MTS lends support to Rogers Telecom in rate dispute with Bell

MTS Allstream Inc. has waded into a dispute between Rogers Telecom and Bell Canada over rates charged to lease some of the incumbent’s telcos facilities. Rogers launched a complaint against Bell last month when it filed a Part VII with the CRTC. Below is an edited excerpt of MTS Allstream’s May 10 response, which supports Rogers’ position. The wholesale access circuits that MTS Allstream considers are at issue include any CDNA service leased from an ILEC by a competitor, which is used in conjunction with the competitor’s own facilities and/or the facilities of a third party carrier, in order provide a customer access circuit to end-user’s premises on behalf of another telecommunications service provider (i.e., another carrier or reseller). In other words, the leased CDNA circuits at issue terminate at an end-customer’s premises as opposed to a carrier’s premises – representing a customer access circuit in the former case as opposed to a carrier access circuit in the latter. Moreover, in all such configurations at issue, the competitor adds value by utilizing its own facilities and services in conjunction with the leased CDNA service and, as such, these arrangements do not constitute simple resale of the CDNA service. Similar to Rogers, Bell has also rejected MTS Allstream’s requests for credits and rebates for CDNA-eligible circuits MTS Allstream provided to wholesale customers during the interim CDNA period. To date, most credits issued by Bell for such circuits have been applied only prospectively as of Feb. 3, 2005. Bell has provided no evidence or rationale to MTS Allstream explaining its unilateral decision to limit CDNA circuit eligibility in this respect. As well, MTS Allstream has received the same treatment from TELUS Partner Solutions (TELUS). In a letter dated March 24, 2006, TELUS took the position that CDNA-eligible circuits where a customer is either a (i) carrier eligible in its own right for CDNA service or (ii) a wireless service provider (WSP) were not CDNA-eligible prior to 3 February 2005. Notwithstanding this position proclaimed by TELUS, many of the circuits at issue clearly meet the CDNA-eligibility criteria articulated in Decision 2002-34 and further clarified in Decision 2002-78, as well as Decision 2003-60. Once again, no supporting evidence or rationale was provided by TELUS for its decision to limit CDNA circuit eligibility retroactively to 1 June 2002. Nevertheless, in implementing the interim CDNA service following Decision 2002-34, the ILECs chose to interpret the terms and conditions for CDNA service as narrowly as possible in order to limit its scope and availability to competitors. Consequently, considerable debate over CDNA-eligibility issues, including the definitions of these two noted terms, ensued. These definitional issues amount to matters of "clarification" relating to the initial terms and conditions of CDNA service. Decision 2002-34 did not preclude a competitor from leasing a CDNA service for the purpose of providing a wholesale service to another telecommunications service provider (i.e., a carrier or reseller), as long as the service provided to the wholesale customer did not amount to simple resale. In other words, if a competitor leased a CDNA circuit is used to connect an end-customer’s premises to its facilities, the CDNA circuit was eligible under the interim CDNA service, regardless of whether the competitor served the end customer directly (i.e., on a retail basis) or on behalf of another telecommunications service provider (i.e., on a wholesale basis). The effective date any such CDNA service applications is 1 June 2002, consistent with Decision 2002-34.

MTS lends support to Rogers Telecom in rate dispute with Bell

News | May 25, 2006

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us