Telecom Order
|
Ottawa, 3 March 1995
|
Telecom Order CRTC 95-249
|
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel) filed on 31 October 1994, pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, requesting the Commission to order AGT Limited, BC TEL, Bell Canada (Bell), Island Telephone Company Limited, Manitoba Telephone System, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited, and Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited, ("the respondents") to allow subscribers to pre-subscribe their Remote Call Forward (RCF) Service to a long distance service provider according to their preference.
|
WHEREAS Unitel showed that the RCF service was used to route calls to the respondents´ networks and stated that it was able to verify the ability of the local switch to forward a call to a pre-subscribed long distance carrier during joint testing of equal access;
|
WHEREAS Unitel stated that Bell would not allow pre-subscription because RCF was not listed as available for pre-subscription;
|
WHEREAS Unitel considered that allowing RCF calls to be routed to the respondents´ networks and not to networks of alternate service providers conferred an undue preference on the respondents;
|
WHEREAS in its answer dated 30 November 1994, Stentor, on behalf of the respondents, stated that the service Unitel tested was Custom Call Feature - Call Forwarding (CCF-CF);
|
WHEREAS in an assessment of the feasibility of RCF with presubscription provided on 21 December 1994, Stentor stated that RCF service does not uniformly interwork with Equal Access software and identified alternatives using alternate service providers´ 800 service and the equal access casual dialing option;
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the alternatives proposed by Stentor are not satisfactory because alternate long distance service providers that do not provide 800 service or do not have casual calling arrangements with Stentor companies would not be able to benefit from RCF pre-subscription if implemented by either of the alternatives proposed; and
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the respondents are conferring an undue preference on themselves if RCF subscribers are not able to pre-subscribe their RCF service to alternate long distance service providers -
|
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
|
1. The respondents shall provide to subscribers RCF service or a transparently similar service that can be pre-subscribed to a long distance carrier of the subscriber´s choice, with the same ease of implementation and rates regardless of the long distance carrier to which the subscriber wishes to pre-subscribe his service.
|
2. The respondents shall provide the service within 90 days or show cause why it cannot be done.
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
|
