ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 95-1309
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Telecom Order |
|
Ottawa, 24 November 1995
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 95-1309
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF an application by BC TEL under Tariff Notice 3299 dated 28 April 1995 for tariff revisions providing for the compression of 22 rate bands to 7 for both business and residence services.
|
|
WHEREAS, under BC TEL's proposal, there would be no increase in rates for 33% of residence customers while the rest would experience increases ranging from 3% to 39%;
|
|
WHEREAS for 54% of business customers there would be either no increases or decreases of up to 18%, while for the rest there would be increases ranging from 2% to 85%;
|
|
WHEREAS BC TEL sent written notification of its proposal to all customers affected;
|
|
WHEREAS slightly over 1,800 responses were filed, of which approximately 91% opposed the application;
|
|
WHEREAS BC TEL noted that, in Telecom Order CRTC 94-656, the Commission denied BC TEL's application to add Rate Group 22 because it did not reflect the trend towards greater similarity in the value of service across rate groups nor was it consistent with rate group consolidation;
|
|
WHEREAS other telephone companies have undertaken or are in the process of undertaking rate band compression;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that, in all cases, however, these other telcos have undertaken rate band compression on a phased basis to avoid rate shock;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that to approve this application, as filed, would result in excessive rate increases for some customers which would not be in the public interest; and
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that using approaches similar to those approved for other Stentor companies is consistent with the public interest -
|
|
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
|
BC TEL's application filed under Tariff Notice 3299 is denied.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: