|
Telecom Order
|
|
Ottawa, 20 June 1994
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 94-687
|
|
IN THE MATTER of applications by AGT Limited (AGT) under Tariff Notice 357 dated 25 June 1993, Bell Canada (Bell) under Tariff Notice 4871 dated 6 August 1993 and Maritime Telegraph & Telephone Company Limited (MT&T) under Tariff Notice 380 dated 27 September 1993, as amended by Tariff Notice 380A dated 6 January 1994, for approval of tariff revisions providing for the introduction of a Name Display Feature for their respective Call Management Service (CMS) offerings.
|
WHEREAS in Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-67, Call Management Service - Introduction of Name Display Feature and revisions to Call Display Blocking Options, 4 November 1993, the Commission called for public comments on these tariff notices and, in particular, for comment on the privacy aspects of these tariff notices, as well as for comment on whether and if so, to what extent, the CMS tariffs of the carriers under Commission jurisdiction should be required to reflect uniform approaches with respect to privacy;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission received comments and reply comments from various parties, including a number of social service organizations and the telephone companies on the implications of the introduction of a service which displays the name associated with the calling line ("name display service");
|
|
WHEREAS AGT, Bell and MT&T (the telephone companies) filed economic studies and provided financial information with respect to various blocking options for the protection of calling party privacy;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission has considered the submissions received, including the comments of parties and the telephone companies with respect to the provision of information on the privacy implications of the number and name and number display and other CMS features;
|
|
WHEREAS a number of parties, including social service groups, presented concerns respecting the particular privacy interests of their organizations and client groups;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission has found in previous decisions that it is in the public interest to permit a service which displays the calling party's number to the called party, subject to certain privacy safeguards, including making free per call blocking available on request;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the display of the name, in combination with the number, to the called party raises concerns respecting the privacy of calling parties to a much greater degree than arises when number display only is provided;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that it is appropriate to establish a minimum standard respecting privacy features that a telephone company which offers name and number display services must offer, and that the tariff revisions required by this Order establish that standard;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the introduction of universal free per call blocking (UFPCB, whereby all subscribers' lines are equipped, without subscriber request to the telephone company, for the use of per call blocking) would provide enhanced privacy protection for calling parties;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the ability to replace the display of a subscriber's name with an anonymous term would allow calling parties to address privacy concerns they may have regarding the display of their name, in combination with their number;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission further considers that, for certain subscribers, free per line blocking of the display of their name and number should be made available;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that provisioning Call Trace on a universal basis would provide enhanced privacy protection for called parties, and is appropriate in an environment where the capability to block calls free on a per call basis is provisioned on a universal basis;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that telephone company concerns respecting possible subscriber misunderstanding of the rules respecting Call Trace can be addressed through the provision of information respecting this service;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes the submissions made by various parties that call return should not operate on blocked local calls;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers it appropriate to pursue this issue with Bell Canada, MT&T, BC TEL, Newfoundland Tel, Island Tel and NBTel through interrogatories which will be addressed to these parties;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that Bell has not provided sufficient information with respect to the signalling protocol used to transmit the calling name information to the networks of IXCs;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission does not consider it necessary to adopt AGT's proposal that Call Display and Name Display should not be used for the purpose of compiling lists for solicitation; and
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the above provisions would provide subscribers with the ability to select a means of protecting their privacy they consider most appropriate to address their concerns -
|
|
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
|
1. AGT Tariff Notice 357, Bell Tariff Notice 4871, MT&T Tariff Notices 380 and 380A are approved, subject to the following and to paragraph 2 below:
|
|
a) free per call blocking capability (blocking the display of the calling number and name) is to be provided to subscribers, on a universal basis (UFPCB);
|
|
b) in addition to the options for alternate names proposed by the telephone companies, subscribers are to be provided with the option of changing the name displayed, at no charge, so that "private name" is displayed;
|
|
c) free per line blocking (of the calling number and name) is to be made available to social service agencies (including crisis lines, community health clinics, shelters for victims of domestic violence and public law enforcement agencies) on request to the telephone company;
|
|
d) free per line blocking (of the calling number and name) is to be made available to subscribers identifying themselves as victims or potential victims of violence who consider that their personal security may be placed at risk if their name and number are displayed, on request to the telephone company;
|
|
e) free per line blocking (of name and number) is to continue to be made available to subscribers who cannot for technical reasons be provided with the blocking options described in (a) and (b); and
|
|
f) Call Trace is to be provided to subscribers, on a universal basis.
|
|
2. Item 210.3.17 of AGT Tariff Notice 357 (respecting the use of call display and name display to compile lists for solicitation purposes) is denied.
|
|
3. Each telephone company must clearly advise its subscribers of the privacy implications of its number and name (and number only) display services and provide instructions on how to use the blocking options available to them. Subscribers should be so advised through billing inserts that preceed the introduction of the name display service as well as through the telephone directory (in the normal course of publication) and through the availability of privacy brochures. Where promotional advertising is done for Custom Calling Features, the availability of blocking options must be featured clearly in all such advertising (including television advertising). Where written promotional material is distributed to customers respecting Custom Calling Features, the telephone companies must advise customers in the same material of the availability of blocking options and instructions on how to use these options.
|
|
4. Bell is to provide forthwith full disclosure of the additions or changes made to the CCS7 ISUP signalling specifications outlined in the JTC agreement in order to implement name display through IXC networks, and AGT and MT&T are encouraged to undertake testing of the JTC approved signalling arrangements with the script for name display as soon as possible.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
|
|
|