|
|
|
Ottawa, 4 November 1993
|
|
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-67
|
|
CALL MANAGEMENT SERVICE - INTRODUCTION OF NAME DISPLAY FEATURE AND REVISIONS TO CALL DISPLAY BLOCKING OPTIONS
|
|
Reference:
|
|
AGT Tariff Notice 357
Bell Tariff Notice 4871
MT&T Tariff Notice 380
|
|
I COMMISSION REQUEST FOR COMMENT
|
|
The Commission has received applications from AGT Limited (AGT), Bell Canada (Bell) and Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited (MT&T) for approval of tariff revisions providing for the introduction of a name display feature for their respective Call Management Service (CMS) offerings.
|
|
CMS currently provides a number display which permits a customer to see the calling party's telephone number on a special instrument attached to the customer's telephone line. With the proposed new feature, AGT and Bell would provide customers with the option of also being able to see the name associated with the telephone number from which the incoming call is placed, while MT&T would provide a single CMS offering that displays both name and number. AGT and Bell also included in their applications specific revised call display blocking proposals that would apply to both name and number displays.
|
|
Further details of the companies' proposals are set out below. Interested parties are invited to comment on any or all of these proposals.
|
|
As was the case with the introduction of the number display feature of CMS, the introduction of a name display feature raises privacy concerns for both called and calling parties. All three companies have addressed these concerns in their applications.
|
|
The Commission has previously considered the issue of the competing privacy interests of called and calling parties in the context of the introduction of the number display feature. While they differ as to specifics, the Commission is satisfied that the approaches it has approved for each telephone company represent an acceptable balance between the interests of called and calling parties, and telephone subscribers in general.
|
|
The applications of AGT and Bell indicate that they have taken into account approaches and experience elsewhere in the country as well as in their own operating territories. In the case of AGT, the company indicated that a rationale for its call display blocking proposal is that it will provide greater consistency with the approach to call display blocking approved by the Commission for other Canadian telephone companies. In support of its application, Bell refers to market research conducted by Stentor Resource Centre Inc. respecting calling number display in Alberta.
|
|
In light of the above, in the context of commenting on privacy aspects of the applications, interested parties are also invited to comment on whether and if so to what extent the CMS tariffs of the carriers under its jurisdiction should be required to reflect uniform approaches.
|
|
II NAME DISPLAY PROPOSALS
|
|
The applicant companies view the name display feature as an enhancement to the existing number display that would improve customer recognition of the calling party, thereby giving the customer more information upon which to decide how, or whether, to answer an incoming call.
|
|
For residential customers in Bell territory, the name display feature would display the main directory listing associated with the telephone number from which the call is placed. For residential customers in AGT territory, the name displayed would include a last name of an individual in the calling household. The last name would be displayed first, and names longer than 15 characters, including spaces, would be abbreviated. MT&T's application provided no details as to the name that would be displayed.
|
|
Both AGT and Bell proposed that, for business customers, the maximum 15 character name displayed would be uniquely identifiable with that business. Subject to certain restrictions, residential and business customers could request a modification to the name that would be displayed when they placed a call. The companies proposed not to charge for the first time a name change is requested.
|
|
Both Bell and AGT indicated that, like other CMS features, the name display feature would be made available to their customers subject to limitations in the switching technology used to serve their particular exchange.
|
|
Bell and AGT also proposed several customer notification strategies, including billing inserts to subscribers prior to the introduction of the name display feature, print advertising and brochures, modification of user guides and directories on a going forward basis, and letters to non- published customers on the implications of name display and its impact on their service.
|
|
In response to consumer concern about the use of personal information by businesses for purposes of solicitation, AGT proposed to include a provision in its name display tariff that would prohibit businesses from using the service to compile lists for purposes of solicitation.
|
|
Both AGT and Bell proposed to charge an additional monthly rate of $2.00 for the name display option. In the case of Centrex CMS Service, AGT stated that, since it could not offer name display as a separate option at this time, it would include it as a standard feature of the service at no extra cost. MT&T proposed that the rate for its CMS service, which would include name display as part of the basic offering, be increased by $1.00 per month.
|
|
Finally, AGT proposed amendments with respect to the provision of free market trials of various CMS features, while Bell proposed provisions whereby, subject to certain conditions, customers may receive the name display option free as part of an introductory offer.
|
|
III CALL DISPLAY BLOCKING PROPOSALS
|
|
A. AGT's Proposal
|
|
AGT currently provides selective call display blocking, which allows callers to block display of their telephone number on a per-call basis, and total call display blocking, which allows callers to block display of their telephone numbers on all outgoing calls (on a per-line basis). Both options are provided free of charge to AGT customers on request.
|
|
Coincident with the introduction of name display, AGT proposed to make free per-call blocking available on demand to all subscribers without receipt of a prior request. AGT also proposed to restrict free per-line blocking to law enforcement agencies, women's shelters, customers identifying themselves as victims or potential victims of violence, and customers that cannot, for technical reasons, be provided per-call blocking. Customers who already have per-line blocking would keep the use of that feature as long as they maintain their telephone service at their present location. AGT further proposed to expand alternate number display, an option that displays another number in lieu of the originating number, so that the alternate number may be any number currently used by the customer within the same local calling area as the originating number. AGT also noted that customers with non-published numbers will automatically be given free per-call blocking before name display is introduced. Finally, AGT proposed that Call Return would be inoperable when the incoming call originates from a line which has call display blocking activated.
|
|
AGT indicated that its trial results support its position that universal per-call blocking is an effective solution to privacy concerns. AGT also stated that universal provisioning of selective call blocking would reduce administrative costs associated with individual requests for selective call blocking, be less costly to implement than free total call blocking on request and is supported by the majority of customers. AGT noted that its universal call trace option, which permits a customer to initiate a request to investigate the identity of the last incoming call, would ensure that anonymous harassing calls using selective call display blocking could still be traced.
|
|
In support of its proposal to limit total (per-line) call display blocking on a going forward basis, AGT submitted, among other things, that most of the growth it has experienced in the demand for total call display blocking has come from business customers. AGT considered that, if this growth in demand continues, one of the significant benefits of CMS, the ability of customers to avoid unsolicited calls from businesses, would be lost. AGT further indicated that its research suggests that, with the introduction of name display, a sufficiently high percentage of customers would avail themselves of a per-line blocking option offered without charge that, notwithstanding the public interest benefits of introducing name display, its viability would be jeopardized. In this connection, AGT also noted that revenue from CMS is expected to provide an increasingly important source of contribution to the local/access shortfall.
|
|
B. Bell's Proposal
|
|
In Bell's operating territory, a calling party wishing to maintain anonymity currently has several options. Per-call blocking is provided free of charge to customers who have requested to have it made available on their lines. Per-line blocking is available free of charge to certified shelters for victims of domestic violence and where per-call blocking is temporarily not available for technical reasons. All new customers with non-published telephone numbers are provided with per-call blocking. Bell also offers an operator assisted blocking option and a number replacement option similar to AGT's alternate number delivery.
|
|
In its filing, Bell proposed to continue providing the above options and to extend free per-call blocking universally to all customers served by capable DMS switches. The existing display blocking arrangements, which prevent the transmittal of the calling number, would do the same with respect to the calling name. Finally, Bell proposed that, as is currently the case with respect to the calling party's number, the calling party's name would not be available through use of the Call Return feature.
|
|
In support of its proposal, Bell stated that it conducted market research studies, met with a number of customer groups, and monitored Call Display-Name activities and market trials in other telephone companies in Canada and the United States. In response to suggestions for extended availability of per-line blocking, Bell stated that it believes universal free per-call blocking strikes a better balance between the needs of the calling and called party because it provides choice and flexibility while maintaining the value and functionality of the Call Display service.
|
|
C. MT&T's Proposal
|
|
MT&T proposed to continue with its current call display blocking arrangements. As an additional privacy protection measure, the company proposed to automatically suppress the calling numbers of all customers with non-published telephone numbers and to suppress both their names and numbers on request.
|
|
MT&T's proposed service is currently available on a trial basis in the metro Halifax and Yarmouth areas. In support of its application, the company cited the comparatively low incidence of customer complaints over privacy in its operating territory.
|
|
IV PROCEDURE
|
|
1. The mailing address to be used in connection with this proceeding is:
|
|
Mr. Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
CRTC
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Fax: 819-953-0795
|
|
The record of the proceeding will be available for public inspection at the offices of the CRTC in the following locations:
|
|
Room 201
Central Building
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
1 Promenade du Portage
Hull, Quebec
|
|
Suite 1007
Bank of Commerce Building 1809 Barrington Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
|
|
Suite 1920
Place Montréal Trust
1800 McGill College Avenue
Montréal, Québec
|
|
Suite 820
Standard Life Centre
121 King Street west
Toronto, Ontario
|
|
Suite 1380
800 Burrard Street
Vancouver, British Columbia.
|
|
2. A copy of each company's application may be obtained by any interested person upon request directed to the company in question at the address shown below:
|
|
Mr. James H. Pratt
Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
AGT Limited
31st Floor
10020-100 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 0N5
Fax: 403-493-6577
|
|
Mr. B.A. Courtois
Vice-President
(Law & Regulatory Affairs)
Bell Canada
105 Hôtel-de-Ville Street
6th Floor
Hull, Quebec
J8X 4H7
Fax: 819-778-3437
|
|
Ms. Wendy J. Paquette
Regulatory & Government Relations Manager
Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited
P.O. Box 880
Station M
Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3J 2W3
Fax: 902-421-1538
|
|
3. Persons who wish to comment, but who do not wish to participate in this proceeding as registered parties, may do so by writing to the Commission any time prior to 14 January 1994. A copy must also be sent to the company or companies in question at the address noted above.
|
|
4. Persons wishing to participate as registered parties to this proceeding must notify the Commission in writing of their intention to do so by 2 December 1993. Registered parties will be required to serve copies of their comments on all other registered parties. The Commission will issue a complete list of registered parties and their mailing addresses.
|
|
5. Registered parties may address interrogatories to one or more of the applicants, serving a copy on the Commission, by 2 December 1993.
|
|
6. The applicants are to file responses to any interrogatories, serving copies on all other registered parties, by 23 December 1993.
|
|
7. Registered parties may file comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other registered parties, by 14 January 1994.
|
|
8. Registered parties may file reply comments with the Commission, serving copies on all other registered parties, by 24 January 1994.
|
|
9. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, it must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
|
|