DOCSLIB.ORG

File No.: 32607 SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
File No.: 32607 SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM File No.: 32607 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: BELL CANADA APPELLANT - and- BELL ALiANT REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATION OF CANADA, NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY ORGANIZATION and PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE, MTS ALLSTREAM INC., SOCIETE EN COMMANDITE TELEBEC and TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC. RESPONDENTS - and- CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION INTERVENER (Respondent) AND BETWEEN: TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC. APPELLANT - and- BELL CANADA, ARCH DISABILITY LAW CENTRE, BELL ALiANT REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATION OF CANADA, NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY ORGANIZATION and PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE, MTS ALLSTREAM INC., SASKATCHEWAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS and SOCIETE EN COMMANDITE TELEBEC RESPONDENTS MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS, CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATON OF CANADA, NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY ASSOCIATION and PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE on both Appeals Date: February 12, 2009 Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein Burke - Robertson LLP LLP Barristers & Solicitors Barristers & Solicitors 70 Gloucester Street 250 University Avenue, Suite 501 Ottawa, ON Toronto, Ontario K2P OA2 M5H 3E5 Richard P. Stephenson LSUC #286750 Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Ph.: (416) 646-4325 Ph.: (613) 566-2058 Fax: (416) 646-4335 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agents for Counsel for the Solicitors for the Respondents, the Respondents, Consumers' Association of Consumers' Association of Canada and Canada, National Anti-Poverty the National Anti-Poverty Organization Organization and Public Interest Advocacy Centre ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR COPIES TO: Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Barristers and Solicitors Barristers & Solicitors Box 25 Commerce Court West 2600 - 160 Elgin Street 199 Bay Street Ottawa, ON Toronto ON M5L 1A9 K1P 1C3 Neil Finkelstein LSUC# 21640K Brian A. Crane, Q.C. Tel: 416-863-2266 Fax: 416-863-2653 Ph.: (613) 233-1781 n.t;lilJinf<~I~tGjn@Rlgk~§,~Qm Fax: (613) 563-9869 Email: [email protected][ David Kidd LSUC #18185R Tel: 613-788-2203 Ottawa Agents for Counsel for Bell David Kidd@l;>lakes.com Canada Catherine Beagan Flood LSUC #43013U Tel: 416-863-2269 Fax: 416-863-2653 c;;bt;l@Ql?kej).C::;.Qm Solicitors for Bell Canada Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Barristers and Solicitors Barristers & Solicitors 350 yth Ave. S.W., Suite 1400 2600 - 160 Elgin Street Calgary AB T2P 3N9 Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 John E. Lowe Tel: 403-260-0257 Fax: 403-260-0332 Henry S. Brown, Q.C. [email protected] Ph.: (613) 233-1781 Fax: (613) 788-3433 Solicitors TEL US Communications Inc. Email: lJt;lNy.brQ\f\.In@gQwling~.~9n} Ottawa Agents for Counsel for Telus Communications Inc. AND TO: Torys LLP Anthony Mcintyre Barristers and Solicitors Canadian Radio-Television and Suite 3000, 79 Wellington St. W. Telecommunications Commission Toronto-Dominion Centre 1 Promenade du Portage P.O. Box 270, Stn. Toronto Dom. Gatineau, Quebec Toronto ON M5K 1 N2 K1A 4B1 Telephone: (819) 994-7572 Jo h n Laski n 119§_~h@tQ[Y~,.QQm FAX: (819) 953-0589 Afshan Ali aali@tory§~com E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 416-865-0040 Fax: 416-865-7380 Ottawa Agent for the Intevener, Canadian Solicitors for the Respondent, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Commission Cox & Palmer Barristers and Solicitors 1100 Purdy's Wharf Tower One 1959 Upper Water Street, P.O. Box 2380 Central Halifax NS B3J 3E5 Daniel M. Campbell, Q.C. Tel: 902-421-6262 Fax: 902-421-3130 dC_cJ[DQQ~Q2<fl9n§On .ca Solicitors for the Respondent, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership Goodmans LLP Nelligan O'Brien Payne, LLP Barristers and Solicitors 1900 - 66 Slater Street 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2500 Ottawa ON K1 P 5H1 Toronto ON M5B 2M6 Dougald E. Brown Michael Koch Tel: 613-231-8210 Fax: 613-788-3661 Tel: 416-587-5156 Fax: 416-979-1234 [email protected] mKQQb@gQQcJfl19!l§.QQ Ottawa Agents for Counsel for the Solicitors for the Respondent, MTS Respondent, MTS Allstream Inc. Allstream Inc. Arch Disability Law Centre South Ottawa Community Legal 425 Bloor Street East Services Suite 110 406 - 1355 Bank Street Toronto ON M4W 3R5 Ottawa ON K1YH 8K7 Ivana Petricone, Executive Director Chantal Tie Tel: 416-482-8255 ext 226 Fax: 416- Tel: 613-733-0140 Fax: 613-733-0401 482-2981 Ottawa Agents for the Respondent, ARCH [email protected],Qg Disability Law Centre [email protected] Solicitor for the Respondent, ARCH Disability Law Centre Saskatchewan Telecommunications 2121 Saskatchewan Drive 1ih Floor Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3Y2 Robert Hearsche RottGrt hearsche@§gsktel. S~~E Brian Armstrong Tel: 306-777-4509 Fax: 306-359-7475 Respondent Societe En Commandite Telebec 7151 Jean Talon Street East yth Floor Anjou, Quebec H1 M 3N8 Allen Mercier Tel: 514-493-5340 Fax: 514-493-5379 [email protected] Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1- STATEMENT OF FACTS •••••.•..........•..••••.•.••...•..••..•••..••...••••..•.••••.•....•....•••••••.••......•.....•..........•....•.•...........•...•.....•..•. 1 A. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 B. BACKGROUND FACTS .................................................................................................................................................. 4 (i) The Creation of the Deferral Accounts .. , ......................................................................................................................4 (ii) Application of the Price Caps Decision to Locol Telephony Tariffs ............................................................................... 6 (iii) Disposition of the Deferral Accounts ............................................................................................................................ 7 (iv)Judicial History .............................................................................................................................................................8 PART 11- QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ..••.••••.•••.•......•...••.•..•..•...•..•.•••••.••...••....•••••••.•............••..•.•....•..•.•.......•.....••••..•••......•..•.•.•..••.. 9 PART 111- STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT •.•....•••••.•••.....•••.••••••••..•....•••••••.•...•.•.•.•.•..•.••....•.•.••••••••.•.•.•..•.•••.••...•.•.......••.•••..•.•.. 10 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 10 (i) The Question in Issue ................................................................................................................................................. 10 (ii) Applicoble Standard of Review .................................................................................................................................. 10 B. THE OPERATION AND RECONCILIATION OF DEFERRAL ACCOUNTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RETROACTIVE RATEMAKING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 (i) Purpose and Effect of Deferral Accounts ...................................................................................................................11 (ii) Deferral Accounts Consistent with the Achievement ofJust and Reasonable Rates .................................................. 15 (iii) None of the Appellants' Authorities Deal with the Issue in Question ......................................................................... 16 (iv) Deferred Taxes as an Example of the Operation of Deferral Accounts ...................................................................... 16 (v) U.S. Authorities ..........................................................................................................................................................18 C. THE PRICE CAP DEFERRAL ACCOUNTS WERE AN INTRINSIC ELEMENT OF THE PRICE CAPS SCHEME ......................... 20 (i) Purpose and Effect of Deferral Accounts within the Price Cops Scheme ................................................................... .20 (ii) The Possibility of Consumer Rebates in the Event of Positive Deferral Account Bolances was Always Understood... 2l (iii) Bell's Over-Collection of Taxes was Included in its Deferral Account ......................................................................... 23 D. THE APPELLANTS' CONDUCT THROUGHOUT THE PRICE CAP PERIOD IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION NOW ALLEGED ................................................................................................................................................. 25 (i) The Appellants Never Challenged the CRTC's Jurisdiction to Order Customer Rebates ............................................. 25 (ii) The /LECs Continued to Apply to the CRTC to Approve Disposition of Funds in the Deferral Accounts, Long After the Rates were made Final ....................................................................................................................................................27 E. SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THE APPELLANTS' SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE CRTC'S JURiSDICTION .......................... 28 (i) The Distinction between Interim and Final Rates has no Impact on the Disposition
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume I: Application, Company Evidence & Exhibits
    Newfoundland Power Inc. 55 Kenmount Road PO Box 8910 A FORTIS COMmNY St. John's. Newfoundland A1 B 3P6 Business: (709) 737-5600 Facsimile: (709) 737-2974 www.newfwnd!ar!dpower.mm DELIVERED BY HAND May 10,2007 Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities P.O. Box 21040 120 Torbay Road St. John's, NL AIA 5B2 Attention: G. Cheryl Blundon Director of Corporate Services and Board Secretary Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: 2007 General Rate Application Forwarded with this letter are 10 copies of a general rate application for a full review of Newfoundland Power's 2008 costs (the "2008 General Rate Application"). The 2008 General Rate Application and prefiled supporting materials have been provided in tluee volumes set out as follows: Vol~nne1: Application, Conttpanty Evidence artd Exltibits Vol~in~re3: Expert Evidctrce It is the Company's intention to file an Adobe portable document format (pdf) copy of this filing within the next few days. Additional copies of the filing will be made available as required and, to that end, we would be pleased if the Board could indicate its requirements, if any, at its convenience. The Company will post a copy of tl~e2008 General Rate Application on its website at www.newfoundlandpower.com. In addition copies will be available at the Company's offices in Stephenville, Comer Brook, Grand Falls-Winsor, Gander, Clarenville, Burin, Carbonear, and St. John's. - Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities May 10,2007 Page 2 of 2 Attached to the formal Application as Schedule A are proposed rates. These rates are based upon the rate stabilization and municipal tax adjustments ("RSAMTA adjustments") crrwcrrtly in effect.
    [Show full text]
  • CRTC 3001 1St Revised Title Page INDEX of TARIFFS Cancels Original Title Page TITLE PAGE
    CRTC 3001 1st Revised Title Page INDEX OF TARIFFS Cancels Original Title Page TITLE PAGE TELEPHONE SERVICE GENERAL TARIFF “OPERATING TERRITORY” NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA, YUKON TERRITORY NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND NUNAVUT TERRITORIES (C) For explanation of symbols see Page 1 Issued: 22 January 2001 Effective: 22 February 2001 Approved in Telecom Order CRTC 2001-154, 22 February 2001 © 2001 Northwestel Inc. CRTC 3001 2nd Revised Page 1 INDEX OF TARIFFS Cancels 1st Revised Page 1 EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS (A) - to denote increases (C) (R) - to denote reductions (C) - to denote changes in wording which result in neither increases nor reductions in rates or charges (D) - to denote material previously shown has now been deleted (M) - to denote information moved to or from another page (N) (N) - to denote new rates or items (C) (S) - to denote reissued matter (V) - not available for new installations or for expansion of existing (Z) - available on recovery basis only and at the discretion of the Company (D) For explanation of symbols see Page 1 Issued: 27 April 1998 Effective: 28 May 1998 Approved in Telecom Order CRTC 1998-507, 28 May 1998 © 1998 Northwestel Inc. CRTC 3001 214th Revised Page 2 GENERAL TARIFF Cancels 213th Revised Page 2 CHECK SHEET Original and revised pages of this Tariff listed below are in effect. PAGE REVISION PAGE REVISION PAGE REVISION Title 1 36B Original 60 2 1 2 36C Original 61 9 2 214 (C) 37 1 62 17 (C) 3 79 (C) 38 3 63 5 3A 116 38A 7 64 4 4 1 38B Original 65 6 5 9 39 2 66 8 6 13 39A Original 66A
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter of Canada Gazette, Part I, 4 April 2009 Notice No
    IN THE MATTER OF CANADA GAZETTE, PART I, 4 APRIL 2009 NOTICE NO. DGTP-004-09 PETITIONS TO THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL BY BELL CANADA, BELL ALIANT REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., AND TELUS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY SEEKING TO VARY TELECOM DECISION CRTC 2008-117 AND RESCIND TELECOM ORDER CRTC 2009-111 COMMENTS OF THE COMPETITOR COALITION 4 MAY 2009 1. I. INTRODUCTION 1. These comments are submitted by a coalition of independent telecommunications service providers (the “Competitors”) in opposition to the above-noted petitions to the Governor in Council filed by Bell Canada, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, L.P. and TELUS Communications Company ( “Bell and Telus” or the “phone companies”).1 2. The Competitors are all Canadian based companies that provide a wide variety of telecommunications services to both the residential and small- to medium-sized business (“SMB”) markets. Among the services provided by the Competitors to their customers are Internet access services, local and long distance voice services (including VoIP-based services), wireless services and broadband data services. 3. Because the local access and transport networks of Bell and Telus represent natural monopolies that cannot be economically or practically duplicated, many of the Competitors must lease “last mile” facilities and services from Bell and Telus in order to provision services to their own end-user customers. Included among the last mile facilities and services leased by the Competitors from Bell and Telus are a set of services that are sometimes called wholesale ADSL access (“WAA”) services. 4. WAA services are not Internet access services. In fact, they do not provide access to the Internet at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Speeds Diversify Bahrain’S Economy and Achieve Based Economy.” Mr
    Volume 09, July, 2018 A SAMENA Telecommunications Council Newsletter www.samenacouncil.org SAMENA TRENDS EXCLUSIVELY FOR SAMENA TELECOMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL'S MEMBERS BUILDING DIGITAL ECONOMIES VIVA’s Analytics Transformation 35 Nokia: Building Critical Communications Netw- orks for Aviation... 46 Interview Eng. Ahmed El Beheiry Managing Director and CEO Telecom Egypt THIS MONTH DATA ANALYTICS & MONETIZATION Durban 10-13 September BETTER SOONER Accelerating ICT innovation to improve lives faster. The global event for governments, corporates and tech SMEs. 10-13 September 2018, Durban, South Africa ITU Telecom World 2018 is the global platform to accelerate ICT innovations for social and economic development. It’s where policy makers and regulators meet industry experts, investors, SMEs, entrepreneurs and innovators to exhibit solutions, share knowledge and speed change. Our aim is to help ideas go further, faster to make the world better, sooner. Visit telecomworld.itu.int to find out more. Enjoy 10% discount with SAMENA Council code: C-00005168 #ituworld telecomworld.itu.int VOLUME 09, JULY, 2018 Contributing Editors Contributions Publisher Izhar Ahmad Blockchain in Telecom SAMENA Telecommunications Council SAMENA Javaid Akhtar Malik Cisco Huawei Subscriptions TRENDS Koolspan [email protected] Nokia Editor-in-Chief Tech Mahindra Advertising Bocar A. BA Telecom Egypt [email protected] Umniah Viva - Kuwait SAMENA TRENDS [email protected] Tel: +971.4.364.2700 CONTENTS INTERVIEW 05 EDITORIAL 10 REGIONAL & MEMBERS UPDATES Members News Regional News 48 SATELLITE UPDATES Satellite News 56 WHOLESALE UPDATES Wholesale News 64 TECHNOLOGY UPDATES The SAMENA TRENDS newsletter is wholly Technology News owned and operated by The SAMENA 07 Eng. Ahmed El Beheiry Telecommunications Council (SAMENA 74 Managing Director and CEO Council).
    [Show full text]
  • Q1 2004 MD A.Pdf
    News Release May 5, 2004 TELUS Reports First Quarter Results Strong wireless performance drives earnings and cash flow growth Vancouver, B.C. – TELUS Corporation (TSX: T and T.A / NYSE: TU) today reported for the first quarter of 2004 excellent wireless performance at TELUS Mobility and a strong increase in free cash flow. Operating revenues of $1.8 billion in the quarter increased 4% from a year ago. Overall operating earnings (EBITDA) were up 9% due to strong performance at TELUS Mobility. Reported earnings per share for the first quarter were 28 cents, compared to 26 cents for the same period a year ago. Free cash flow was $443 million this quarter, a $176 million improvement from a year ago. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Rounded to nearest C$ Millions, except per share amounts 3 months ended March 31 (unaudited) 2004 2003 % Change Operating revenues 1,803.8 1,740.9 3.6 EBITDA(1) 721.3 664.3 8.6 Net income 101.3 89.5 13.2 Earnings per share (EPS) 0.28 0.26 7.7 Capital expenditures 309.7 207.8 49.0 Cash provided by operating activities 588.1 404.7 45.3 Free cash flow (2) 443.3 267.6 65.7 (1) Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) is defined as Operating revenues less Operations expense less Restructuring and workforce reduction costs. (2) See note 2 of the Consolidated highlights table in management’s discussion and analysis. Darren Entwistle, president and CEO, commented that “Our strategy to evolve the revenue mix of TELUS into the growth businesses of wireless and data has driven consolidated top and bottom line growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
    Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Performance Report For the period ending March 31, 2007 The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages Table of Contents SECTION I: Overview ................................................................................. 3 Minister’s Message ....................................................................................................... 5 Chairman’s Message..................................................................................................... 7 Management Representation Statement...................................................................... 10 Raison d’être ............................................................................................................... 11 SECTION II: Analysis of Performance by Strategic Outcome.............. 15 Strategic Outcome....................................................................................................... 16 Planned and actual spendings for the strategic Outcome............................................ 17 CRTC – Result Chain ................................................................................................. 18 Status of Performance on CRTC’s Priorities for 2006-2007...................................... 19 Broadcasting and Telecom Accomplishments............................................................ 21 Cultural Prosperity ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Service Excellence Initiative
    Service Excellence Initiative 598 Management Report Kirsten McCaig June 20, 2003 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................2 2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................8 3.0 GOVERNMENT AGENTS BRANCH ............................................................................ 12 4.0 SERVING THE PUBLIC.................................................................................................. 15 4.1 WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE ....... 17 5.0 THE CANADIAN APPROACH TO SERVICE IMPROVEMENT – A BEST PRACTICES REVIEW..................................................................................................... 21 5.1 SURVEYS: DETERMINING CUSTOMER SERVICE PRIORITIES....................................... 24 5.1.1 Employee Surveys – Uncovering Internal Service Barriers ............................. 27 5.1.2 Mystery Shopper – Alternative Survey Method ................................................ 28 5.2 SERVICE STANDARDS................................................................................................. 29 5.2.1 What are service standards? ............................................................................ 30 5.2.2 Why develop customer service standards?......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-789
    Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-789 PDF version Ottawa, 25 October 2010 Final 2010 revenue-percent charge and related matters File number: 8695-C12-201005455 In this decision, the Commission approves on a final basis, effective 1 January 2010, a 2010 contribution collection revenue-percent charge of 0.73 percent, the 2010 subsidy amounts for Northwestel and the small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), and the 2010 subsidy per residential network access service (NAS) amounts for the territories of the large ILECs, Télébec, and People’s Tel Limited Partnership (People’s). In addition, the Commission approves on an interim basis, effective 1 January 2011, a 2011 contribution collection revenue-percent charge of 0.73 percent, the 2011 subsidy amounts for Northwestel and the small ILECs, and the 2011 subsidy per residential NAS amounts for the territories of the large ILECs, Télébec, and People’s. Introduction 1. In Decision 2000-745, the Commission introduced a national revenue-based contribution collection mechanism and a new methodology for calculating the subsidy for high-cost serving areas (HCSAs) in the territories of the large incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs)1 and Télébec, Limited Partnership (Télébec).2 2. In Decision 2001-238, the Commission established the costing rules to be used for determining the subsidy per residential network access service (NAS) amounts for the territories of the large ILECs. The subsidy per residential NAS amounts for HCSAs is approved annually by the Commission. 3. In Telecom Decision 2009-702, the Commission set, on an interim basis for 2010, a revenue-percent charge of 0.81 percent and the subsidy per residential NAS amounts for the territories of the large ILECs, Télébec, and People’s Tel Limited Partnership (People’s).
    [Show full text]
  • CRTC Review of Basic Telecommunications Services
    Review of Basic Telecommunications Services CRTC Telecom Notice of Consultation 2015-134 CYBERA Calgary Office: Suite 200, 3512 - 33 St NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2A6 T: 403-210-5333 ​ ​ Edmonton Office: 3-43, Computing Science Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E8 ​ ​ @cybera [email protected] www.cybera.ca 1 Introduction Cybera is a not­for­profit, technology­neutral agency responsible for accelerating high­tech adoption in Alberta. One of Cybera’s core roles is the operation of Alberta’s Research and Education Network, called CyberaNet. This is the dedicated network for unmetered, not­for­profit traffic used by Alberta’s schools, ​ post­secondary institutions and business incubators to aid innovation, enterprise and ingenuity. Cybera receives both provincial and federal government funding to spearhead pilot projects that improve ​ efficiencies and the competitiveness of Canadian institutions and businesses, and support international­level research. It is guided by a strategic leadership team, and is home to some of the world’s top cloud and networking experts, who work together to build cloud infrastructure, data storage, and advanced networking solutions. Drawing on this expertise and public service mandate, Cybera is pleased to provide the following response to the CRTC Telecom Notice of Consultation 2015­134 regarding the review of Canada’s basic telecommunications services. It is our view that broadband Internet be considered a basic st telecommunication 21 ​ century service, and should be affordable and accessible to all Canadians ­ equal in ​ th importance to the touch­tone telephone service of the 20 ​ century. ​ The importance of this review cannot be understated. It represents a critical turning point in Canada’s digital economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase-Out of the Local Service Subsidy Regime
    Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2018-213 PDF version References: 2017-92 and 2017-92-1 Ottawa, 26 June 2018 Public record: 1011-NOC2017-0092 Phase-out of the local service subsidy regime Consistent with the Commission’s shift of its regulatory frameworks away from wireline voice services, the Commission determines in this decision that the phase-out of the local service subsidy will occur over three years, from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021, through semi-annual reductions. The total subsidy amounts for 2018 for each incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) are to be used to calculate the amounts of subsidy to be paid during the transition period from 2019 to 2021. However, funding for Northwestel’s service improvement plan will continue as planned and then cease on 31 December 2020. This decision also sets out the Commission’s determinations regarding certain policies for the small ILECs’ subsidies. The Commission also determines that several regulated residential high-cost serving area exchanges are eligible for forbearance and are therefore no longer eligible for the local service subsidy, subject to other applicable forbearance criteria being met. The Commission directs each of the ILECs listed in the Appendix to this decision to file a streamlined forbearance application with respect to these exchanges no later than 30 days after the date of this decision. Background 1. The local service subsidy regime1 was established to subsidize the provision of residential local voice telephone services in high-cost serving areas (HCSAs).2 Telecommunications service providers (TSPs), or groups of related TSPs, that have $10 million or more in annual Canadian telecommunications revenues are required to contribute to the National Contribution Fund (NCF).
    [Show full text]
  • Telecom Order CRTC 2005-84
    Telecom Order CRTC 2005-84 Ottawa, 2 March 2005 Instalment payment plans for service improvement plans Reference: Aliant Telecom Tariff Notice 70, Bell Canada Tariff Notices 6731 and 6731A, MTS Tariff Notice 519, Télébec Tariff Notice 294, TCI Tariff Notice 87, and TELUS Québec Tariff Notice 346 In this Order, the Commission approves a large construction charges instalment payment plan for Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Société en commandite Télébec (Télébec), TELUS Communications Inc., and TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (TELUS Québec), as well as small and medium instalment payment plans for Télébec and TELUS Québec for telephone service provided to residential customers under the companies' service improvement plans. Background 1. In Telephone service to high-cost serving areas, Telecom Decision CRTC 99-16, 19 October 1999, the Commission defined the basic service objective (BSO) as, among other things, an individual line with privacy features and the capability to connect via low-speed data transmission to the Internet at local rates. The Commission set three goals: (i) to extend service to the few areas that were unserved; (ii) to upgrade service levels in those areas where customers did not have access to telecommunication services that meet the BSO; and (iii) to maintain service levels. In order to achieve these goals, the Commission directed the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to develop service improvement plans (SIPs) which would be reviewed in the price cap review proceeding, which ultimately led to Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34). 2.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open Gateway to Deliver the Promise of Broadband
    The Qimirluk Proposal: An Open Gateway to Deliver the Promise of Broadband Further Intervention by the SSI Group of Companies In Response to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-134 Review of basic telecommunications services February 1, 2016 SSI Further Intervention to TNC CRTC 2015-134 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and overview....................................................................................3 2. A dedicated strategy for identifiable needs...........................................................6 3. Change the policy focus: Broadband is already the New Basic...............................8 3.1 Broadband as an essential service.............................................................................8 3.2 Evolving the subsidy system: voice as an “App” or subset of broadband service....10 3.3 Broadband as a driver of economic development ................................................ 12 4. Change the mechanism to implement the BSO policy .......................................... 14 4.1. Technology and competitive neutrality ................................................................. 14 4.2. Qimirluk: focus on the transport ............................................................................ 15 4.3. Two-levels of assistance mechanisms: enable competition and empower the consumer ...................................................................................................................... 16 5. Conclusions: the time has come to implement change ........................................
    [Show full text]