A family of individuals

An interesting decision from the CRTC earlier today about billing services to corporate affiliates.

The case that led to Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-867 dealt with Bell Aliant and Bell Canada providing certain access services to Rogers and its affiliate, Fido.

The Bell company tariffs for channelizing competitor digital access circuits (CDN) state that if a carrier is co-located in a Central Office, then it must pay retail rates for any channelizing services. Fido was receiving channelizing services in some locations that have a Rogers co-location presence, but it demanded the lower wholesale rates.

Rogers argued that previous Commission decisionsĀ suggest that parent companies and affiliates do not always have to constitute a single customer. In fact, Rogers showed that there are at least three examples where the Bell companies treat the affiliates as separate entities, inĀ each caseĀ tilting revenues higher inĀ favour ofĀ the telco:

  1. Local interconnection traffic imbalances are calculated separately, generally resulting in a higher imbalance in favour of the BellĀ companies;
  2. RCI and Fido pay separate rates to access the BellĀ companiesā€™ Operational Support System, resulting in higher revenues for the BellĀ companies; and
  3. RCI and Fido are separate customers for extended area service transiting and transit services resulting in higher revenues for the BellĀ companies.

The CRTC agreed with Rogers.

Scroll to Top