|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-79
|
|
|
Ottawa, 21 November 2003
|
|
|
Wireless service provider enhanced 9-1-1 service
|
|
|
Reference: Aliant Telecom Inc. Tariff Notices 53, 53A; 8340-A53-0882/00 and 8340-A53-0882/01
Bell Canada Tariff Notice 6629
TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. Tariff Notice 4120 and 8340-T46-0718/00
Former TELUS Communications Inc. Tariff Notices 327, 327A, and 8340-T42-0725/00
TELUS Communications Inc. Tariff Notices 41, 41A and 41B, and 8340-T66-0851/00
|
|
|
The Commission approves Aliant Telecom Inc.'s wireless service provider enhanced 9-1-1 (WSP E9-1-1) service tariff and the associated WSP E9-1-1 agreement, subject to modifications. The Commission also approves on a final basis the WSP E9-1-1 service tariffs of Bell Canada and TELUS Communications Inc., as well as the associated WSP E9-1-1 agreements, subject to modifications.
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
1.
|
Wireless Service Provider Enhanced 9-1-1 (WSP E9-1-1) service provides wireless service providers (WSPs) with trunk-side interconnection to an incumbent local exchange carrier's (ILEC's) 9-1-1 network in order to: (i) transmit cell site/sector information associated with a 9-1-1 call to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); (ii) transmit the 10 digit call-back number of the 9-1-1 caller to the PSAP; and (iii) enable WSP 9-1-1 calls to be routed to a designated PSAP.
|
|
2.
|
In Wireless service provider enhanced 9-1-1 service, Order CRTC 2001-902, 21 December 2001, the Commission granted interim approval to Bell Canada's application for approval of revisions to its Special Facilities Tariff to introduce WSP E9-1-1 service at item G-310, Wireless Service Provider Enhanced 9-1-1 Service, and an associated WSP E9-1-1 agreement.
|
|
3.
|
The Commission received comments from Rogers Wireless Inc. (RWI) dated 19 December 2001 and from Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell) dated 20 December 2001. The Commission received reply comments from Bell Canada dated 9 January 2002.
|
|
4.
|
In Wireless service provider enhanced provincial 9-1-1 network access service, Order CRTC 2001-96, 2 February 2001, the Commission granted interim approval to an application made by TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. (TCBC) proposing revisions to its General Tariff to introduce WSP E9-1-1 service at item 197-C, Wireless Service Provider Enhanced Provincial 9-1-1 Network Access Service, and to an associated WSP E9-1-1 agreement, as well as revisions to General Tariff item 121, Provincial 9-1-1 Service.
|
|
5.
|
In Wireless service provider enhanced provincial 9-1-1 network access service, Order CRTC 2001-97, 2 February 2001, the Commission granted interim approval to an application filed by the former TELUS Communications Inc. (the former TCI) proposing revisions to its General Tariff to introduce WSP E9-1-1 service at item 570, Wireless Service Provider Enhanced Provincial 9-1-1 Network Access Service, and an associated WSP E9-1-1 agreement, as well as revisions to item 280, Provincial 9-1-1 Service.
|
|
6.
|
The Commission received comments from the British Columbia E9-1-1 Service Providers Association, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) and Microcell dated 8 January 2001, and from the Alberta E9-1-1 Advisory Association dated 3 January 2001 and 8 January 2001. The Commission received reply comments from TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) dated 22 January 2001.
|
|
7.
|
The Commission received an application by Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), dated 17 October 2002 and amended on 12 December 2002, proposing revisions to its General Tariff to introduce WSP E9-1-1 service at item 648, Wireless Service Provider Enhanced 911 (WSP E911) Service, in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and an associated WSP E9-1-1 agreement.
|
|
8.
|
The Commission received comments from Microcell and TCI dated 18 November 2002, and from RWI dated 18 November 2002 and 10 January 2003. The Commission received reply comments from Aliant Telecom dated 12 December 2002 and 22 January 2003.
|
|
9.
|
The Commission received an application by TCI, dated 7 March 2002 and amended 11 April 2003 and 27 June 2003, associated with the provision of WSP E9-1-1 service and the WSP E9-1-1 agreements of the former TCI and TCBC. TCI proposed to amalgamate the former TCI General Tariff item 570, Wireless Service Provider Enhanced 9-1-1 Network Access Service and TCBC General Tariff item 197-C, Wireless Service Provider Enhanced Provincial 9-1-1 Network Access Service into TCI's General Tariff item 201, Wireless Service Provider Enhanced Provincial 9-1-1 Network Access Service.
|
|
10.
|
TCI initially proposed to integrate the WSP E9-1-1 tariffs and the WSP E9-1-1 agreements at the rates and conditions approved for the former TCI in Alberta and for TCBC in British Columbia. TCI stated that the proposed tariff would not result in changes to how the service is provisioned and would not have an impact on its customers. Subsequently, TCI proposed to align the WSP E9-1-1 rates for Alberta and British Columbia on a revenue neutral basis.
|
|
11.
|
The Commission received comments from RWI dated 21 March 2002 and reply comments from TCI dated 28 March 2002.
|
|
12.
|
Parts I to III of this decision deals with issues related to the applications of Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada and TCI respectively. Part IV deals with issues that are common to the applications of Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada. Part V deals with issues that are common to the applications of Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada and TCI.
|
|
13.
|
In this decision, the term WSP is used to refer to all wireless carriers, including wireless competitive local exchange carriers (wireless CLECs) unless otherwise stated.
|
|
|
I. Aliant Telecom's application
|
|
|
Tariff issues
|
|
|
Price cap classification and rate adjustment
|
|
14.
|
In Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34), the Commission established two categories within the Competitor Services basket in order to clarify the pricing treatment of these services.
|
|
15.
|
The first category within the Competitor Services basket, Category I Competitor Services, comprised those services which were in the nature of an essential service. Services in the nature of an essential service included the interconnection and ancillary services that were required by Canadian carriers and resellers interconnecting to the ILECs' networks, including essential services as defined in Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 as well as near-essential services, such as those that were the subject of Local competition: Sunset clause for near-essential facilities, Order CRTC 2001-184, 1 March 2001.
|
|
16.
|
The second category within the Competitor Services basket, Category II Competitor Services, included those services developed for use by telecommunications service providers, other than services in the nature of an essential service.
|
|
17.
|
The preliminary assignment of Competitor Services to either Category I or Category II was set out by the Commission in Appendix I to Decision 2002-34. The Commission also initiated a proceeding, in Decision 2002-34, to allow parties to the proceeding to comment on the preliminary service assignments. The Commission's determinations with respect to the assignment of Competitor Services were set out in Follow-up to Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34 - Service basket assignment, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-11, 18 March 2003 and Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-11-1, 23 May 2003 (Decision 2003-11).
|
|
18.
|
In Decision 2002-34, the Commission reduced the mark-up on Phase II costs included in the rates for most Category I Competitor Services from 25% to 15%. The Commission found that a 15% mark-up on the Phase II costs of these services, which were subject to mandated cost-based pricing, would provide sufficient contribution towards the recovery of the ILECs' fixed common expenses and the embedded cost differential. The Commission, in Decision 2002-34, also adopted a rate element constraint equal to the rate of inflation less the productivity offset (I-X) for all Category I Competitor Services, with the exception of those Category I Competitor Services whose rates explicitly reflected productivity gains. In Decision 2002-34, the Commission also found that all usage rates of less than $1.00 were to be rounded to the fourth decimal place, with the exception of the Direct Connect and Access Tandem service rates which were to be rounded to the fifth decimal place.
|
|
19.
|
For Bell Canada and TCI, the Commission, in Decision 2003-11, assigned WSP E9-1-1 service to Category I Competitor Services. The Commission considers that Aliant Telecom's WSP E9-1-1 service should also be assigned to Category I Competitor Services.
|
|
20.
|
The Commission notes that Aliant Telecom's proposed rate of $0.0050 was based on a cost study that reflected Aliant Telecom's Phase II costs plus a 15% mark-up, but did not explicitly reflect productivity gains. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that Aliant Telecom should adopt a WSP E9-1-1 rate of $0.0049 per wireless working telephone number, reflecting Aliant Telecom's Phase II costs plus a 15% mark-up adjusted to reflect the I-X constraint applicable to Category 1 Competitor Services pursuant to Decision 2002-34.
|
|
WSP E9-1-1 agreement issues
|
|
Liability provisions
|
|
21.
|
In Conditions of service for wireless competitive local exchange carriers and for emergency services offered by wireless service providers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-53, 12 August 2003 and Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-53-1, 25 September 2003 (Decision 2003-53), the Commission issued its determinations on, among other things, liability issues related to the provision of WSP E9-1-1 service by the ILECs. Specifically, the Commission directed ILECs offering WSP E9-1-1 service to include the wording set out in Appendix B to that Decision, changing the parties' names as appropriate, in the WSP E9-1-1 agreements referenced in their tariffs and to modify existing signed WSP E9-1-1 agreements accordingly. The Commission notes that this direction in Decision 2003-53 applies to Bell Canada, TCI and will apply to Aliant Telecom, as soon as it offers WSP E9-1-1 service.
|
|
WSP obligations - Section 4.4(f)
|
|
22.
|
Section 4.4 of the proposed WSP E9-1-1 agreement states the WSP shall:
|
|
|
(f) provide written confirmation to Aliant that it has either entered into contractual arrangements with the Province of Nova Scotia and/or the Province of New Brunswick or is subject to the terms and conditions of a WSP tariff approved by the CRTC for the purpose of defining the rights and obligations of the WSP and of the Province of Nova Scotia and/or the Province of New Brunswick. The WSP acknowledges that Aliant shall not be under any obligation to provide the services contemplated in this Agreement to the WSP in the absence of the above-written confirmation.
|
|
23.
|
RWI stated that such a provision was not included in the WSP E9-1-1 agreements of Bell Canada or TCI. RWI submitted that this provision was inappropriate and requested that it be deleted.
|
|
24.
|
Microcell stated that it did not object in principle with this clause, but indicated that there were some practical implications associated with such a prerequisite. First, Microcell submitted that should the Commission want WSPs to sign WSP E9-1-1 agreements with provincial or municipal authorities, it should designate an open forum where these WSP E9-1-1 agreements could be drafted, such as the Emergency Services Working Group of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC). Second, Microcell argued that problems with signing a WSP E9-1-1 agreement would likely arise in provinces where responsibility for 9-1-1
is delegated down to the municipal level, noting that wireline CLECs had experienced such problems. Microcell submitted that in such a situation, the WSPs should be able to fall back on a Commission approved E9-1-1 tariff.
|
|
25.
|
Aliant Telecom did not provide reply comments on this issue.
|
|
26.
|
The Commission notes that neither Bell Canada nor TCI have included a similar provision in their WSP E9-1-1 agreements. While a similar requirement is included in the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement, the Commission acknowledges that CLECs have had difficulties obtaining signatures from municipal governmental authorities responsible for 9-1-1. The Commission notes that, to address this problem, certain CLECs have filed tariffs for Commission approval that delineate the rights and the obligations of the CLEC and the governmental authority.
|
|
27.
|
The Commission notes that WSPs are not subject to all of the requirements placed on CLECs, including the requirement to sign agreements for 9-1-1 interconnection with the province or municipalities. Further, WSPs that are not CLECs do not have the option of filing tariffs with the Commission to avoid the difficulties that CLECs have faced. Finally, the Commission notes that Aliant Telecom did not provide reasons for including the provision. Accordingly, the Commission considers that section 4.4(f) of Aliant Telecom's WSP E9-1-1 agreement should be deleted.
|
|
|
WSP obligations - Section 4.4(g)
|
|
28.
|
Section 4.4 of the proposed WSP E9-1-1 agreement states that the WSP shall:
|
|
|
(g) acknowledge and agree the scope, nature and parameters of the 9-1-1 Service are generally described in Schedule "A" attached hereto but Aliant reserves the right to move forward to other phases or otherwise alter the scope, nature and parameters of the Wireless Service as Aliant may in its sole discretion determine is advisable from time to time on six (6) months written notice to the WSP.
|
|
29.
|
RWI submitted that this provision should be deleted because Aliant Telecom would be required to file another tariff for the Commission's approval should it wish to introduce future phases of the service.
|
|
30.
|
Microcell also submitted that section 4.4(g) should be removed, stating that, in effect, Aliant Telecom was seeking to reserve for itself the right to require all WSPs to implement unknown future enhancements without any requirement to consult WSPs or secure Commission approval.
|
|
31.
|
Microcell stated that no equivalent paragraph to 4.4(g) exists in either the TCI or Bell Canada WSP E9-1-1 agreements.
|
|
32.
|
TCI considered that a six month minimum requirement for notification of network changes, consistent with Notification of Network Changes, Terminal-to-Network Interface Disclosure Requirements and Procedures for the Negotiation and Filing of Service Arrangements, Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 94-11, 4 November 1994, would be reasonable.
|
|
33.
|
In reply, Aliant Telecom submitted that section 4.4(g) of the WSP E9-1-1 agreement should not be removed.
|
|
34.
|
The Commission notes that an equivalent section is not included in the Bell Canada or TCI WSP E9-1-1 agreements or in the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement and that Aliant Telecom did not provide reasons for the inclusion of this provision. The Commission is of the view that section 4.4(g) of Aliant Telecom's WSP E9-1-1 agreement should be removed from Aliant Telecom's WSP E9-1-1 agreement as the section indicates that Aliant Telecom could alter the service at its own discretion without Commission approval.
|
|
|
II. Bell Canada's application
|
|
|
Tariff issues
|
|
|
Application of the wireless telephone number rate
|
|
35.
|
RWI submitted that the per wireless working telephone number charge should only apply to numbers that were located within the coverage area of Bell Canada's WSP E9-1-1 service, instead of to all numbers within Bell Canada's serving territory.
|
|
36.
|
In reply, Bell Canada submitted that no change was necessary because the rate per number for WSP E9-1-1 service was calculated based on the WSP number counts used to determine the wireless E9-1-1 rate. Bell Canada further submitted that the intrinsic nature of the wireless service is not limited to subscribers located within a service area, as subscribers roam and are mobile across the wireless carrier network.
|
|
37.
|
The Commission considers that it is appropriate for the WSP E9-1-1 charge per wireless working telephone number to apply to the all working wireless numbers of the WSP within Bell Canada's territory, as wireless subscribers have the ability to roam into areas covered by Bell Canada's WSP E9-1-1 service. The Commission notes that Bell Canada's wireless telephone number charge for wireline E9-1-1 service also applies to all wireless numbers within its territory although the service is not available in all areas.
|
|
|
WSP E9-1-1 agreement issues
|
|
|
Call routing list
|
|
38.
|
Section 2 of Schedule A of Bell Canada's WSP E9-1-1 agreement states:
|
|
|
The Company will make available to the WSP, upon request, a 9-1-1 call routing list containing the Local Emergency Administration name, designated 9-1-1 Selective Router serving the Local Emergency Administrations and the primary and secondary Public Safety Answering Points serving the Local Emergency Administrations.
|
|
39.
|
Microcell requested that Bell Canada be directed to include in its 9-1-1 call routing list information regarding the 9-1-1 service type and whether a billing and collection service was provided for each Local Emergency Administration. Microcell also requested that Bell Canada be directed to provide updates to the 9-1-1 call routing list, as required.
|
|
40.
|
In reply, Bell Canada submitted that the requested information was provided and that a process to include 9-1-1 call routing updates was in place and described in Bell Canada's 9-1-1 Interconnection Support documentation.
|
|
41.
|
Microcell also requested that, in addition to the call routing list, Bell Canada be directed to provide a current list of PSAP contact names and phone numbers, plus periodic updates. Microcell further requested that Bell Canada be directed to provide Emergency Service Zone maps, in electronic format, if available.
|
|
42.
|
In reply, Bell Canada submitted that the municipalities have been and should continue to be responsible for the provision of this information.
|
|
43.
|
The Commission is of the view that there is no requirement to modify the WSP E9-1-1 agreement as the information requested by Microcell is already provided by either Bell Canada or the municipality.
|
|
|
Editorial changes
|
|
44.
|
At paragraph 19 of its submissions, Microcell proposed a number of minor editorial changes to the WSP E9-1-1 agreement filed by Bell Canada.
|
|
45.
|
Bell Canada submitted that it had no objections to the suggestions and would make the changes once the WSP E9-1-1 agreement receives final approval.
|
|
46.
|
The Commission considers that Bell Canada should incorporate the editorial changes suggested by Microcell at paragraph 19 of its submission.
|
|
|
Other matter
|
|
|
Rollout schedule
|
|
47.
|
Microcell requested the Commission direct Bell Canada to provide a detailed rollout schedule to all wireless carriers.
|
|
48.
|
In reply, Bell Canada stated that it expected to rollout the service on a priority basis, based on forecasts of demand to be provided by subscribing wireless carriers. Bell Canada submitted that directions from the Commission were unnecessary as the rollout schedule would be determined by the customers and would be coordinated as part of the implementation of the service with the customers.
|
|
49.
|
The Commission notes that the rollout schedule is to be determined by Bell Canada in conjunction with its WSP E9-1-1 service customers. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it need not require Bell Canada to provide a detailed rollout schedule.
|
|
|
III. TCI's applications
|
|
|
Tariff issues
|
|
|
Port connection charge
|
|
50.
|
Item 555 of the former TCI's General Tariff, item 197-A of TCBC's General Tariff and item 201.2.2 of TCI's General Tariff state:
|
|
|
The rates and charges, and terms and conditions for trunk termination as specified in (TELUS item 555/TCBC item 197-A) shall apply for port connection(s) to the Selective Router(s).
|
|
51.
|
The CWTA submitted that this clause should be removed because: (i) the referenced trunk termination charges are intended to recover the cost of processing calls within free local calling areas and are not related to the cost of processing calls on the 9-1-1 network; and (ii) all costs associated with providing WSP E9-1-1 service would be fully recovered from other charges.
|
|
52.
|
In reply, TCI submitted that there are Emergency Response Agencies (ERAs) in Alberta that have local 7 digit numbers to which 9-1-1 calls are transferred by the PSAP through the public switched telephone network (PSTN). TCI indicated that the costs of routing these calls through the PSTN would normally be recovered through the company's exchange service access line charges, i.e., residential and business access line monthly rates. TCI submitted that the proposed port connection charge would cover these costs, which would not be recovered when the calls originate on a wireless 9-1-1 call.
|
|
53.
|
TCI further submitted that the proposed rate for WSP E9-1-1 service was set to recover incremental costs specific to service provisioning, i.e., new features and modifications to the switch and automatic location identifier distribution software to support the proposed service. TCI stated that the rate does not take into account any of the port-connection related costs set out above. TCI was of the view that the referenced trunk termination charge is a reasonable rate for the port connection component in view of the similarities in functionality provided.
|
|
54.
|
The Commission notes that Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom have not included a comparable charge in their WSP E9-1-1 tariffs. In the Commission's view, TCI has provided insufficient information to justify including the referenced trunk termination charges for Alberta in its WSP E9-1-1 tariff. Moreover, as TCI did not state that, in British Columbia, ERAs might have to be accessed through the PSTN, TCI's rationale for including this charge would not apply in British Columbia. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the provision related to the port connection charge should be deleted from TCI's WSP E9-1-1 tariff.
|
|
|
Application of tariff to wireless CLECs
|
|
55.
|
The Commission notes that the WSP E9-1-1 tariffs for Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom state that the term WSP includes wireless service providers offering service in accordance with the CRTC directives applicable to CLECs.
|
|
56.
|
The Commission considers that TCI should revise its proposed amalgamated tariff to clarify that the service is available to wireless CLECs.
|
|
|
Amalgamated WSP E9-1-1 rate
|
|
57.
|
The Commission did not receive comments regarding TCI's proposed amalgamated WSP E9-1-1 rate.
|
|
58.
|
The Commission notes that the proposed amalgamated rate, which was obtained by weight averaging the Alberta and British Columbia WSP E9-1-1 rates on a revenue neutral basis, represents a minor rate increase for Alberta customers and a minor rate decrease for customers in British Columbia. For this reason, the Commission considers that, in the circumstances, the proposed amalgamated WSP E9-1-1 rate is appropriate.
|
|
|
IV. Issues relating to applications of Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada
|
|
|
Tariff issues
|
|
|
CCS7 facilities
|
|
59.
|
Item 648.2(e) of Aliant Telecom's proposed tariff and item G21(c)(5) of Bell Canada's tariff that has been approved on an interim basis require the WSP to provide common channel signalling #7 (CCS7) on trunk side to enable the exchange of integrated services digital network user part signalling information necessary to support the signalling requirements for WSP E9-1-1 service.
|
|
60.
|
RWI submitted that WSPs should not be required to establish new CCS7 connections specifically for WSP E9-1-1 service because the service could be implemented successfully using existing CCS7 connections between a WSP and the ILEC.
|
|
61.
|
In reply, Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom each confirmed that new CCS7 connections would not be required when CCS7 connections between a WSP and the company had already been established.
|
|
62.
|
Since CCS7 connections are required on trunk side, the Commission considers that this provision is appropriately included in the tariffs of Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada.
|
|
|
Billing of wireless CLECs
|
|
63.
|
Microcell requested confirmation that wireless CLECs would be subject to the 50% fee for wireline E9-1-1 service plus the incremental fee for WSP E9-1-1 service.
|
|
64.
|
In reply, Bell Canada stated that pursuant to its tariff, WSPs would be subject to 50% of the charge applicable to wireline telephone numbers for wireline E9-1-1, plus the incremental fee for WSP E9-1-1 service. Aliant Telecom did not comment on this issue.
|
|
65.
|
The Commission confirms that wireless CLECs subscribing to WSP E9-1-1 service would be subject to the 50% charge per working wireless telephone number for wireline E9-1-1 service, plus the incremental charge for WSP E9-1-1 service.
|
|
|
WSP E9-1-1 agreement issues
|
|
|
Segregated trunks
|
|
66.
|
Section 3.4 of Schedule A of Aliant Telecom's WSP E9-1-1 agreement and section 4.4 of Schedule A of Bell Canada's WSP E9-1-1 agreement require the WSP to segment their 9-1-1 trunking into trunk groups for the purpose of defining different default routing assignments.
|
|
67.
|
RWI submitted that the requirement for segmented trunk groups is unnecessary and less efficient than a consolidated trunk group since a greater number of trunks and trunk groups would be required to route the same amount of traffic. RWI further submitted that the requirement for trunk segmentation should only apply to trunk groups associated with the ILEC's primary switch.
|
|
68.
|
In reply, Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom each submitted that segmented and dedicated 9-1-1 trunk groups were a critical factor for the appropriate call routing and delivery operations of the WSP E9-1-1 service. Bell Canada submitted that when a wireless cell site/sector identifier was not listed in the 9-1-1 Control Office switch's database, the incoming trunk group default Emergency Service Number was used to route the call based on that trunk group's designated emergency 9-1-1 call centre. Bell Canada submitted that failure to segment the incoming trunk groups would result in erroneous call routing and induce delay in overall call response handling.
|
|
69.
|
The Commission notes that the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement and TCI's WSP E9-1-1 agreements require 9-1-1 trunking to be segmented into trunk groups for the purpose of defining different default routing assignments. The Commission considers that segmented trunk groups, which define different routing assignments, are necessary for appropriately routing 9-1-1 calls when a wireless cell site/sector identifier is not listed in the 9-1-1 Control Office switch's database. Accordingly, the Commission considers that section 3.4/4.4 of Schedule A to the WSP E9-1-1 agreements of Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada, respectively, are to remain in place for public safety reasons.
|
|
|
Addresses of parties
|
|
70.
|
Subsections (a) to (c) of Section 11.1 of the WSP E9-1-1 agreements for Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada state:
|
|
|
any notice.required or permitted to be given, sent or delivered hereunder by one party to another shall be in writing and shall be given sent or delivered;
|
|
|
(a) by registered mail, express delivery service, postage prepaid, mailed in Canada and addressed to the intended recipient as follows:
|
|
|
(addresses of the telephone company and WSP).; or
|
|
|
(b) sent to the party entitled or required to receive it by facsimile transmission to its facsimile number shown in Section 11.1(a); or
|
|
|
(c) sent to the party entitled or required to receive it by electronic mail to its Internet address shown in Section 11.1(a).
|
|
71.
|
The WSP E9-1-1 agreements set out the addresses for Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom, but did not include a facsimile number or e-mail address for either company. The space for the WSP's address was left blank, with lines for specifying for the WSP's telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail address.
|
|
72.
|
RWI was of the view that section 11.1 indicates that, in the case of the ILEC, communications must be delivered to the ILEC's physical address, whereas communications could be sent to the WSP via telephone, facsimile or e-mail.
|
|
73.
|
RWI submitted that is was not reasonable to require e-mail, telephone and facsimile contact information for only one party to the WSP E9-1-1 agreement and that these provisions should be symmetrical. RWI requested that the Commission amend the WSP E9-1-1 agreements such that both parties may use these modes of communication with each other.
|
|
74.
|
In reply, Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada each stated that the notice provisions in section 11 of the WSP E9-1-1 agreement provide a WSP and the ILEC with the same rights and responsibilities as section 11 of the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement.
|
|
75.
|
The Commission notes that, although the wording of the equivalent section in the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement is otherwise the same, the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement indicates in the address section that both the ILEC and the CLEC will provide their address, including facsimile number and an e-mail address.
|
|
76.
|
As the wording of the section in the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement allows for notice by facsimile or e-mail and both Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada indicated that the notice provision was intended to be the same as that in the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement, the Commission considers that Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada should include a facsimile number and an e-mail address as part of their respective address information.
|
|
|
V. Issues relating to the applications of Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada and TCI
|
|
|
WSP E9-1-1 agreement issues
|
|
|
Non-disclosure
|
|
77.
|
The first sentence of Section 9.5 of Aliant Telecom's proposed WSP E9-1-1 agreement states:
|
|
|
Notwithstanding anything herein, Aliant shall be free to disclose the Confidential Information to its Affiliates and employees thereof with a need to know the Confidential Information provided that such Affiliates and employees thereof agree to be bound by confidentiality obligations similar to those contained herein.
|
|
78.
|
RWI requested that the Commission direct Aliant Telecom to amend this section such that these provisions apply symmetrically to Aliant Telecom and to the WSPs.
|
|
79.
|
In reply, Aliant Telecom stated that the non-disclosure obligations of the agreement provide the WSP and Aliant Telecom with the same rights and responsibilities as the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement. Accordingly, Aliant Telecom submitted that the non-disclosure provisions were reasonable and consistent with prior Commission determinations and argued that, therefore, they would not require modification.
|
|
80.
|
The Commission notes that the WSP E9-1-1 agreements of Bell Canada and TCI and the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement contain identical provisions allowing the ILEC to disclose confidential information to its affiliates. The Commission further notes that under Aliant Telecom's agreement, WSPs may disclose confidential information to their employees, professional advisors and consultants that need to know the information for the purposes contemplated in the agreement. As RWI did not indicate why it would be necessary to permit WSPs to also provide confidential information to affiliates and this has not been necessary in other jurisdictions, the Commission considers that this section should remain unchanged in this regard.
|
|
81.
|
To provide further clarification with respect to situations in which Confidential Information may be provided to affiliates and to ensure competitive balance, the Commission considers that Aliant Telecom should add the following sentence at the end of section 9.5, incorporating the restriction to the use of Confidential Information provided to employees, professional advisors and consultants, as set out at section 9.2 of the agreement:
|
|
|
Aliant's Affiliates and employees thereof may use the Confidential Information only for the purposes of, and in connection with, the performance of obligations under this Agreement, and for greater certainty, may not use the Confidential Information for competitive purposes.
|
|
82.
|
The Commission also considers that Bell Canada, at the end of section 9.5 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement, and TCI, at the end of section 10.5 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement, should add the wording set out in the above paragraph, changing "Aliant's" to "The Company's" and "TELUS" respectively.
|
|
|
Termination of WSP E9-1-1 agreement
|
|
83.
|
Sections 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 of Aliant Telecom's proposed WSP E9-1-1 agreement state the following:
|
|
|
3.1 .this Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time by giving written notice to the other party at least six (6) months in advance of the effective date of the termination.
|
|
|
3.3 .Aliant may terminate the services contemplated in this Agreement without incurring any liability or obligations whatsoever to the WSP, or to any Persons, upon termination of the contractual arrangements regarding the provision of 9-1-1 Service between Aliant and the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of New Brunswick. In the event of such termination, Aliant shall provide the WSP with reasonable notification.
|
|
|
3.5 The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the WSP of its obligation to pay any amounts due to Aliant and shall not deprive Aliant of any of the rights, remedies or actions that may accrue to it up to and including the effective date of expiration or termination.
|
|
84.
|
Bell Canada's WSP E9-1-1 agreement contains equivalent wording at sections 4.1, 4. 3 and 4.5 respectively.
|
|
85.
|
RWI submitted that, under sections 3.3/4.3, the telephone company should be required to provide the WSP with six months written notice should it wish to terminate the WSP E9-1-1 agreement. RWI stated that if the WSP E9-1-1 agreement were terminated, a WSP would have to make substantial changes to its network and complete extensive testing to ensure that subscriber access to emergency services is not interrupted.
|
|
86.
|
RWI also submitted that sections 3.5/4.5 should be symmetrical and state that the ILEC would not be relieved of any obligations as the result of termination of the WSP E9-1-1 agreement. For example, RWI submitted that Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada must continue to be obligated to safeguard WSP confidential information. Also, RWI submitted that the expiration or termination of the WSP E9-1-1 agreement should not deprive either party of any rights, remedies or actions that may accrue up to and including the effective date of the expiration or termination of the WSP E9-1-1 agreement.
|
|
87.
|
In reply, Aliant Telecom stated that the termination rights in section 3.3 are only applicable to the situation where the contractual arrangements between Aliant Telecom and the relevant provincial governments have ceased. Aliant Telecom submitted that it requires the ability to terminate on reasonable notice under this specific circumstance, as six months notice may not be available.
|
|
88.
|
Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada each submitted that the termination provisions provide a WSP and the company with the same rights and responsibilities as section 3 of the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement and, therefore, are reasonable and consistent with past Commission determinations.
|
|
89.
|
The Commission notes that the termination provisions in the WSP E9-1-1 agreement are identical to those included in the ILEC-CLEC 9-1-1 Agreement.
|
|
90.
|
With respect to comments regarding sections 3.3/4.3, the Commission notes that the ILEC would be required to provide six months notice before terminating its contract with a WSP, except in the situation in which its contract with the governmental authority has been terminated. In such a case, the ILEC is required to provide reasonable notification to the WSP. The Commission notes that in such circumstances the ILEC may not be able to provide six months notice.
|
|
91.
|
To deal with such a situation and for purposes of clarification, the Commission is of the view that Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada should add the wording set out below at the end of sections 3.3 and 4.3 respectively:
|
|
|
Aliant Telecom: Aliant will notify the WSP forthwith upon notification from the Province of Nova Scotia or the Province of New Brunswick that the 9-1-1 contract will be terminated on the date specified by the Province.
|
|
|
Bell Canada: The Company will notify the WSP forthwith upon notification from the Local Emergency Administration that the 9-1-1 contract will be terminated on the date specified by the Local Emergency Administration.
|
|
92.
|
The Commission is also of the view that TCI should add the following wording at section 5.3 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreements:
|
|
|
TELUS will notify the WSP forthwith upon notification from the Local Emergency Administration that the 9-1-1 contract will be terminated on the date specified by the Local Emergency Administration.
|
|
93.
|
With respect to RWI's submission that sections 3.5/4.5 should state that the ILEC is not relieved of its obligations, for example the obligation to safeguard confidential information, the Commission notes that section 9.9 in the Bell Canada and Aliant Telecom WSP E9-1-1 agreements states that all obligations respecting confidential information shall survive the early termination or expiration of the WSP E9-1-1 agreements. As for symmetry regarding outstanding amounts, the Commission is of the view that it is reasonable for sections 3.5/4.5 to deal specifically with WSP obligations to pay any outstanding amounts due to the ILEC as the ILEC would not owe amounts to the WSP under the WSP E9-1-1 agreement.
|
|
|
VI. Commission determination
|
|
94.
|
The Commission approves Aliant Telecom's application, subject to the modifications set out below. The Commission also approves on a final basis the applications of Bell Canada and TCI, subject to the modifications set out below.
|
|
95.
|
The Commission:
|
|
|
(i) directs Aliant Telecom to adopt the rate of $0.0049 per wireless working telephone number;
|
|
|
(ii) directs Aliant Telecom to delete sections 4.4(f) and 4.4(g) from its WSP E9-1-1 agreement;
|
|
|
(iii) directs Bell Canada to incorporate the editorial changes suggested by Microcell at paragraph 19 of its submission;
|
|
|
(iv) directs TCI to remove the provision related to the port connection charge from its WSP E9-1-1-tariffs;
|
|
|
(v) directs TCI to revise its tariffs to clarify that the service is available to wireless CLECs;
|
|
|
(vi) directs Aliant Telecom and Bell Canada to include a facsimile number and e-mail address as part of their address information included under Section 11.1 of their respective WSP E9-1-1 agreement;
|
|
|
(vii) directs Aliant Telecom to add the following sentence at the end of section 9.5 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement:
|
|
|
Aliant's Affiliates and employees thereof may use the Confidential Information only for the purposes of, and in connection with, the performance of obligations under this Agreement, and for greater certainty, not use the Confidential Information for competitive purposes.
|
|
|
(viii) directs Bell Canada to add the wording set out in (vii) to the end of section 9.5 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement, replacing "Aliant's" with "The Company's";
|
|
|
(ix) directs TCI to add the wording set out in (vii) to the end of section 10.5 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement, replacing "Aliant's" with "TELUS";
|
|
|
(x) directs Aliant Telecom to add the following wording at the end of section 3.3 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement:
|
|
|
Aliant will notify the WSP forthwith upon notification from the Province of Nova Scotia or the Province of New Brunswick that the 9-1-1 contract will be terminated on the date specified by the Province.
|
|
|
(xi) directs Bell Canada to add the following wording to the end of section 4.3 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement:
|
|
|
The Company will notify the WSP forthwith upon notification from the Local Emergency Administration that the 9-1-1 contract will be terminated on the date specified by the Local Emergency Administration.
|
|
|
(xii) directs TCI to add the wording set out in (xi) above, replacing "The Company" with "TELUS", at section 5.3 of its WSP E9-1-1 agreement.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|
Date Modified: 2003-11-21