ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-1077

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 8 August 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-1077

The Commission received a letter dated 26 March 1997 from Future Link Telecommunications (Future Link) with an application to change Telecom Order CRTC 97-286, 4 March 1997 (Order 97-286), which approved Future Link's applications effective 14 January 1997, the date of application. Future Link requested that the effective date be varied from 14 January 1997 to 13 December 1996.

File No.: 97-8626-F4-01

1. Future Link stated that the Centrex system in question was placed in operation by Bell Canada (Bell) on 13 December 1996 and that the date of approval and the date of affidavit was 14 January 1997. Future Link stated that as a result, it will still have to pay contribution fees for its single-hop lines from 13 December 1997 (sic: should be 1996) to 14 January 1997.

2. By letter dated 8 April 1997, Bell noted that Future Link is requesting a change to a Commission order which amounts to an application pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to review and vary. Bell further noted that the effective date established in Order 97-286 is consistent with the normal practices of the Commission, as set out in Effective Date of Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-26, 12 June 1995 (PN 95-26). Accordingly, Bell submitted that should Future Link wish to pursue its applications to seek a change to Order 97-286, it should be required to address the criteria for review, in accordance with the Commission's normal requirements.

3. By letter dated 24 April 1997, Future Link submitted that it was a "clerical error in judgement" that the affidavit date was 14 January 1997 instead of 13 December 1997 (sic). Future Link submitted that Bell knows that the single-hop lines in question were never used (or could they be used) for multiple-hop purposes. Future Link questioned why it should pay contribution charges on those lines for services never used.

4. By letter dated 20 May 1997, Bell noted that its records indicate that the Centrex system was converted to allow for single-hop and multiple-hop calling effective 13 December 1996. Further, Bell stated that it can confirm that the routing of traffic as of that date was controlled by it so as to ensure that single-hop and double-hop calls were carried on separate interconnecting circuits. However, Bell also noted that the responsibility lies with the reseller, Future Link, to apply to the Commission for contribution exemptions in a timely fashion. Bell stated that this requirement is reflected in the relevant Commission determinations regarding the procedures for applying for contribution exemption, such as PN 95-26 and Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993. Bell stated that in such cases, the Commission has determined that, absent special circumstances, the effective date should generally be the later of the date of application or the date of installation. In light of the above, Bell stated that it sought the Commission's clarification regarding the appropriate effective date in cases where the applicant applies for an exemption within a reasonable time period after the date of installation, and where the carrier can provide verification of the configuration as of the installation date.

5. Dealing, first, with the question of whether Future Link addressed the criteria under section 62 of the Act for the review and variance of a decision or order, the Commission notes that Future Link has stated that it will be prejudiced by the Commission's decision in Order 97-286 by being required to pay one month's extra contribution. In other cases for similar applicants, the Commission has granted requests that demonstrated that the applicants were prejudiced by a later-than-requested effective date (e.g., several requests to review and vary the effective date of Telecom Order CRTC 95-481, dated 20 April 1995). Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that Future Link has filed sufficient evidence to support a finding that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the effective date set out in the Commission's original decision.

6. Dealing, secondly, with the question of to which date should the effective date be varied, the Commission notes Bell's statement that it can confirm that the routing of traffic as of that date was controlled by it, so as to ensure that single-hop and double-hop calls were carried on separate interconnecting circuits. The Commission notes that the network has been properly configured, and that there is no leakage to the public switched telephone network.

7. The Commission also notes that two other associated companies, Maidens Communications (Maidens) and New Wave Telecommunications Ltd. (New Wave), were granted similar effective dates. In Telecom Order CRTC 97-689, dated 26 May 1997 for Maidens, the effective date was 19 December 1996, and in Telecom Order CRTC 97-267, dated 27 February 1997 (Order 97-267) for New Wave, the effective date was also 19 December 1996. In the process leading to Order 97-267, Bell stated that other resellers (which it did not then name) were also involved in providing portions of this service configuration. It subsequently became clear by an examination of the respective filings that these other resellers are Future Link and Maidens. Given that the effective date is 19 December 1996 in these latter two cases, this information would further support a variance to a similar date, i.e., 13 December 1996.

8. The Commission is also of the view that Bell should, in similar cases where the applicant applies for an exemption within a reasonable time period after the date of installation, and where the carrier can provide verification of the configuration as of the installation date, address this point in its comments to the application, as well as whether the effective date in such cases could be the date of installation.

9. Based on the foregoing, the Commission orders that:

(a) the effective date of Order 97-286 is varied to 13 December 1996; and

(b) Bell is directed, in similar cases where the applicant applies for an exemption within a reasonable time period after the date of installation, and where the carrier can provide verification of the configuration as of the installation date, to address this point in its comments to the application, and to advise the Commission whether the date of installation would be appropriate for the effective date, as in this Order. Based on this evidence, the Commission may find that the effective date in such cases would be the date of installation.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.