ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2001-193

Order CRTC 2001-193

Ottawa, 5 March 2001

Telemarketing restrictions extended to all telecom service providers

Reference:8665-C12-09/00

The CRTC is extending the telemarketing restrictions to all wireline, wireless and resale providers of telecom services and their customers.

Telemarketing restrictions have historically been issued according to geography and service provider category, resulting in a patchwork application of rules across Canada.

Those rules are no longer contingent upon geography or the type of service provider. Instead, this order provides for applying the telemarketing regulations to all telecom service sectors in all locations.

Public notice issued in June 2000

Soliciting comments to extend telemarketing restrictions across Canada, Public Notice CRTC 2000-91, dated 30 June 2000, expressed the preliminary view that the rules for unsolicited communications using automatic dialing and announcing devices (ADADs), live voice and facsimile (fax) solicitations should apply uniformly across Canada to the following service providers:

The rules and conditions for unsolicited communications were set out in Use of telephone company facilities for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-10, dated 13 June 1994, and Telecom Order CRTC 96-1229, dated 7 November 1996. Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, dated 1 May 1997, extended the rules and conditions to the CLECs operating in the territories of those ILECs to whom the rules apply.

Presently, the Commission's rules for unsolicited telecommunications using ADADs, live voice and fax are not uniformly applied across Canada. That is, the rules now apply only to some telecom service providers and not to others. (See Appendix 1 on regional and sectoral disparity.)

In addition, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) has solicitation rules in its tariffs which were approved by its provincial regulator prior to the telco coming under the Commission's jurisdiction in June 2000. These differ in some respects from those approved by the Commission for other telcos.

Majority of participating parties support uniformity

The majority of parties who commented on the extension of the present rules supported the Commission's preliminary view. These included the major telcos, the Bell Wireless Alliance (BWA) consisting of Bell Mobility Inc., Island Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc., MTT Mobility Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Mobility Ltd. Other parties in agreement were Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, Canadian Marketing Association (CMA), Canadian Survey Research Council, Ontario Privacy Commissioner, Action Réseau Consommateur and the Consumers' Association of Canada (ARC/CAC), Vidéotron Communications Inc. and numerous other organizations and individuals.

Canada Fax Service (CFS) and the Canadian Fax Broadcasting Coalition did not support the Commission's preliminary view.

Compliance in the wireless sector

A number of parties noted that extending the rules to service providers who are not currently subject to them raises a number of compliance issues.

For example, with respect to the use of WSP services for telemarketing, BWA noted that not all WSPs will be able to display the calling number or alternate number from the originating party as would be required by the rules. Display of these numbers is determined by the type of interconnection between the WSP and the public switched telephone network. Eventually, however, BWA stated that WSPs will likely evolve toward trunk-side interconnection which will allow for display of the calling number.

BWA supported uniform application of the rules to all categories of service providers, but it noted that the Commission has determined that wireless telephone numbers are considered confidential and are not to be disclosed without subscriber consent. BWA suggested that the Commission stipulate that this confidentiality should be waived when a subscriber uses a wireless service for telemarketing purposes.

Name display blocking in NBTel's territory

ARC/CAC noted that NBTel now permits telemarketers to block the display of their calling name and number on the called party's set and proposed that this not be allowed.

The Commission notes that NBTel, which prior to this order was not subject to any rules governing voice and fax solicitations, has a tariff for per-line call display blocking which allows callers including telemarketers in its territory to block display of their calling names and numbers on the called party's telephone set. Such blocking by telemarketers is not permitted by the rules in effect for the other telecom service providers where the call to solicit must display the originating number or an alternate number where the call originator can be reached.

Uniform calling hours

SaskTel generally supported the view that all telemarketers should respect the same rules. It stated, however, that it does not support the adoption of uniform calling hours across Canada, because the present rules do not address time zones and apply to a telemarketer's calling hours as opposed to the time consumers receive a call.

The Commission notes however, that its current rules for fax solicitations do take time zones into account by stating that the permitted calling hours for fax are those of the called party.

Rules will apply to resellers

On the matter of applying the rules to resellers, Bell Canada, Island Tel, MTT, MTS, NBTel, NewTel (and TELUS in its own comments) cited a report by the Customer Transfer Group of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee that had recommended that consumer safeguards be imposed on resellers and enforced through contractual arrangements or other means with local exchange carriers (LECs). This resulted in the CRTC Letter Decision of 1 February 2000 directing all LECs, as a condition of providing services to resellers, to include a contractual stipulation which would oblige resellers to adhere to the consumer safeguards described in the report. Pursuant to their service contracts, resellers are now required to enforce solicitation rules as a condition of reselling a LEC's services.

Other comments

CMA supported uniform rules, but opposed the current prohibition placed on ADADs solicitations. The CMA stated that once an individual purchases a product or service from a company, there is implied consent and reasonable expectation that the company will attempt to build an on-going relationship with the consumer by marketing similar products or services. The CMA argued that, in this situation, ADADs should be permitted.

Canada Fax Service maintained that the current restrictions and enforcement provisions are unreasonable and argued against expanding the current regime. CFS was of the view that telemarketing "problems" are easily overcome by technology. Among other things, it stated that the Commission's regulation of the current regime has had a harmful effect on niche telemarketing innovations and activities in Canada. CFS did not, however, provide evidence to support its view.

The Canadian Fax Broadcasting Coalition noted that there should be a uniform code of conduct for fax broadcasters, but there should be no hour restrictions on unsolicited faxes since they are directed at businesses, not to residential consumers.

A number of parties did not specifically address uniform application of the rules but commented on unwanted solicitations, the effectiveness of the existing rules, and how they could be changed.

Conclusion

The Commission notes that the lack of uniform application of the rules has led to consumer confusion and difficulties for telephone companies and the Commission in their efforts to resolve customer complaints. Furthermore, currently enforcement for violating the rules can only be invoked by LECs who are subject to the rules and who apply them to soliciting parties who use their facilities.

A uniform application of the rules would enable both service providers and the Commission to deal effectively with customer concerns and consistently explain the rules to customers regardless of their service provider or location.

The solicitation rules already apply to resellers by virtue of the Commission's letter decision of 1 February 2000 and there is no indication that implementing a uniform application of the rules to LECs, IXCs and WSPs will pose operational or technical problems other than the WSP calling number display issue outlined in paragraph 8. Therefore, the Commission concludes that implementation of consistent rules for these service providers is feasible.

The Commission notes that the independent telcos did not provide comments in this proceeding although some were registered parties. The Commission concludes that the rules should apply to them also.

SaskTel's current tariffs on unsolicited calling differ in some provisions compared to those found in similar approved tariffs of the other ILECs because it came under CRTC jurisdiction after the Commission-approved telemarketing rules were in place. The Commission considers that SaskTel's tariffs should be made consistent with those approved for the other ILECs.

Some parties proposed that there be a review of the current rules on solicitations and the Commission notes CMA's arguments for changes to the existing ADADs rules. This is beyond the scope of this proceeding. These comments and replies will form part of the record and will be taken into consideration in a proceeding launched today in Public Notice CRTC 2001-34 to review the current rules and restrictions.

In light of the above, the Commission directs:

•  All ILECs including the independent telephone companies, to issue forthwith, as required, tariff pages that reflect the conditions and enforcement provisions required under Decision 94-10 and Order 96-1229, consistent with Bell Canada General Tariff Item 1800: (http://www.bell.ca/en/corp/aboutbell/tariffs/)-Part 2-Exchange Service. In the case of NBTel, this also requires an amendment to its tariff to state that per-line call display blocking will not be allowed for outbound solicitation calls by telemarketers.

• All IXCs and WSP, pursuant to section 24 of the Telecommunications Act, as a condition of offering and providing telecommunications services, to adhere to the rules set out in Appendix 2 of this order. In this respect, the telephone number of telemarketers are no longer to be treated as confidential by WSPs.

Furthermore, the Commission reminds all CLECs that, by virtue of paragraph 288 of Decision 97-8, they are now required to satisfy all of the conditions and enforcement provisions of Decsion 94-10 and Order 96-1229 regardless of where they provide service in Canada.

Similarly, the Commission reminds all LECs that, pursuant to its letter decision of 1 February 2000, they are now required, as a condition of providing services to resellers wherever they operate, to include a contractual stipulation which would oblige resellers to adhere to the telemarketing restrictions of Decision 94-10 and Order 96-1229.

A summary of the rules for solicitations using ADADs, live voice calls and fax is appended to this document (Appendix 2). By virtue of this order, these rules will now apply uniformly across Canada to all of the service providers covered in this order. For service providers with tariffs, the official version of the rules will be contained in that provider's tariffs.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca