Local calling area fight shifts to discussion of who deserves toll compensation

The battle over expanding local calling areas is moving to a new level, with incumbents and new entrants arguing over who should be entitled to compensation. One reseller accuses Canada’s second-largest telco of trying to have it both ways. Telus Corp. contends that separate and distinct compensation periods are needed for the ILEC and APLDS component of the surcharge. In his October 15 submission in response to Telecom Decision 2002-56, Willie Grieve, Telus’ VP public policy & regulatory affairs, writes: "Unlike CLECs and ILECs, who will now carry traffic that was formerly toll traffic as local traffic, under a flat monthly local access rate, APLDS will simply no longer carry their previous share of the toll traffic that will now become local traffic and be carried by another carrier. If allowed to recover their foregone toll revenues, APLDS will be compensated for traffic that they will no longer carry and for services that they will no longer render, the costs of which they will no longer incur." Telus says the CRTC’s decision to permit alternative providers to recover lost revenues was guided by a desire to compensate them for previous outlays and the view that the new entrants couldn’t modify their service plans. There is no rational basis for such compensation, the telco maintains. Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. thinks the western telco is making its complaints in the wrong forum. Regulatory analyst Geoff Francis suggests in a reply to the CRTC that Telus should proceed with a Part VII application. "If Telus wishes to make arguments concerning the validity of the commission’s decision regarding the eligibility of APLDS for compensation than Telus must file a separate application to review and vary Decision 2002-56," the October 22 submission states. "For these reasons, Primus Canada submits that Telus’ comments on creating separate compensation periods and the amount of said compensation are outside the scope of this follow-up proceeding and should be dismissed." A consortium of Bell Canada, Aliant Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc., Télébec societé commandite and Northern Telephone LP make a similar point in its reply comments. David Palmer, Bell’s director of regulatory matters, suggests there is "confusion regarding the scope of this follow-up proceeding" and that issues such as who receives compensation, the amount of toll revenues to be compensated, and the conducting of local plebiscites are all beyond the scope of this hearing. Another CLEC states that expanding the LCA does not reflect any failure in the competitive marketplace. AT&T Canada Corp. claims Telus forgets that alternative providers will face a financial loss as a direct result of an ILEC exercising its control of the local grid to begin expanding service. "It is AT&T Canada’s submission that if one class of toll provider cannot recover lost revenues associated with forgone toll, no toll provider should," Teresa Griffin-Muir, VP regulatory affairs, writes in the company’s October 22 reply comments. A regional ILEC thinks the proposals of the City of Ottawa are adding too many complications to an already complicated procedure (NL, Oct. 21/02). SaskTel says the CRTC should resolve disputes as they arise, rather than attempting to solve all problems in advance of implementation of the decision, as Ottawa offers. Microcell Telecommunications Inc. has filed a review and vary application over the initial decision (see the Oct. 28/02 issue of NL affiliate publication Report on Wireless). This is a separate initiative from the follow-up proceedings begun by the CRTC. Telus, in its October 22 reply comments, suggests merging the two processes.

Local calling area fight shifts to discussion of who deserves toll compensation

News | 11/04/2002 5:00 am EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us