ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2000-227

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Order CRTC 2000-227

Ottawa, 24 March 2000
TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. relieved of requirement to file tariff for unbundled components for the provision of AIN service features


Reference: 8622-B1-01/99

As a result of a Part VII application from TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. (formerly BC TEL), the Commission relieves it of the requirement to file a general tariff for advanced intelligent network (AIN) underlying features as soon as it introduces a service that uses the AIN platform. However, in the event that an alternate service provider does request access to BC TEL's AIN platform, BC TEL will be required to file a tariff to provide the necessary services and facilities.

1.

On 2 April 1997 BC TEL (now TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc., hereinafter referred to as BC TEL) filed Tariff Notice 3608 applying for a market trial for Calling Party Pays (CPP) service using an AIN platform. CPP allows wireless service providers to provide caller party billing to their customers. The application was granted interim approval in Telecom Order CRTC 97-762 dated 5 June 1997. However, in Order 97-762 the Commission noted that this was the first service offering by BC TEL using the AIN technology. In this order, the Commission concluded that some of the underlying AIN-based components used in the market trial are bottleneck components. Accordingly, the Commission stated that BC TEL should file a tariff for the underlying bottleneck components.

2.

By letter dated 25 June 1997, BC TEL noted that, in its view, there would be very limited utility to a general tariff for AIN access due to the limited demand and usefulness resulting from the rapid changes in technology. BC TEL proposed to meet any request for the underlying bottleneck services with a special assembly (customer specific) filing. The Commission accepted this approach in Telecom Order CRTC 97-1326 dated 12 September 1997, when it approved BC TEL's market trial on a final basis. However, the Commission stated that BC TEL should not provide a full service offering until it had made the underlying unbundled components available under a general tariff.

3.

On 22 January 1999 BC TEL filed a Part VII application requesting to be relieved of the requirement set out in Order 97-1326 to provide unbundled components for access by competitors to AIN service features. BC TEL submitted that since the release of Order 97-1326, there have been fundamental changes in circumstances and facts which call into question the continuing correctness of the decision.

4.

On 31 March 1999, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-11 was issued inviting parties to comment on this application. Only Clearnet Communications Inc. commented.

5.

The Commission is of the view that the lack of demand for any interconnection tariff, and the information regarding the significant costs of providing the interconnection facilities calls into question the continuing correctness of Order 97-1326.

6.

As stated in Order 97-1326 , that decision was consistent with its previous determination in Telecom Order CRTC 95-788 dated 14 July 1995, pertaining to a Bell Canada AIN-based service market trial. When the decision was taken with respect to Bell, intervenors had claimed a need for the interconnection tariff. Also, local competition had not yet been established and the development of standard interfaces for AIN interconnection appeared to be imminent. At the time of Order 97-1326, it was not yet apparent that Bell would not have any customers for its AIN interconnection tariff as insufficient time had elapsed since the introduction of the tariffs in 1997.

7.

The Commission notes that BC TEL stated that no alternate service provider has approached BC TEL, nor any other carrier that the company is aware of, for unbundled access that would allow it to provide AIN services. This could not have been foreseen at the time of Order 97-1326.

8.

BC TEL stated that in order to implement Order 97-1326, it would have to incur significant costs with the very high likelihood that these costs would never be recovered. As noted by BC TEL, and not disputed by Clearnet, the AIN technologies have evolved significantly since the time the Commission originally required the unbundling of Bell's AIN service.

9.

Competitive local exchange carriers can now provide AIN capability on their own switches. Furthermore, should BC TEL introduce an interconnection tariff based on its own implementation of AIN technology, there is no guarantee that this will meet the requirement of future customers as there are no agreed upon standards.

10.

Clearnet argued that the fact that an alternate service provider may also deploy AIN infra-structure would not eliminate the inherent barrier that exists in the provision of AIN-based services for traffic that originates from, or terminates on, a given BC TEL subscriber. While BC TEL did not agree with this position, it did acknowledge that other underlying capabilities such as traffic routing and access to data might be required to facilitate AIN competition. The Commission notes BC TEL's statement that it is prepared to enter into reciprocal agreements with other certified carriers via the company's Carrier Services Group to facilitate AIN-based competition.

11.

Given the uncertainty in potential demand, if any, and lack of assurance on the compatibility of the AIN technologies to be used, the Commission is of the view that BC TEL should not be required to file tariffs for the unbundled components at the time it introduces a service using the AIN platform.

12.

The Commission, however, remains of the view that AIN interconnection is in the nature of an essential service. Therefore, should there be demand for interconnection to BC TEL's AIN platform, it will be required to provide such interconnection. The form of the interconnection tariff (whether it should be a general tariff or otherwise) would be determined at that time.
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

 

Date modified: