The competitive telephone service providers are accusing the incumbents of creative interpretation in applying regulatory decisions, even as the CRTC vows to crack down on ILECs’ skirting of telecom regulations. The two largest CLECs have recently filed separate Part VII applications with the commission attempting to restore some order to what they describe as a chaotic telecommunications system. AT&T Canada Corp. claims that the five major incumbents have not filed tariffs for a variety of next-generation services and facilities. Call-Net Enterprises Inc. wants the commission to hone the competitive digital network access (CDNA) regime. AT&T Canada lists Aliant Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., SaskTel and Telus Communications Inc. (TCI) as respondents to its April 15 filing. The company worries that the ILECs are ignoring the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. "This application in response to a problem that is occurring with increasing regularity, namely the respondents’ failure or refusal to file tariffs for a number of next generation telecommunications services based solely upon an internal or private determination that these services are forborne from regulation and, therefore, not subject to the tariff filing requirements of section 25 of the Act," Teresa Griffin-Muir, VP regulatory affairs for the telco, writes. "AT&T Canada submits that access is access and it does not matter what type of technology underlies the service in question: if the service is an access service, it must be tariffed and more importantly, it must be made available to competitors at cost-based rates," she continues. "The respondents have no right in law or under the commission’s rules to give themselves a ‘regulatory holiday’ from the statutory obligation to file tariffs for their services." The main items not accounted for, according to AT&T Canada, are Ethernet access service, ADSL/gateway access service, and wavelength access service. Neglecting to include these products in the tariff schedule "is causing serious and irreparable harm" to competition, the telco alleges. Muir uses statistics from the CRTC’s study on competition to bolster her case (NL, Jan. 13/03). CLECs experienced a 2% decline in their overall share of the private line and data market from 2000 to 2001 while the ILECs saw their market share grow by 2% in the same period. "Two facts cannot be disputed: first, this decline took place over the same period of time that the respondents decided to treat their next generation access services as ‘forborne from regulation,’" the competitor writes. "Second, this decline took place in a market where the respondents are pricing their retail packet data services at unregulated rates, which may well be lower than the ‘wholesale’ prices that they charge to AT&T Canada and other competitors for the underlying access arrangements which are necessary to provision these services." In its application, Call-Net fears that some ILECs are misinterpreting Telecom Decision 2002-78, which set out interim CDNA rules (NL Update, Jan. 6/03). The CRTC originally required incumbents to provide CDNA service when it released the price cap ruling, Telecom Decision 2002-34. Call-Net submitted a list of circuits that it believed qualified as CDNA service. The CLEC states that the customer and the competitor switch can be in different wire centre areas, the service can connect through a competitor POP, the service is applicable to bundled ILEC service offerings, and the service applies to wide band channels carrying both customer access circuits as well as other types of circuits. Bell agrees with Call-NetCall-Net VP regulatory affairs Don Bowles notes that Bell’s reading of the rules is in harmony with his company’s. Telus, he states, rejected the majority of circuits offered, since the ILEC claims the customer and the competitor’s switch must be in the same wire centre areas. Aliant vetoed all circuits, listing the termination point of the circuits as a POP, not a switch. SaskTel also rejected all circuits submitted, because the access circuits between the customer and the wire centre are aggregated onto DS-3s that have a mix of eligible and non-eligible circuits. (Call-Net did not comment on MTS.) "It is noted that the interpretation adopted by Telus, Aliant and SaskTel render Decision 2002-78 effectively meaningless since it results in no change of any significance from the interim regime set out in Decision 2002-34," Bowles writes in his April 11 submission. "Call-Net does not consider that this was the intent of the commission." Muir uses the ILEC filings from another bundling ruling, Telecom Decision 2002-76 (NL, Dec. 16/02). When Bell finally filed its tariffs, as mandated by the decision, the data were incomplete and did not include network components and services used by the CLECs."None of MTS, SaskTel or Aliant have filed tariffs for any of their next generation telecommunications services even though they are currently offering a number of retail services that are based on these technologies," AT&T complains. "As for Telus Communications Inc., recently TCI filed two special facilities tariffs for some next generation telecommunications service that while including more service components than in the tariff applications of Bell Canada, generally are missing a number of critical service elements and, generally, fall far short of what is required by section 25 of the Act and the commission’s unbundling rules." Call-Net is asking the CRTC to impose the understanding of the rules that it and Bell adhere to on the other incumbents. The ILECs must file reply comments by April 28. AT&T Canada is seeking to have the ILECs file tariffs and cost studies for the disputed services and for any other disputed telecom facilities. It also wants the incumbents to submit detailed descriptions and diagrams of all current and future forborne services. Replies from the respondents are due by May 15.