ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 95-1438
This page has been archived on the Web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, 28 December 1995
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 95-1438
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF a Part VII application by Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) dated 1 June 1995, to apply Telecom Order CRTC 95-316 (Order 95-316) to certain federally regulated carriers.
|
|
WHEREAS on 2 August 1994 the Commission issued Consumer Safeguards for Operator Services, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 94-35 (Public Notice 94-35);
|
|
WHEREAS, in its application, Stentor requested that the Commission direct Mobility Canada, Rogers Cantel Inc., Rogers Network Services, Sprint Canada Inc. (Sprint), Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel), Vidéotron Télécom ltée, and Westel Network Services Ltd. (Westel) (collectively, the Respondents) to amend their tariffs, service contracts or otherwise, to reflect the provisions of Order 95-316 regarding the provision of operator services;
|
|
WEREAS in its application Stentor noted that, in Public Notice 94-35, the Commission is on record as having a preliminary view that uniform consumer safeguards governing the provision of operator services should apply to all carriers under its jurisdiction that offer competitive long distance services;
|
|
WHEREAS Stentor further noted that Order 95-316 ensures that there are consumer safeguards only for operator services provided by Stentor members, Unitel, and operator service providers using Stentor facilities;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission received comments from Rogers Cantel Inc., Rogers Network Services, and Vidéotron Télécom Ltée;
|
|
WHEREAS, in its reply comment, Stentor sought to expand its application to all federally-regulated carriers;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is still of the view that uniform safeguards for consumer protection with respect to the provision of operator services are necessary;
|
|
WHEREAS in Forbearance - Services Provided By Non-Dominant Canadian Carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-19, 8 September 1995 (Decision 95-19), the Commission stated that it considered it to be in the public interest that it continue to exercise its powers and perform its duties in connection with operator services;
|
|
WHEREAS in Regulation of Wireless Services, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-15, 12 August 1994 (Decision 94-15), the Commission had previously decided to forebear from the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties under section 25 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) with respect to cellular services, with the exception of cellular services being provided by a telephone company directly rather than through a separate affiliate;
|
|
WHEREAS, in light of Decision 95-19, if the Respondents themselves provide operator services otherwise than as part of cellular services, such activity would be subject to the requirement of section 25 of the Act that the services be offered pursuant to approved tariffs;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission need not make any further Order in that regard at this time;
|
|
WHEREAS, in light of Decision 94-15, if operator services are provided as part of cellular operations carried on within a telephone company, such an activity would also be subject to section 25 of the Act;
|
|
WHEREAS, Order 95-316 has already addressed those circumstances and telephone companies ought to have complied therewith, and filed appropriate tariffs in relation to operator services provided as part of cellular operations carried on within a telephone company;
|
|
WHEREAS, in light of Decision 94-15, if the Respondents themselves provide operator services as part of their cellular services, the providing of such services would not be subject to section 25 of the Act;
|
|
WHEREAS in Decision 94-15 the Commission did not forebear from exercising its powers and the performance of its duties under section 24 of the Act with respect to cellular services;
|
|
WHEREAS with respect to the Respondents themselves providing operator services as part of their cellular services, the Commission can impose, pursuant to section 24 of the Act, as a condition of offering and providing such services, the implementation of consumer safeguards consistent with those contemplated in Order 95-316;
|
|
WHEREAS in Order 95-316 telephone companies (as defined in that Order) were directed to negotiate contracts with operator service providers for services and facilities used in the provision of operator services;
|
|
WHEREAS those contracts are to provide, among other things, that when cases of abuse arise the Commission may direct federally-regulated carriers to discontinue the provision of access and related services to operator service providers;
|
|
WHEREAS Order 95-316 applies to cellular operations provided within a telephone company which is subject to that Order;
|
|
WHEREAS with respect to the facilities and services of the Respondents being used by third parties for the provision of operator services, the Commission can impose, pursuant to section 24 of the Act, as a condition of offering and providing such services, the implementation of consumer safeguards consistent with those contemplated in Order 95-316, including the provision for the discontinuance of service in the case of abuse, to be incorporated in contracts between Respondents and operator service providers;
|
|
WHEREAS only the Respondents, and not all federally-regulated carriers, had proper notice of Stentor's application;
|
|
WHEREAS it would be inappropriate to issue a determination applicable to federally-regulated carriers other than the Respondents without further process;
|
|
WHEREAS Westel has undergone a corporate reorganization whereby Westel is a canadian carrier; and
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission has determined that it is in the public interest to order Télébec ltée, Québec-Téléphone, Westel, ED TEL Communications Inc. (ED TEL) and fONOROLA Inc. (fONOROLA) to show cause why consumer safeguards consistent with those contemplated in this Order and in Order 95-316 should not apply both when they themselves provide operator services, and when their services and facilities are used by others to provide operator services -
|
|
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
|
1. Pursuant to section 24 of the Act, as a condition of offering and providing operator services as part of existing or future cellular services, Mobility Canada (including member companies), Rogers Cantel Inc., Rogers Network Services, Sprint , Unitel, Vidéotron Télécom Ltée, and Westel are to implement in their service contracts with their respective customers, prior to offering and providing such operator services, binding consumer safeguard obligations which are to be consistent with those contemplated in Order 95-316;
|
|
2. Pursuant to section 24 of the Act, as a condition of offering and providing the use of their respective telecommunication services to third party operator service providers, Mobility Canada (including member companies), Rogers Cantel Inc., Rogers Network Services, Sprint, Unitel, Vidéotron Télécom Ltée, and Westel are to implement, prior to offering and providing such use, binding consumer safeguard obligations which are to be consistent with those contemplated in Order 95-316, and which are to be incorporated in contracts between the Respondents and the said operator service providers;
|
|
3. The contracts referred to in paragraph 2 are to specify that, when cases of abuse arise, the Commission may direct federally-regulated carriers to discontinue provision of access and related services to the said operator service providers;
|
|
4. Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Télébec ltée, Québec-Téléphone, Westel, ED TEL and fONOROLA are to show cause why consumer safeguards consistent with those contemplated in this Order and in Order 95-316 should not apply both when they themselves provide operator services, and when their telecommunication services are used by others to provide operator services.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: