|
Telecom Public Notice
|
|
Ottawa, 4 January 1984
|
|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 1984-1
|
|
BELL CANADA - ALTERNATIVES TO EXTENDED AREA SERVICE
|
|
Extended Area Service (EAS) is a method of setting rates that allows customers located in neighbouring telephone exchanges to call one another without incurring long distance charges. Introduction of EAS may, however, result in higher local rates. In Bell Canada, General Increase in Rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 80-14, 12 August 1980 (Decision 80-14), the Commission approved a number of criteria to determine whether exchanges qualify for the introduction of EAS. Under the approved criteria, new EAS is provided only where:
|
|
(i) two exchanges are contiguous;
|
|
(ii) a minimum of 60% of customers in one exchange call the other at least once a month;
|
|
(iii) the distance between the exchanges' rate centres (normally the main switching centre in an
exchange) is less than 30 miles; and
|
|
(iv) a majority (51%) of customers whose basic local rates would be increased approve of the new
service.
|
|
Possible alternatives to EAS include Optional Calling Plans (OCP's) which provide for discounted long distance rates between designated exchanges. Individual customers could subscribe to these plans, on an optional basis, through payment of a monthly subscription fee.
|
|
In Decision 80-14, the Commission directed Bell Canada (Bell, the Company) to report on its assessment of a number of qualifying criteria for OCP's as an attempt to meet the requirements of those customers not satisfied by the above EAS criteria. The Company filed an interim report on 31 March 1982 and a final report on 31 March 1983 presenting the results of OCP market trials and assessing the feasibility of various qualifying criteria.
|
|
In its final report, Bell recommended offering an OCP to customers in an exchange for calls to another exchange, either contiguous or non-contiguous, where the percentage of customers in the originating exchange placing one or more calls per month to the other exchange is at least 50% and where the distance between these exchanges' rate centres is within 40 miles. The proposed plan would provide for a 33 1/3% discount, in addition to any other discounts, on all customer-dialed long distance calls. The monthly subscription fee would range from $1.00 to $3.65 for residence customers and from $3.30 to $8.60 for business customers. Customers would be able to subscribe to an OCP for as many pairs of exchanges as meet the qualifying criteria.
|
|
As segments of exchanges sometimes do not coincide with municipal boundaries, Bell undertook a separate study on the feasibility of a system providing for toll-free calling within municipal boundaries for a monthly subscription fee. In a report submitted to the Commission on 6 December 1982, however, Bell recommended that this system, entitled Municipality Calling Service (MCS), not be implemented at that time due to its negative financial impact on the Company and its relatively limited benefit to subscribers.
|
|
At the same time, Bell indicated that it was exploring an alternative proposal, called Municipal Reverse Charge Service (MRCS), which would allow residents of a municipality in a designated exchange to call municipal officials and services via the operator with discounted toll charges billed to the municipality. On 31 August 1983, Bell filed an MRCS proposal recommending that interested municipalities pay 50% of the normally applicable toll charges as well as a monthly subscription fee. The Company estimated the cost of implementing MRCS at less than $250,000. Bell stated that it planned to file MRCS tariffs by July 1984 for the Commission's approval.
|
|
The Commission continues to receive complaints from parties who would like the EAS criteria broadened to include their particular circumstances. In the Commission's view, however, it would be premature to consider reviewing the EAS criteria until the possible alternatives to EAS have been fully considered. In this regard, the Commission considers that the OCP, MCS and MRCS proposals put forward by Bell provide an appropriate focus for such consideration. Accordingly, the Commission invites comments on these proposals and also on any others which parties may wish to suggest. Following receipt of these comments, the Commission expects to be in a position to adopt one or more alternatives to EAS in Bell's territory and to establish generally applicable criteria therefore.
|
|
The Company's proposals may be examined at any of Bell's business offices or at the offices of the CRTC, Room 561, Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec or 1410 Stanley Street, 10th floor, Montreal, Quebec. A copy of the proposals may be obtained by any interested party upon request directed to the Company at the address shown below.
|
|
If you wish to comment on the alternatives to EAS, please write to Mr. J.G. Patenaude, Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, by 5 March 1984. A copy of your letter should be sent to Mr. E.E. Saunders, Q.C., c/o Mr. Peter J. Knowlton, Assistant General Counsel, Bell Canada, 25 Eddy Street, 4th floor, Hull, Quebec, J8Y 6N4.
|
|
J.G. Patenaude
Secretary General
|
|
|
|