tariffs. Microcell generally did not object to the changes suggested by
Bell Canada et al. |
60. |
Microcell stated that it had added or modified
definitions in the ILECs' and other CLECs' tariffs so as to be specific
to its operations, in view of its plans to operate as a wireless CLEC and
as a wholesale provider of service. |
61. |
Microcell has used the term
"interconnecting carrier", as opposed to the term
"customer", to identify those parties who would be
interconnecting with Microcell under the terms of its General Tariff.
Microcell proposed to use the term "customer" to describe the
resellers, including Solutions, who purchase its local services. |
62. |
The term "interconnecting
carrier" is already used in the context of Commission decisions, and
the ILECs' and other CLECs' General Tariffs. The Commission considers
that defining it to mean something different in the context of
Microcell's General Tariff is inappropriate. |
63. |
The Commission considers that
Microcell's definition for the term "interconnecting carrier"
should be deleted and that the definition for "customer" should
be modified to indicate that a customer is a carrier or reseller who
purchases services under Microcell's General Tariff. |
64. |
In Article 10.4 of its proposed
Terms of Service, Microcell is requesting approval of a provision which
states: |
|
Microcell is not liable for any
damages arising out of any act or omission of Microcell permitted
pursuant to the conditions of its PCS license, provided that Microcell
acted in good faith in accepting the court order or other legal power. |
65. |
The Commission considers that this
provision is too broad and would provide Microcell with limits to its
liability which are more extensive than the ILECs', contrary to Decision 97-8.
Accordingly, this provision is to be deleted. |
66. |
Several provisions related to
contribution charges and contribution exemption require minor
corrections, as well as amendments to appropriately reflect recent
Commission decisions regarding direct access lines and international
contribution. |
67. |
Amendments are required to
Microcell's provisions for access services for interconnection with WSPs
to correct the contribution rates and to reflect the determinations in Providing
trunk-side access and common channel signalling #7 to wireless service
providers, Order CRTC 2000-395, dated 12
May 2000. |
68. |
In addition to the above, the
Commission considers that Microcell's tariff requires a number of other
minor changes for the purpose of correcting and/or clarifying various
references and provisions. |
69. |
In light of the foregoing, the
Commission orders that: |
|
1. The proposed tariffs are
approved on an interim basis with the following amendments: |
|
a) in all sections of the tariff: |
|
i) replace the term
"interconnecting carrier" with the term "customer";
and |
|
ii) replace the term
"customers" with the term "end-customer"; |
|
b) in Item 100, Definitions: |
|
i) delete the definition of
"access tandem functionality"; |
|
ii) add the following sentence to
the end of the definitions of "class A licensee" and
"class B licensee": |
|
"For more information with
respect to licensing requirements, refer to the CRTC's web site at www.crtc.gc.ca.
"; |
|
iii) change the label for the
definition of "interconnecting carrier" to
"customer"; |
|
iv) delete the definition of
"direct connection functionality"; |
|
v) change the label for the
definition of "customer" to "end-customer"; |
|
vi) add the dialling provisions
"1+800/888/877" to the definition of "feature group D
service"; |
|
vii) add the following definition
for "standby circuit": |
|
Standby circuit means an
interconnecting circuit with line or trunk-side access, which has been
activated but rendered incapable, by the company, of carrying traffic. |
|
viii) add the dialling provision
"1+950" to the definition of "trunk-side access"; and |
|
ix) modify the definition of
"WSP" to be consistent with the definition found in Item 400 of
Microcell's General Tariff. |
|
c) in Item 101: |
|
i) renumber the current paragraph
1.2 as paragraph 1.3 and add the following under the new item 1.2: |
|
These terms do not limit
Microcell's liability in cases of deliberate fault or gross negligence,
or breach of contract where the breach results from the gross negligence
of Microcell.; |
|
ii) delete the words
"including anticipated long distance charges" from the end of
paragraph 6.7; |
|
iii) in paragraph 9.1, replace the
reference to "Article 11.1" with "Article 10.1"; |
|
iv) in paragraph 10.1, delete the
words "the greater of $20 and"; and |
|
v) delete paragraphs 10.4, 12.3
and 12.4; |
|
d) in Item 301(n), add the words
"other than the ILEC" immediately after the term
"IXSP"; |
|
e) in Item 301(o), replace the
term "IXSP" with the term "IXC"; |
|
f) in Item 301(4)(a)(i), replace
the words "its Customers or Interconnecting Carriers with which it
interchanges traffic" with "or interconnecting carriers
involved on its services"; |
|
g) in Item 302(1)(b): |
|
i) add the dialling provisions
"1+800/888/877" and "1+950" to the first sentence;
and |
|
ii) replace the second sentence in
that paragraph with the following: |
|
Interconnecting circuits with
trunk-side access arranged for feature group D service may be connected
to Microcell's end office (direct connection), and may use
multi-frequency (MF) or CCS7 signalling, subject to the availability of
suitable facilities.; |
|
h) in Item 302(2): |
|
i) delete the last three sentences
in paragraph (a); and |
|
ii) in the table at the end of
paragraph (d), for each province, delete the words "Access Tandem
Connection" and remove the associated rates; |
|
i) in the title of Item 303, and
in the first sentence of paragraph (a), replace the term "trunk-side
access" with "feature group D service"; |
|
j) in the title of Item 304, and
in the first sentence of paragraph (a), replace the term "trunk-side
access" with "feature group D service"; |
|
k) in the first sentence of Note 2 associated
with Items 305(1)(b) and (c), replace the words "Microcell's
operating territory" with "the applicable ILEC's operating
territory"; |
|
l) in the table in Item 305(1)(c), for circuit
group 75-99, in the second column for the province of British Columbia,
replace the rate shown of "$133.00" with "$134.00"; |
|
m) in Item 305(2)(a): |
|
i) in the first sentence of the
paragraph, replace the word "Microcell's" with the words
"the applicable ILEC's"; |
|
ii) replace the words "in
Item 305.1a) above apply" with the words "below apply"; |
|
iii) delete the last sentence of
the paragraph; |
|
iv) add the following table
immediately after the paragraph: |
|
Carriers and other service
providers that use DALS |
|
Contribution charge, each minute
of traffic: |