Telus 2006 Annual Report Download - page 24

entirely in a given LFR when both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the ILEC’s
competitors in the LFR have a combined market share of at least 20 per cent; and (2) the ILEC
has met the required standards for each of 14 specified competitor quality of service indicators
for the three-month period preceding the date of the application.
On October 5, 2006, TELUS applied to the CRTC to review and vary Decision 2006-15 by either
removing the requirement for the ILECs to meet competitor quality of service standards as part
of the forbearance criteria, or to limit the extent to which competitor quality of service standards
are included in the forbearance test.
On December 11, 2006, the Minister of Industry announced a proposal to change Decision
2006-15 by revising the criteria for the forbearance of retail local exchange services. His
proposal would eliminate the current marketing restrictions on winbacks and other promotions;
reduce the geographic area for which forbearance must be applied to either an exchange or a
local interconnection region (LIR) at the option of the ILEC; allow forbearance for residential
local exchange service when there are three facilities-based providers present within an
exchange or local interconnection region and nine quality of service measures have been met
for a six-month period; and allow forbearance for business local exchange service when there is
another facilities-based provider present within an exchange or local interconnection region and
nine quality of service measures have been met for a six-month period.
In addition to the initiatives related to Decision 2006-15, the CRTC initiated Public Notice 2006-9
to determine whether mobile wireless services should be considered to be part of the same
relevant market as wireline local exchange services for forbearance analysis purposes. The
CRTC also initiated Public Notice 2006-12 to reassess certain aspects of Decision 2006-15
including: (1) whether the market share forbearance criterion threshold of 25 percent should be
adjusted; and (2) whether the 20 percent market share loss threshold related to the local
winback rule remains appropriate.
In March 2006, the Telecommunications Policy Review panel issued its report on its review of
Canada’s telecommunications policy and regulatory framework, initiated by the federal
government in 2005. The panel recommended, first, an end to the presumption that
telecommunications services must be regulated and, second, a shift to reliance on market
forces. TELUS endorses these recommendations and will continue to press for their
implementation in 2007.
Finally, on December 18, 2006, the Minister of Industry issued a direction to the CRTC to rely
on market forces to the maximum extent feasible; to ensure technological and competitive
neutrality and enable competition from new technologies; to use tariff approval mechanisms that
are as minimally intrusive as possible; to complete a review of the framework for mandated
access to wholesale services; to publish and maintain performance standards for its various
processes; and, to continue to explore new ways of streamlining its processes.
Local competition framework
The regulatory framework for local services competition has a number of components, the more
important of which are summarized below.
Essential Services
23