Appeals to CRTC’s usage based billing decision mount

On August 20, it was Vaxination Informatique – a computing consulting company – that requested a stay in the implementation of Bell Canada’s usage-based billing (UBB) tariff (TN 7181), but now MTS Allstream Inc. and TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TSI) jumped into the fray late last week with their own appeals. On August 20, it was Vaxination Informatique – a computing consulting company – that requested a stay in the implementation of Bell Canada’s usage-based billing (UBB) tariff (TN 7181), but now MTS Allstream Inc. and TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TSI) jumped into the fray late last week with their own appeals.In an interview with Network Letter, Jean-François Mezei of Vaxination says he launched the stay of execution on UBB because the 90 days that the CRTC gave small ISPs to prepare for Bell’s new wholesale billing regime in Telecom Decision 2009-484 was simply not enough time. He argues that small ISPs simply don’t have the resources to implement the complex billing systems that will be required to allow for usage-based billing on a per subscriber basis. “This isn’t just a little monthly service charge that goes up by $0.25. This is a major restructuring for a lot of ISPs,” Mezei says. Vaxination also argues in its Part VII that there are related, still-unresolved issues that have to be dealt with first before UBB can be put in place. The company points to the speed matching decision, which is currently under appeal by Bell. As a result, the CRTC should stay UBB provisions until all other matters are resolved. “Considering that the 2009-484 decision is interim, and specifies that there are some unresolved issues to be discussed in a separate process (announced August 20th), the commission should delay implementation of TN-7181 until such a time as all unresolved issues in TN-7181 had been resolved,” Vaxination tells the CRTC in a Part VII. “Because the UBB issue is a major change to the whole GAS paradigm, it is not reasonable to force ISPs to scramble to implement 2009-484 right away when there are many other possible changes coming.” As a customer of a small ISP that leases network space from Bell, Mezei says he felt compelled to take matters into his own hands when the independent ISPs, including the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, didn’t act immediately to file a stay of execution. “It should have been a no brainer for the ISPs to get together a file a stay of execution and they didn’t. And they showed no signs of doing this,” Mezei says. “When I saw that no ISP had done the stay of execution, I figured I had to do it. Someone had to do it. You can’t just let this stand because I know the complexity to implement this stuff and I know it takes more than a couple of weeks.” Now help is on the way as both MTS Allstream and TekSavvy have filed appeals of the controversial UBB ruling. MTS Allstream has sought leave to appeal the CRTC’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Manitoba-based company argues the commission erred in not ensuring just and reasonable rates, the UBB decision confers an undue preference on Bell and the CRTC breached procedural fairness by not allowing further comment on whether UBB is appropriate in the first place. In its leave to appeal obtained by Network Letter, the company contends that the commission erred in granting interim approval because there are still unresolved issues –facts for which may not be known until after UBB goes into service. “The commission should not have given interim approval to TNs 7181 and 242 if it did not, itself, agree with or even understand the reasons why Bell chose to design its UBB proposal in the way that it did. At the very minimum, the CRTC should have first taken steps to ensure the soundness of the methods and technology employed in Bell’s UBB platform before granting any type of approval to the proposal.” (TN 242 is Bell Aliant’s UBB tariff.) TekSavvy filed a Part VII (it’s not yet available on the CRTC’s website) that is essentially two appeals. One is a review and vary paragraphs 18 and 20 of the UBB decision which grant interim approval of Bell’s tariff and the adoption of an excessive usage charge. The second is seeking a stay of execution of UBB. The company says that UBB for GAS customers significantly reduces their ability to offer differentiated services. “The flexibility of GAS customers to offer their own flat-rate and UBB rated services, without being constrained by GAS UBB and excess usage charges was the last major means that competitors had to distinguish their retail services from those of the Bell companies. The introduction of GAS UBB and excess usage charges is now removing that remaining flexibility as well, making GAS competitors wholly uncompetitive with the Bell companies as soon as those charges go into effect.” Since the commission has yet to uncover all evidence required to determine the appropriateness of Bell’s UBB tariffs, TekSavvy says it shouldn’t have risked a severe negative impact on wholesale customers by granting interim approval for the tariffs. “The stakes are simply too high for the Canadian economy and consumers,” it writes. “The impact of these proposed charges on the competitive landscape is a matter that should be scrutinized thoroughly on the basis of a complete record before the commission determines whether to approve, reject, modify or otherwise qualify these charges. This is a principle that the commission failed to consider adequately in this proceeding prior to rendering the UBB order, thereby justifying a review and variance of the UBB order as requested by TSI.”

Appeals to CRTC’s usage based billing decision mount

News | 09/14/2009 5:06 pm EDT

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