Bell fighting back against unfair charges claim by Rogers Wireless

Bell Canada notes in its response to a Rogers Wireless application regarding claims of unfair charges that there are, in fact, situations where the company is allowed to charge these rates. The following is an edited excerpt from Bell’s February 3 response. In Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-78, Interim Competitor Digital Network Access service, the Commission determined that competitors should be able to use any or all components of the interim CDNA service in conjunction with other ILEC services and non-ILEC services in order to increase the competitors’ flexibility to offer retail services. This view was confirmed in Decision 2005-6, for the final list of CDN services. As a result of the ability of competitors to use CDN services in conjunction with other ILEC services, there are circumstances, described below, in which it is indeed appropriate for DNA link charges to apply when competitors lease CDN services. The first circumstance in which customers will continue to be billed for DNA links relates to whether or not a competitor is eligible for CDN channelization service. Consistent with paragraph 160 of Decision 2005-6, a competitor requesting channelization service is only eligible for CDN rates for this service if the competitor is not co-located in that particular wire centre. In the case where the competitor is co-located in the wire centre in which it is requesting channelization, the competitor may lease a channelizing feature under Bell Canada’s retail DNA tariffs. The second circumstance in which CDN customers will continue to be billed for DNA links relates to what has been commonly referred to as "in-house" links. In-house links are physical facilities that connect competitor services to other ILEC services or connect one competitor’s service to another competitor’s service. These facilities are not part of CDN services identified in Decision 2005-6, but instead provide connection to other services, (e.g., TOPS switches for DA, switching and aggregation, message relay service, 9 1 1, SS7 STP’s and Wireless Access) that were clearly outside of the scope of services deemed to be eligible for CDN rating in Decision 2005-6. These facilities are subject to the terms and conditions of the company’s retail DNA link charge, as specified in Bell Canada’s national services tariff. In November 2005, Bell Canada undertook a massive, mechanized migration of tens of thousands of CDN eligible circuits. The company has made every effort to apply the correct rates to customers’ facilities and continues to work to resolve any outstanding billing issues. A manual reconciliation of link charges and the circumstances in which these charges apply will be performed for customers disputing current link charges. Contrary to the assertion by the Applicant and Primus that it is inappropriate for ILECs to continue to charge competitors for any retail DNA links, Bell Canada submits that in the limited circumstances described above, retail DNA link rates continue to apply. Specifically, when a competitor is co-located in the same central office in which it is requesting Channelization service, the retail DNA tariff for Channelization service applies. While Bell Canada acknowledges that certain billing issues arising from the mass migration of a large volume of circuits still need to be resolved, the Company submits that there is no requirement to file new link tariffs nor that all retail DNA link charges levied to date on CDN customers should be rebated.

Bell fighting back against unfair charges claim by Rogers Wireless

News | 02/08/2006 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