ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2014-171
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Ottawa, 9 April 2014
TELUS Communications Company – Application to exclude certain competition-related quality of service results from the rate rebate plan for competitors in Alberta for June, July, and August 2013
File number: 8660-T66-201314228
The Commission approves TCC’s request to exclude from the rate rebate plan for competitors below-standard results for competitor quality of service indicator 1.19 for July 2013, and for competitor quality of service indicator 2.10 for June, July, and August 2013 due to flooding in Alberta in June 2013.
1. The Commission received an application from TELUS Communications Company (TCC), dated 18 October 2013, in which the company requested that the Commission exclude from the rate rebate plan for competitors its results for competitor quality of service (Q of S) indicator 1.19 – Confirmed Due Dates Met – CDN [competitor digital network] Services and Type C Loops (indicator 1.19) for certain competitors for July 2013, and for competitor Q of S indicator 2.10 – Mean Time to Repair – CDN Services and Type C Loops (indicator 2.10) for certain competitors for June, July, and August 2013.
2. TCC submitted that the below-standard results were caused by heavy rains that led to massive floods in Alberta beginning on 20 June 2013, specifically in Calgary, High River, and neighbouring communities. TCC indicated that the company’s access to certain buildings had been compromised by high water levels and lack of power, creating a backlog of repair tickets that took weeks to clear.
3. TCC submitted that in a letter dated 18 July 2013, it had advised the Commission that it was not yet in a position to assess the full impact of the adverse event, and proposed to submit an exclusion application as soon as it could quantify the event’s effects on its competitor Q of S results. In the current application, TCC indicated that it was now able to assess the impact of the adverse event and noted that there were no new repair tickets or missed orders attributable to the adverse event in
4. TCC submitted that its competitor Q of S results were below the set standard for indicator 1.19 for two competitors in July 2013; and for indicator 2.10 for six competitors in June 2013, fourteen competitors in July 2013, and two competitors in August 2013. TCC provided evidence that if the trouble reports related to the adverse event were excluded, its July 2013 competitor Q of S results for
indicator 1.19 and June, July, and August 2013 competitor Q of S results for indicator 2.10 for each competitor served would have been within the accepted standard.
5. TCC also submitted a table showing that its results for competitor Q of S indicators 1.19 and 2.10 met, on an aggregated basis, the standard for the entire 12-month period from June 2012 to May 2013.
6. The Commission received no interventions regarding TCC’s application. The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 28 November 2013, is available on the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca or by using the file number provided above.
Should the Commission approve TCC’s request to exclude its competitor Q of S performance results in Alberta for indicators 1.19 and 2.10 from its rate rebate plan for July 2013 and June, July, and August 2013, respectively?
7. The Commission notes that although the adverse event occurred in June 2013, it continued to affect TCC’s operations in July and August 2013.
8. In Telecom Decision 2013-136, the Commission clarified that the 21-day timeframe for filing exclusion applications, which was set out in Telecom Decision 2005-20, would be assessed starting from the end of the month during which an adverse event is cleared, meaning when service is restored to the affected competitors. In that decision, the Commission stated that it expected that future exclusion applications would be filed within this clarified timeframe.
9. The Commission considers that although TCC’s current application was submitted later than 21 days after the end of the month during which the event was cleared, given the nature of the adverse event and the need for TCC to properly assess the impact of the event on its competitor Q of S results, TCC’s delay in filing the application is justified.
10. In Telecom Decision 2007-102, the Commission adopted a force majeure clause that provided that, under the Q of S rate rebate plan for competitors, no rate rebates would apply in a month where failure to meet a competitor Q of S standard was caused in that month by events beyond the reasonable control of the ILEC. The Commission considers that, based on the evidence filed by TCC in this proceeding, the flooding qualifies as an event that was beyond the reasonable control of TCC and thus triggers the force majeure clause.
11. In Telecom Decision 2007-14, the Commission concluded that if an ILEC had met or exceeded the standard for a particular competitor Q of S indicator for three consecutive months, or for at least six out of twelve months, immediately prior to an adverse event, it was reasonable to conclude that the ILEC would likely have met its competitor Q of S obligations without the adverse event.
12. The Commission has reviewed TCC’s performance for indicators 1.19 and 2.10 and finds that TCC met the standard for both indicators for all competitors for at least six of the twelve months prior to the June 2013 event.
13. Accordingly, the Commission considers that TCC would have met its competitor Q of S obligations for these indicators without the adverse event. The Commission also considers that TCC provided sufficient evidence that if the repair tickets associated with the flooding were excluded, its aggregated results would have been within the accepted standard for July 2013 for competitor Q of S indicator 1.19 and for June to August 2013 for competitor Q of S indicator 2.10.
14. In light of the above, the Commission approves TCC’s request to exclude its below-standard results in Alberta for competitor Q of S indicator 1.19 for July 2013, and for competitor Q of S indicator 2.10 for June, July, and August 2013, in the calculation of the amounts due to the competitors affected by this adverse event under the rate rebate plan for competitors.
- TELUS Communications Company – Application to exclude certain quality of service results from the rate rebate plan for competitors due to adverse events, Telecom Decision CRTC 2013-136, 18 March 2013
- Retail quality of service rate adjustment plan and competitor quality of service rate rebate plan – Adverse events, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-102, 31 October 2007
- TELUS Communications Company – Application to exclude certain competition-related quality of service results from the rate rebate plan for competitors for July 2005, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-14, 28 February 2007
- Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20, 31 March 2005
- Date modified: