Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15
P.C. 2007- 0532

Note: These documents are made available for information only, the official versions will be published in an upcoming issue of the Canada Gazette (see www.gazette.gc.ca/index-eng.html). In the event that there is a discrepancy between the versions published on this site and the versions published in the Canada Gazette, the versions published in the Canada Gazette are the official versions.

Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement

Description

The purposeof this Order is to vary Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 (April 6, 2006), Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services (the Local Forbearance Decision). Statutory authority for this variance is made under section 12 of the Telecommunications Act, which states that the Governor in Council may, within one year after a decision by the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), by order, vary or rescind the decision or refer it back to the CRTC for reconsideration.

Section 34 of the Telecommunications Act requires the CRTC to forbear (refrain), to the extent it considers appropriate, from economic (price) regulation, where it finds that a service is or will be subject to competition sufficient to protect the interests of users. The CRTC may also refrain from economic regulation where it finds that doing so would be consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Telecommunications Act.

In Telecom Decision 2006-15, the CRTC defined large geographic market areas called "local forbearance regions" (LFRs) and set the criteria to be met for the CRTC to forbear from economic regulation of local exchange telephone services provided by the former monopoly telephone companies (incumbents) in an LFR. These criteria include: incumbent loss of 25 percent market share; quality of service standards that the incumbent must meet (for providing wholesale access services to competitors); the incumbent having in place tariffs for competitor (wholesale) services; and the incumbent';s provision to competitors of access to its operational support services. Once the above criteria were met, the CRTC would refrain from regulating the incumbent's prices for local telephone services, putting the incumbent on the same plane as its competitors. The CRTC concluded that it would maintain social obligations on all local exchange service providers such as safety, privacy, and universal service standards and a price ceiling on stand-alone basic phone service, applicable to incumbents only (ensuring affordability of basic service). Competitors to the incumbent telephone carriers are already price deregulated.

This Order varies Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 by providing more streamlined criteria than those outlined by the CRTC in order to deregulate the retail local telephone market in a more timely and efficient manner, to ensure that regulation applies only where there is still a need to regulate and to ensure that such regulation interferes with market forces to the minimum extent necessary.

The geographic area to be used for forbearance applications by the incumbent telephone companies will be the local exchange.

Under this new approach forbearance with respect to the incumbent's business local exchange services may occur if there is, in addition to the incumbent, at least one independent facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider that offers local exchange business services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of business local exchange service lines that the incumbent is capable of serving. With respect to the incumbent's residential local exchange services, forbearance may occur if there are, in addition to the incumbent, at least two independent facilities-based telecommunications service providers, each of which offers local exchange residential services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of residential local exchange service lines that the incumbent is capable of serving; at least one of these providers, in addition to the incumbent, must be a fixed-line telecommunications service provider. Alternately, the CRTC may forbear if the incumbent can demonstrate that it does not have market power based on the criteria proposed by the Competition Bureau in the proceedings leading to Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, and referenced in paragraph 213 of that Decision.

This Order also requires that for a forbearance application to be successful, the incumbent must demonstrate that, during a six-month period beginning no earlier than eight months before its application for local forbearance and ending at any time before the CRTC's decision respecting the application, it met the nine primary quality of service standards for each indicator (which measure an incumbent's performance in providing wholesale services to competitors) set out in this Order averaged across all competitors, and that there is no evidence of targeting of a competitor by providing a competitor with a wholesale service consistently below the applicable quality of service standards. Definitions for these quality of service standards can be found in Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20, Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors. Incumbents can file an application for forbearance in anticipation of compiling the evidence to demonstrate meeting the standards for a six-month period.

Finally, this Order provides an opportunity for small competitors to gain a foothold in a market prior to economic deregulation by requiring that if the incumbent's application for local forbearance is based on competition in the relevant market from a fixed-line telecommunications service provider that, including all of its affiliates, has less than 20,000 local exchange customers in Canada, forbearance may not occur in that market for at least eighteen months.

This Order does not vary social and safety obligations. All providers will remain obligated to provide safety requirements found in the existing local telephony regulatory regime, such as the provision of 911 emergency services. Social regulations will remain in place for the incumbents' local telephone service after the criteria to end retail price regulation have been met. For instance, incumbents will still be required to maintain a price ceiling for stand-alone residential local telephone service provided separately from any other services offered.

This Order invites incumbents to file applications for forbearance relating to local exchanges that are located wholly or partially within the census metropolitan areas of: Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Quebec City, Toronto, Vancouver or Winnipeg and notes that the CRTC will consider each such application on a priority basis.

The CRTC will undertake to complete its analysis and issue its decision with respect to applications within 120 days after the day on which the application is received.

Pursuant to the framework set out in this Order, the CRTC will establish a process for dealing with applications for local forbearance.

At the same time that these new local forbearance criteria are introduced, restrictions on "winbacks" (actions by incumbents to regain customers who changed to a different provider) and other promotions will end upon coming into force of this Order. The winback rule was originally introduced to prevent incumbents from targeting individual customers of competitors, which, in the CRTC's view, could threaten the expansion, and possibly the survival, of competition in local telephone markets. In the case of promotions, the CRTC's view has been that since they may offer significant benefits to consumers, they should be allowed subject to certain safeguards established in Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-25, Promotions of local wireline services. However, in light of the state of competition in the Canadian telecommunications market, such restrictions are no longer required.

Background

According to the CRTC Telecommunications Monitoring Report dated July 2006, in 2005, the residential local telephone market in Canada generated $5.1 billion in revenues and the business local telephone market generated $3.5 billion in revenues. In terms of these revenue values, the incumbents retained a 95 percent market share nationally in the residential local telephone market and 86 percent market share nationally in the business local telephone market.

Looking at the share of wired telephone lines rather than revenues, in the residential local telephone market competitors' share increased on a national level from 3.3 percent in 2004 to 7.6 percent in 2005. Using the CRTC's LFR definition, competitors have captured 35 percent of Commission residential wired telephone lines in the Halifax LFR, 17 percent in Calgary, 15 percent in Toronto, 13 percent in Montreal, and 13 percent in Prince Edward Island. Within the local residential market at the end of 2005, there were 11 LFRs with 10 percent or greater competitor market share; these LFRs represent 39 percent of all local residential lines.

For the business local telephone market, competitors' share of wired business telephone lines increased on a national level from 12.8 percent in 2004 to 14.0 percent in 2005. Using the CRTC's LFR definition, competitors have captured 25 percent of business wired telephone lines in Edmonton, 23 percent in Calgary, 23 percent in Vancouver, 21 percent in Toronto and 16 percent in Montreal. Within the local business market, there were 31 LFRs with 10 percent or greater competitor market share; these LFRs represent 68 percent of all business lines.

Alternatives

Pursuant to section 12 of the Telecommunications Act, the Governor in Council may, within one year after a decision by the CRTC, by order, vary or rescind the decision or refer it back to the CRTC for reconsideration of all or a portion of it.

Rescinding Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 would have the effect of reverting to the former regulatory regime. It would then be up to the CRTC to decide whether, and when, to undertake a new proceeding to establish a new forbearance framework. In the context of that proceeding, the CRTC would have the discretion to decide on whether to revert to the forbearance framework established in Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, Review of Regulatory Framework, to utilize a variant of the framework in Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, or to establish a new approach altogether. The CRTC has already noted that reverting to the framework in Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19 could delay deregulation beyond a point that is efficient and effective. Maintaining the local forbearance framework in Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 could result in regulation continuing to interfere with market forces beyond a point that is efficient and effective.

Benefits and Costs

Consumers will benefit through increased choice and competition among competitors. Using the data from the CRTC Telecommunications Monitoring Report noted earlier, analyses show that if the revised criteria result in deregulation of retail prices for 60 percent of the population and 55 percent of businesses, for every potential 1 percent change in price, the impact on incumbents' retail customers in aggregate over an entire year could potentially be $29 million for incumbents' residential customers and $16 million per year for incumbents' business customers. If competitors were to respond with comparable price changes, the impact on residential and business customers would be even greater. In addition, the elimination of restrictions on "winbacks" and other promotions should enable more innovative pricing and enhance rivalry among competitor companies, thereby potentially reducing overall costs for consumers.

While it is possible that over time only a small number of competitors may offer service, this does not mean that consumers' interests will not be well-served. Innovation will be encouraged resulting in more intense competition between traditional telephone companies and competitors such as wireless, cable and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. Facilities-based competition is a durable form of competition that will deliver the greatest benefits to consumers, disciplines the market and strengthens investment in telecommunications infrastructure. Specific impacts on individual companies are difficult to predict.

The criteria outlined in this Order are administratively simple and will reduce overall regulatory costs for both government and industry. This Order will see deregulation in many markets take place sooner than would have been the case under Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, resulting in lower operational costs from CRTC hearings, tariff approvals and other administrative functions. However, before deregulation occurs, compliance costs associated with this Order would be similar to those associated with Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 since the incumbent and interested parties would be required to participate in CRTC hearings until deregulation took place.

Consultation

All interested parties, including industry stakeholders and members of the public, had opportunities in the CRTC's original proceeding to provide their views on appropriate criteria to determine when to refrain from regulating retail local telephone service provided by the incumbents. The CRTC's original proceeding included comments, interrogatories and reply comments and oral public hearings.

Three separate petitions were received by the Governor in Council under section 12 of the Telecommunications Act, which provides the Governor in Council with the authority by order, to vary or rescind the decision or refer it back to the CRTC for reconsideration of all or a portion of it within one year of the CRTC decision.

Upon receipt of the petitions concerning Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, the Governor in Council issued a call for comments in the Canada Gazette and consulted with provincial and territorial governments. The petitions, notices and submissions received in response are posted at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/h_sf08544.html.

The Government then pre-published its proposed Order to vary Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on December 16, 2006, opening a 30-day period for public comment. The comment period closed on January 15, 2007. 38 submissions were received from incumbent and competing telephone companies, cable television companies, consumer and public interest groups, business and economic councils and other organizations. One submission was received from a municipal government (the City of Calgary). 144 submissions were received from private individuals.

All of the submissions from this consultation process are posted at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08717.html. These comments will remain online for at least 60 days following publication of this Order in the Canada Gazette.

The Minister of Industry also notified the provinces and territories about the proposed Order in Council and provided an opportunity for consultation in accordance with section 13 of the Telecommunications Act.

Perspectives on the substance of the proposed Order were varied. Most business groups and the vast majority of individual submissions supported the proposed Order as written. Incumbent telephone companies also supported the proposed Order, but made several recommendations to reduce the criteria for forbearance and speed up the review process. Competitive local providers, consumer groups and cable companies generally opposed the proposed Order, arguing that the proposed Order would not lead to a competitive market. Some, however, expressed support for the proposed Order with specific reservations.

All comments received were considered. The Government believes that it is timely to move forward with this variance, and has made several important revisions to the proposed Order to address substantive issues raised during the consultations. These amendments will ensure that economic deregulation of the retail local telephone market occurs in a more timely and efficient manner than would have been the case using the criteria outlined in Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 and that it promotes a competitive market.

Revisions to the proposed Order fall into four categories: strengthening and/or simplifying the forbearance criteria; addressing concerns that deregulation could occur before competition has taken hold; ensuring consistency with the Telecommunications Act; and minor textual and procedural revisions.

The forbearance criteria have been strengthened by removing Local Interconnection Regions (LIRs) as a geographic area for local forbearance, leaving only local telephone exchanges as the relevant geographic area. Local exchanges often reflect a social and economic community of interest and are less likely than LIRs to contain pockets of uncontested customers. In addition, a reference has been added clarifying that facilities-based competitors provide services using facilities and services leased from incumbents and other suppliers in combination with self-supplied facilities and services. Finally, the revised Order includes descriptive language that clarifies what is meant by the terms "offers services" and "throughout". Forbearance can occur in a residential market if there are, in addition to the incumbent, at least two independent facilities-based telecommunications services providers, including providers of mobile wireless services, each of which offers services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of residential lines that the incumbent is capable of serving in that market, and at least one of which, in addition to the incumbent, is a facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider. Forbearance can occur in a business market if there are, in addition to the incumbent, at least one independent facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider that offers services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of business lines that the incumbent is capable of serving in that market. These amendments provide the CRTC and all stakeholders with greater clarity and make certain that competitive providers are actually offering service and are capable of serving a majority of users; this ensures that customers have choice in the local market in question.

Some small cable companies, which generally serve smaller towns, noted that if their entrance into the local telephone market ‘triggered' deregulation within 120 days, there would not be enough time for competition to take hold before the market was deregulated. In response, the revised Order provides that if a competitive facilities-based provider seeks to enter a market and has less than 20,000 customers in Canada, forbearance will occur no earlier than 18 months after it enters the market and offers service as the third facilities-based competitor in a residence market, or the second facilities-based competitor in a business market. This will provide small competitors with a period of time to develop a customer base, from which competitors in large urban markets have already benefited and which will help to ensure that competitors enter a market and that competition has taken hold before deregulation occurs.

The revised Order maintains that the competitive facilities test is generally sufficient to meet the criteria for forbearance in sections 34(1) or 34(2). However, in response to concerns that the Order could be construed as being inconsistent with the Telecommunications Act, the Order has been revised to better reflect the discretion of the CRTC to apply all parts of the Telecommunications Act (including ensuring that section 34(3) is satisfied) has been clarified by providing that the CRTC "may" forbear from regulating (instead of "will" in an the proposed Order) once a test is satisfied.

Several minor and ‘housekeeping' revisions have been made to the proposed Order. Most notably, Halifax has been added to the list of census metropolitan areas from which the CRTC will consider forbearance applications on a priority basis. An application for forbearance in Halifax was the subject of the original CRTC Local Forbearance Decision and should be reconsidered using this new framework. Other minor revisions have been made for purposes of linguistic consistency and clarification. Some procedural aspects are clarified in light of the changes made to the Decision.

The Minister of Industry has also had the opportunity to hear the views of a wide variety of stakeholders, other experts, and members of parliament as part of the study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on "Deregulation of telecommunications," which began on January 29, 2007.

Compliance and Enforcement

The Government has complied with section 12 of the Telecommunications Act, which pertains to variation, rescission and referral back and section 13, which pertains to consultation with provincial governments. Once this Order is made and published, it will be applied by the CRTC.

Contact

Leonard St-Aubin,
Director General
Telecommunications Policy
Industry Canada
300 Slater Street, 16th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8
613-998-4241

Top of Page

Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15

Whereas, on April 6, 2006, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the Commission) rendered Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services (the Decision);

Whereas the Commission determined that it was prepared to forbear from regulating retail local exchange services provided by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) when the ILEC could demonstrate that, in the relevant market, rivalrous behaviour exists and that it has experienced a 25 percent market share loss, complied with specified competitor quality of service standards throughout the six-month period preceding its application for forbearance, implemented approved Competitor Services tariffs and provided competitors with access to its Operational Support Systems;

Whereas the Commission determined that local forbearance regions (LFRs) were the appropriate geographic component of a relevant market;

Whereas the Commission considered providing ILECs with greater regulatory flexibility prior to forbearance and the circumstances under which it might lessen or remove existing competitive safeguards for promotions, as defined in Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-25, Promotions of local wireline services, lessen or remove the local winback rule set out in Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28, Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28-1 and confirmed by Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-53, permit the ex parte filing of tariff applications for promotions, and permit the waiving of service charges for local residential winbacks;

Whereas subsection 12(1) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) provides that, within one year after a decision by the Commission, the Governor in Council may vary the decision on petition in writing presented to the Governor in Council within 90 days after the decision;

Whereas petitions by the Government of Saskatchewan and the Coalition for Competitive Telecommunications and a joint petition by Aliant Telecom Inc. , Bell Canada, Saskatchewan Telecommunications and Telus Communications Company were presented in writing to the Governor in Council within 90 days after the Decision;

Whereas, in accordance with subsection 12(4) of the Act, notices of receipt of those petitions were published in the Canada Gazette by the Minister of Industry on June 3, 2006 and July 22, 2006, indicating that the petitions and any petition or submission made in response to them could be inspected and copied at the website http://www.ic.gc.ca;

Whereas, in accordance with section 13 of the Act, the Minister of Industry has notified a minister designated by the government of each province of the Minister's intention to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council for the purposes of an order under section 12 of the Act and has provided an opportunity for each of them to consult with the Minister;

Whereas a copy of the proposed Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on December 16, 2006 and a reasonable opportunity was thereby afforded to interested persons to make representations with respect to the proposed Order;

Whereas subsection 34(1) of the Act provides that the Commission may make a determination to refrain, in whole or in part and conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act in relation to a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier, if the Commission finds as a question of fact that to refrain would be consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Act;

Whereas the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives include rendering reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada, enhancing the efficiency and competitiveness, at the national and international levels, of Canadian telecommunications, fostering increased reliance on market forces for the provision of telecommunications services and ensuring that regulation, when required, is efficient and effective;

Whereas subsection 34(2) of the Act provides that the Commission shall make a determination to refrain, to the extent that it considers appropriate, conditionally or unconditionally, from the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty under sections 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of the Act in relation to a telecommunications service or class of services provided by a Canadian carrier, where the Commission finds as a question of fact that the service or class of service is or will be subject to competition sufficient to protect the interests of users;

Whereas the evolution of competitive telecommunications markets in Canada has accelerated with the deployment of Internet Protocol technology;

Whereas, in light of the evolving competition, the Governor in Council made, on December 14, 2006, the Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunication Policy Objectives;

Whereas that Order directs that the Commission should rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible as the means of achieving the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives and that, when relying on regulation to achieve those objectives, the Commission should use measures that are efficient and proportionate to their purpose and that interfere with the operation of competitive market forces to the minimum extent necessary;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that facilities-based competition is a durable form of competition that delivers the greatest benefits to consumers, imposes competitive market discipline on incumbents and strengthens investment in telecommunications infrastructure;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that local business markets and local residential markets should be considered separately;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that it is important to adopt simple and streamlined criteria for de-regulating the services of incumbent telephone companies in order to avoid imposing an unnecessary regulatory burden that could deny or delay the benefits of competitive rivalry to consumers;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that LFRs are not the appropriate geographic component of a relevant market, as they are too vast to retain administrative practicality and do not reflect a social and economic community of interest;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that local exchanges are the appropriate geographic component of a relevant market, as they often reflect a social and economic community of interest and are less likely than LFRs to contain pockets of uncontested customers;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that the provision of competitor services by an ILEC, in accordance with the competitor quality of service standards, supports sustainable competition, and that it is appropriate that an ILEC demonstrate that it has, on average, met those standards prior to any granting of forbearance under section 34 of the Act;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that the use of mobile wireless technology by consumers is increasing and will likely continue to increase, and that for many consumers the exclusive use of mobile wireless services is an increasingly attractive alternative to wireline local exchange services;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that the removal of marketing restrictions imposed by the Commission on ILECs will foster an increased reliance on market forces and enhance competitive market rivalry;

Whereas the Governor in Council considers that it would be consistent with Canadian telecommunications polic y objectives for the Commission, in accordance with section 34 of the Act, to grant forbearance from regulating the provision of retail local exchange services when the criteria set out in this Order are satisfied;

And whereas the Governor in Council considers that retail local exchange services, for which forbearance is granted under section 34 of the Act based on the criteria set out in this Order, will be subject to competition that is sufficient to protect the interests of users and will not unduly impair the establishment or continuance of a competitive market;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Telecommunications Act ¹, varies Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15 as follows:

1. Paragraphs 141 to 168 of the Decision are replaced by the following:

   141.

   The Commission considers that, for the purposes of a local forbearance application by an ILEC, a local exchange is the appropriate geographic component of the relevant market.
2. Paragraphs 242 to 281 of the Decision are replaced by the following:
   
   
   242.

   The Commission considers that, if an ILEC can satisfy the following criteria, then the requirements of section 34 of the Act for a forbearance determination will have been met and the Commission may therefore grant local forbearance in accordance with that section:

   1. the ILEC demonstrates that one of the following circumstances exists in the relevant market:
      1. that the ILEC does not have market power, based on the criteria set out in paragraph 213,
      2. that, if the ILEC offers residential local exchange services, there are, in addition to the ILEC, at least 2 independent facilities-based telecommunications service providers, including providers of mobile wireless services, each of which offers local exchange services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of residential local exchange service lines that the ILEC is capable of serving, and at least one of which, in addition to the ILEC C, is a facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider, or
      3. that, if the ILEC offers business local exchange services, there is, in addition to the ILEC, at least one other independent facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider that offers local exchange services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of business local exchange service lines that the ILEC is capable of serving;
   2. the ILEC demonstrates that, during a six-month period, beginning no earlier than eight months before its application for local forbearance and ending at any time before the Commission's decision respecting the application,
   3. 1. it met, on average, the quality of service standard for each indicator set out in Appendix B, as defined in Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20, Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors, with respect to the services provided to competitors in its territory, and
      2. it did not consistently provide any of those competitors with services that were below those quality of service standards.
   243.

   For the purposes of subparagraphs 242a)(ii) and (iii) and paragraph 523, the Commission considers that a telecommunications service provider is independent if it does not have the same owner as, and is not affiliated with, any other service provider referred to in the respective subparagraph. Further, for the purpose of those provisions, the Commission considers that a facilities-based telecommunications service provider is one that provides services in the relevant market either by using its own facilities and services or by using a combination of its own facilities and services together with those leased from other service providers.
3. Paragraphs 483 to 488 of the Decision are replaced by the following:
   
   
   483.

   The Commission removes the existing competitive safeguards for promotions, as defined in Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-25, Promotions of local wireline services, removes the local winback rule as set out in Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28, Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28-1 and confirmed by Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-53, permits the ex parte filing of tariff applications for promotions and permits the waiving of service charges for residential local winbacks.

4. Paragraphs 512 to 535 of the Decision are replaced by the following:
   
   
    

   Application for local forbearance
   512.

   The Commission will establish a process for dealing with applications for local forbearance filed pursuant to the framework set out in this Decision.
   513.

   In an application for local forbearance, the ILEC should provide evidence that it has satisfied all the criteria referred to in paragraph 242 or indicate that it will make the demonstration referred to in paragraph 242b) after filing the application. Each application should only be with reference to one relevant market and should list the tariff items and associated tariff numbers of the services for which the ILEC is requesting local forbearance.
   514.

   An application for local forbearance should be accompanied by a draft communications plan for the Commission's approval. The plan should describe how the ILEC intends to explain local forbearance to customers in the relevant market, provide information concerning the ongoing availability of stand-alone PES in the market and provide contact information for customers who have questions or concerns.
   515.

   If an applicant ILEC is making applications for a number of contiguous local exchanges, the ILEC may request that the Commission determine those applications together.
   516.

   The applicant ILEC will, prior to filing, serve a copy of its application on all registered CLECs and any other known TSP providing local exchange service in the relevant market. Other parties that may be interested in commenting on such applications for local forbearance will be responsible for monitoring the Commission's website in order to be aware of when such applications have been filed.
   517.

   The Commission will post the application to its website once it is received. The Commission notes that applications that are deficient in providing all of the required information, or that are not accompanied by all of the required documents, will be returned to the applicant ILEC.
   518.

   The Commission notes that it may request that the applicant ILEC or others provide further information or documents that it considers necessary to determine whether local forbearance is warranted.
   519.

   In establishing a process for dealing with applications for local forbearance, the Commission considers it important to provide a process that allows for timely decisions to be rendered for those applications. Consequently, if the ILEC provides all the required information and documents in the required form, the Commission undertakes, subject to paragraphs 520 to 522, to complete its analysis of, and render its decision respecting applications which rely on paragraph 242a) (ii) or (iii) within 120 days after the day on which the application is received.
   520.

   Applications for local forbearance that propose a division of business local exchange services into multiple relevant markets will not be subject to the undertaking.
   521.

   If the applicant ILEC indicates in its application that it will make the demonstration referred to in paragraph 242b) after filing the application, the Commission will commence its analysis of the application, but the application will not be subject to the undertaking.
   522.

   Applications for local forbearance that relate to local exchanges that are located wholly or partially within the census metropolitan area of Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Quebec City, Toronto, Vancouver or Winnipeg, will be given priority by the Commission.
    

   Special circumstance
   523.

   If, prior to granting local forbearance, the Commission is informed that the ILEC's application is based on competition in the relevant market from an independent fixed-line telecommunications service provider that, including all of its affiliates, has less than 20,000 local exchange services customers in Canada, the forbearance will not be effective until at least 18 months after the day on which the service provider began providing local exchange services in that market.
5. Appendix A of the Decision is repealed.
   
6. Appendix B of the Decision is replaced by the following:
   

   Appendix B

   Competitor Quality of Service Indicators

   Indicator	Title	Standard
   Indicator 1.8	New Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met	90% or more
   Indicator 1.9	Migrated Unbundled Type A and B Loop Order Service Intervals Met	90% or more
   Indicator 1.10	LNP Order (Stand-alone) Service Interval Met	90% or more
   Indicator 1.11	Competitor Interconnection trunk Order Service Interval Met	90% or more
   Indicator 1.12	Local Service Requests, Confirmed Due Dates Met	90% or more
   Indicator 1.19	Confirmed Due Dates Met  — CDN Services and Type C Loops	90% or more
   Indicator 2.7	Competitor Out-of-Service trouble Reports Cleared within 24 hours	width80 or more
   Indicator 2.9	Competitor Degraded trouble Reports Cleared within 48 hours	90% or more
   Indicator 2.10	Mean Time to Repair (MTtr) — CDN Services and Type C Loops	4 hours or less

7. Appendix D and Appendix E of the Decision are repealed.
8. The Decision shall otherwise continue to apply, but any provisions in the Decision that are inconsistent with this Order shall be interpreted in accordance with this Order to the extent of the inconsistency.

Footnote

¹ a. S.C. 1993, c. 38