|
|
|
Ottawa, 17 November 1988
|
|
Telecom Decision CRTC 88-20
|
|
BELL CANADA - 976 SERVICE
|
|
INTRODUCTION
|
On 7 July 1988, in response to a number of subscriber complaints dealing mainly with charges appearing on their bills following uncontrolled use of 976 Service, the Commission issued Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 88-4. In that Letter Decision, the Commission stated that it expected Bell Canada (Bell), within six months, to be able to offer subscribers the option of blocking calls made to 976 numbers within the subscriber's Area Code. On the same date, the Commission issued CRTC Telecom Public Notice 1988-29 (Public Notice 1988-29), requesting comments, in particular, on the issue of the recovery of the costs associated with such call blocking.
|
|
In its Letter Decision, the Commission also asked for further information on charges to 976 users and on Bell's collection practices regarding 976 Service. This information was provided in the company's response dated 8 August 1988.
|
|
In light of the information provided by Bell, the Commission, in a letter dated 8 September 1988, directed Bell:
|
|
(1) to implement, by 7 December 1988, its proposed automatic mailing notification whereby subscribers would be notified in writing whenever their total charges for 976 Service during a single billing period had exceeded $50.00 and, in addition, to make one attempt by telephone to notify such subscribers directly; and
|
|
(2) to implement, by 7 December 1988, its proposal not to charge 976 Service customers who disconnect within a twenty second grace period during which the charges for the service are identified.
|
|
In a letter dated 11 October 1988, Bell indicated that it would not be in a position to implement the two procedures by 7 December; nor would it be in a position to implement its preferred approach to call blocking by 7 January 1989, as originally expected by the Commission. Bell noted that it had, in its letter of 8 August 1988, requested a period of six months following termination of the strike to implement the monitoring of customers' bills and four months following termination of the strike to implement the twenty second grace period. The company made a committment to implement its monitoring approach by the end of February 1989 if not sooner and the twenty second grace period no later than mid-January.
|
|
Bell stated that the introduction of a twenty second grace period would inconvenience regular users of 976 Service and cause a decrease in demand that would seriously affect the overall viability of the service in Bell Canada territory. In order to alleviate this inconvenience to regular users of the service, and the expected resultant reduction in demand, the company proposed that individual sponsors be allowed to introduce an option whereby regular users of the service would be able to bypass the twenty second grace period message. The company also requested the right, at the request of the subscriber, to exempt a subscriber from the notification process wherever practical.
|
|
With respect to call blocking, Bell indicated that its ability to block calls at the switch level is currently limited to class of service screening in electronic offices. For customers connected to older type switches, programmable call controllers would be required. Bell indicated that it was pursuing a technological solution that would employ both class of service screening and programmable call controllers and that it would be in a position to file its proposed call blocking service by approximately 1 March 1989.
|
The specific means of implementing call blocking as well as the recovery of costs for this service were also addressed by several of the interveners who responded to Public Notice 1988-29.
|
|
With respect to the best means for implementing call blocking, the Association Coopérative d'Économie Familiale du Nord de Montréal proposed universally restricted access to 976 Service with selective access through removal of blocking, paid for by the person wishing access. A service provider, Telephone Information Services (Canada) Ltd. (Healthcall), suggested the use of programmable call controllers located at the subscriber's premises.
|
|
As for recovery of the costs of call blocking, the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC) and three other interveners (Professor C.S. Kalman, Mr. Brian Nixon and Mrs. Evelyn Miller) were of the view that 976 Service sponsors or Bell should bear the cost of call blocking since 976 Service is not an essential service. CAC added that, if there is to be a service charge for call blocking, such charge should be waived during an initial three month period. The Government of Ontario supported a nominal charge for call blocking to discourage frivolous use of this option.
|
|
Finally, Healthcall thought that a full one-time refund, without question, to all first time 976 Service users with complaints represented a significantly cheaper option than the design and implementation of a call blocking mechanism.
|
|
Interveners also commented on the need to inform the public about charges associated with 976 Service and several complained about Bell's billing and collection procedures. In addition, two service providers took exception to the twenty second grace period that the Commission had ordered Bell to implement.
|
|
In its reply, dated 27 October 1988, Bell maintained its position that those wishing to avail themselves of call blocking in order to control the use of their telephone should pay for this service. Bell argued further that selective blocking or call controllers located at subscriber premises represented prohibitively expensive solutions. Finally, Bell noted initiatives taken to inform the public about 976 Service and described the steps it had taken to ensure appropriate billing and collection practices.
|
|
CONCLUSIONS
|
|
The Commission notes that Bell's letter of 11 October contains no new information with respect to the monitoring of subscribers' bills or the introduction of a twenty second grace period; nor did the company propose any other interim protective measures to take effect 7 December 1988 that would address the concerns raised by the Commission in its Letter Decision. For example, pending implementation of its notification procedure and twenty second grace period, Bell could have proposed to waive the 976 Service charges of subscribers who reasonably dispute the charges, as is done by telephone companies in many parts of the United States.
|
|
The Commission continues to be of the view that there is an immediate need for measures to protect subscribers from unexpected charges for 976 Service. In the absence of any new information from the company or any proposed means for addressing this concern, the Commission sees no reason to modify the direction contained in its letter of 8 September 1988. Accordingly, the deadline for implementation of the direction remains 7 December 1988.
|
|
In its letter, Bell also indicated that it would not be in a position to file tariffs for its proposed blocking service until 1 March 1989. The Commission notes that, for many of Bell's subscribers, the company is in a position to offer call blocking immediately. Specifically, Bell is technically able to offer call blocking to subscribers served by an electronic office or to those willing to accept a telephone number change to an electronic office. The latter is feasible for a subscriber served by a non-electronic switch that is collocated with an electronic switch.
|
|
With respect to the recovery of the costs of call blocking, the Commission considers that such costs should be borne primarily by the 976 Service and not by subscribers who wish to protect themselves from unforeseen 976 charges. Since it is the introduction of 976 Service that has necessitated the implementation of call blocking, the Commission considers that the costs of call blocking are causal to the 976 Service.
|
|
At the same time, the Commission considers that it would not be appropriate to provide call blocking at no charge, since this might lead to frivolous requests for call blocking. Therefore, the Commission considers that a nominal one-time charge of $10.00 should apply for call blocking for both electronic and non-electronic offices.
|
|
In light of the above, Bell is directed to file by 7 December 1988, with a proposed effective date of 7 January 1989, proposed tariff revisions providing:
|
|
(1) for each subscriber served by an electronic office, the option of blocking calls made to 976 telephone numbers within the subscriber's Area Code at a one-time charge of $10.00; and
|
|
(2) for each subscriber served by a non-electronic office who could be served by a collocated electronic office, the option of transferring service to an electronic office at no charge and blocking calls made to 976 telephone numbers within the subscriber's Area Code at a one- time charge of $10.00.
|
|
To the extent feasible, Bell is directed to file by 17 April 1989, with a proposed effective date of 17 May 1989, proposed tariff revisions providing all subscribers served by non-electronic offices the option of blocking calls made to 976 telephone numbers within the subscriber's Area Code at a one-time charge of $10.00. For those offices where this is not feasible, Bell is directed, by 17 May 1989, to implement blocking of all calls made to 976 telephone numbers, except those for which tariffed long distance charges apply.
|
|
Bell is also directed to submit, by 17 May 1989, an economic study for 976 Service, including the costs and revenues associated with call blocking.
|
|
Finally, the Commission approves Bell's proposals that regular users of 976 Service be permitted to bypass the twenty second grace period message and, upon request, be exempted from the notification process.
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
|
|
|