Search

ARCHIVED -  Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-38

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

 

Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-38
  Ottawa, 11 December 1998
 

STENTOR - GUIDELINES FOR TARIFF FILINGS IN RESPECT OF CUSTOMER-SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS
  File No.: 8622-S1-04/98
  1. On 10 September 1998, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor), on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc., NewTel Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. (collectively "the Stentor companies"), submitted an application requesting the Commission to issue a statement or guidelines, pursuant to section 58 of the Telecommunications Act, as to the acceptability of certain options related to filings for the approval of tariffs for Customer-Specific Applications (CSAs).
  2. In Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, Review of Regulatory Framework, 16 September 1994 (Decision 94-19), the Commission confirmed the appropriateness of CSAs and prescribed certain broad parameters applicable to them. Stentor indicated that since Decision 94-19, the need for customer-specific features, terms and conditions has heightened, due to the increase in competitive activity, large customers' needs for increasingly sophisticated solutions and a trend towards tendering and contract pricing.
  3. Stentor noted that, in conformity with Decision 94-19, the Stentor companies have responded to large customer tenders by filing tariffs that do not restrict the general availability of the service but rather make prices dependent upon various explicit future conditions (such as traffic volumes and service locations). This ensures that a customer in dissimilar circumstances is not in a position to demand the same terms.
  4. Stentor submitted that this process has proven to be unworkable in certain procurement situations, typically involving very large customers. Stentor indicated that certain large customers are requiring, as a condition of tender, that any bids submitted contain firm prices or be unconditional in nature in order to qualify for acceptance by the customer.
  5. Stentor submitted that a substantial difference exists between the ability of an unregulated or "forborne" bidder on the one hand and the Stentor companies on the other hand to comply with the bidding process. Stentor noted that the unregulated and forborne bidders develop their responses to these tenders on the basis of their reasonable expectations of customer requirements, and submit bids, including prices, which are unconditional and thus compliant with the call for tender. The Stentor companies must file tariffs for their non-forborne services, whereas their unregulated or forborne competitors are not required to do so.
  6. Stentor noted that if the current practice continues in the future, the Stentor companies could effectively be disqualified from procurement processes which require unconditional or firm prices for non-forborne services. Stentor submitted that such a result is neither required nor appropriate and could not have been intended.
  7. Stentor submitted that different tariff filing options must be adopted in the future, pending forbearance. Stentor requested that the Commission issue a statement or guidelines confirming that it will generally find acceptable CSA tariff applications which comply with either of the following options:
  (a) the application could set out conditions necessary to qualify for the service where such conditions are based on historical behaviour or circumstances (i.e. the tariff would express characteristics as qualifying rather than prospective requirements); or
  (b) the application could otherwise set out the reasonable expectations or assumptions (e.g., as to traffic volumes, patterns and customer locations) on which the rates are based.
  8. Stentor stated that under either option, the application would be accompanied by a demonstration that the imputation test is satisfied, and the tariff would only be made available to those customers who satisfy the qualifying conditions or for whom the assumptions or expectations are reasonably applicable and who request service within a specific time period set out in the tariff application.
  9. The Commission hereby initiates a proceeding to seek comments on Stentor's application.
  PROCEDURE
  10. Stentor's application may be examined at any of the company's business offices or at the offices of the CRTC in the following locations:
  Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage
Room G-5
Hull, Quebec

Bank of Commerce Building
1809 Barrington Street
Suite 1007
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Place Montréal Trust
1800 McGill College Avenue
Suite 1920
Montréal, Quebec

55 St. Clair Avenue East,
Suite 624
Toronto, Ontario

275 Portage Avenue
Suite 1810
Winnipeg, Manitoba

580 Hornby Street
Suite 530
Vancouver, British Columbia
  11. Other documents forming part of the record of this proceeding may, as noted above, be examined at the Commission office in Hull, or will be made available in the above Regional Offices promptly upon request.
  12. Copies of Stentor's application can also be obtained by any interested person upon request directed to Mr. R.F. Farmer, Vice-President, Regulatory Development & Management, Stentor Resource Centre Inc., 105 Hôtel de Ville, Floor 5, Hull, Quebec, J8X 4H7.
  13. Persons wishing to comment on the application may do so by writing to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, fax: 819-953-0795, by 15 January 1999. A copy of your comments should be served on Stentor at the above address.
  14. Stentor may file reply comments by 29 January 1999, serving a copy on those persons who filed comments.
  15. Documents must be received, and not merely sent, by the dates indicated.
  16. In addition to hard copy filings, parties are encouraged to file with the Commission electronic versions of their submissions in accordance with the Commission's Interim Telecom Guidelines for the Handling of Machine-Readable Files, dated 30 November 1995. The Commission's Internet email address for electronically filed documents is public.telecom@crtc.gc.ca. Electronically filed documents can be accessed at the Commission's Internet site at www.crtc.gc.ca.
  Secretary General
  This document is available in alternative format upon request.
Date modified: