Search

ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 95-520

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 28 April 1995
Telecom Order CRTC 95-520
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Sprint Canada Inc. (Sprint), dated 13 September 1994, relating to practices by Bell Canada (Bell) in relation to the ARGOS sharing group; and
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel), dated 16 September 1994 relating to practices by AGT Limited (AGT), BC TEL, Bell, The Island Telephone Company Limited, Manitoba Telephone System (Manitoba Tel), Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, The New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited and Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (collectively, the telephone companies) in relation to the ARGOS and Posicom sharing groups.
WHEREAS Sprint requested that the Commission determine whether the provision of service by Bell to the ARGOS sharing group is in compliance with Commission decisions with respect to sharing groups;
WHEREAS Sprint requested that, if the ARGOS arrangements do not comply with the Commission's sharing group rules, Bell be ordered to cease offering services to the sharing group as presently structured;
WHEREAS Unitel submitted that the telephone companies are not complying with the rules for sharing groups, as established in Sharing Groups, Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 93-13, 19 August 1993, (Letter Decision 93-13); Applications re Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 93-13, Telecom Letter Decision CRTC 93-15, 22 October 1993 (Letter Decision 93-15); Sharing Groups, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-12, 8 July 1994 (Decision 94-12); and Telecom Order CRTC 94-876, 27 July 1994 (Order 94-876);
WHEREAS Unitel requested that the Commission order the telephone companies to cease billing and collecting directly from sharing group members, and designate an inspector, pursuant to section 71 of the Telecommunications Act, who would (1) investigate all sharing group arrangements in which the telephone companies are involved in order to determine if they are in compliance with the Commission's sharing group rules, and (2) verify compliance with these rules on an ongoing basis;
WHEREAS, on 17 October 1994, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) filed an answer to both applications on behalf of the telephone companies;
WHEREAS Stentor opposed the remedies requested by Unitel, suggesting that (1) the Commission's decisions prior to Order 94-876 were open to interpretation, (2) the telephone companies had interpreted those decisions as permitting them to directly bill and collect from sharing group members on behalf of sharing group administrators, and (3) the telephone companies began to modify the billing and collection arrangements of all sharing groups immediately after the Commission's restatement of the rules in Order 94-876;
WHEREAS Stentor advised that, since the release of Order 94-876, each of the telephone companies has taken steps to ensure that any new sharing group is in full compliance with that Order;
WHEREAS Stentor also advised that each of the telephone companies was implementing measures with regard to sharing groups in existence prior to Order 94-876 in order to ensure that they would be in full compliance by 15 November 1994;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that, by that date, the telephone companies would no longer be billing or collecting directly from any sharing group members or assuming liability for any shared services;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that, in the interim, no new members were being added to groups not yet in compliance;
WHEREAS, in a response dated 14 November 1994 to a Commission interrogatory, Stentor reiterated that, as of 15 November 1994, all sharing groups identified therein would conform to the Commission's rules;
WHEREAS that response indicated that new members were added to some non-complying sharing groups in September and October and as late as 1 November 1994;
WHEREAS, in that response, Stentor advised that the telephone companies were continuing to review their records, and that any additional non-complying sharing groups identified would be brought into compliance immediately;
WHEREAS, in its reply of 18 November 1994, Sprint suggested that, notwithstanding previous Commission decisions, the telephone companies are disregarding the Commission's sharing group rules;
WHEREAS Sprint asked the Commission, among other things, for an order re-affirming that telephone companies cannot give to a sharing group administrator volume discounts that deviate from those specified in their tariffs, and that the telephone companies cannot aggregate a sharing group's inbound and outbound calls for the purpose of determining usage/volume discounts;
WHEREAS, in Letter Decision 93-13, which applied to all of the telephone companies except AGT and Manitoba Tel, the Commission found that, in their dealings with the telephone companies, sharing groups should be in the position of a single customer and should assume the same responsibilities and liabilities for services rendered;
WHEREAS, in Letter Decision 93-13, the Commission also found that, in their dealings with sharing groups, the telephone companies should not retain responsibilities vis-à-vis individual sharing group members that are characteristic of their relationship with individual customers;
WHEREAS the Commission also found that (1), at a minimum, a sharing group must be treated as a single customer for the purposes of billing, collection and liability for services rendered, and (2) the telephone companies must bill a representative of the group directly for all services obtained by the group's members and, in turn, the group representative must be responsible for billing and collecting from group members;
WHEREAS, in Letter Decision 93-13, the Commission ordered the respondent telephone companies to ensure, within 60 days, that existing sharing groups conformed to that Letter Decision;
WHEREAS the Commission directed that, effective immediately, no additional members were to be added to existing groups that did not conform and that no new non-conforming groups were to be formed;
WHEREAS, by letter dated 2 September 1993, Stentor requested an extension of time for bringing existing sharing groups into compliance, suggesting, among other things, that (1) the period provided was insufficient to make the changes necessary to comply with Letter Decision 93-13, (2) the sharing groups in question had been structured in accordance with the then existing rules, and (3) Letter Decision 93-13 had changed the status quo;
WHEREAS, in Letter Decision 93-15, the Commission noted that the direction in Letter Decision 93-13 that, at a minimum, a sharing group must be treated as a single customer for purposes of billing, collecting and liability for services rendered was made in order to clarify, for the telephone companies and for existing and potential sharing groups, what constitutes a legitimate sharing group arrangement under the existing rules;
WHEREAS, in Letter Decision 93-15, the Commission granted the telephone companies an additional 32 days to ensure that existing sharing groups conformed to Letter Decision 93-13, and reiterated that, in the interim, no new sharing groups that did not conform were to be formed and no additional members were to be added to existing non-conforming groups;
WHEREAS, in Decision 94-12, the Commission found that an affiliate of a telephone company that provides service to the sharing group may not be a member of the sharing group and may not function as the "customer" on behalf of the sharing group, but may be retained by the group to perform billing and collection services;
WHEREAS, in Order 94-876, the Commission found that (1) consistent with Letter Decision 93-13, as confirmed in Letter Decision 93-15 and Decision 94-12, BC TEL and Manitoba Tel could not bill and collect directly from individual sharing group members, (2) the payment of a monthly or annual fee for billing and collection does not represent a sufficient change in the relationship between subscribers and the telephone company, and (3) BC TEL and Manitoba Tel were not in compliance with Letter Decision 93-13;
WHEREAS the Commission has dealt on numerous occasions with matters related to compliance by the telephone companies with the Commission's sharing group rules, and is concerned with the telephone companies' longstanding non-compliance with those rules;
WHEREAS the Commission notes that the rates, terms and conditions of service set out in the telephone companies' tariffs, including those rated to usage and volume discounts, apply equally to sharing groups, unless specified otherwise;
WHEREAS the Commission intends to monitor and ensure the telephone companies' compliance with (1) the sharing group rules, and (2) their tariffs, as they are applied to sharing groups;
WHEREAS the Commission notes that it has given final approval to tariffs filed by Manitoba Tel and interim approval to an agreement filed by Bell governing the provision to sharing group administrators of information with which to bill and collect from sharing group members; and
WHEREAS the Commission considers that all the telephone companies should have tariffs in place governing the provision of such information to sharing group administrators -
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The telephone companies are to disclose in writing to the Commission, within 30 days of this Order, the identity of the sharing group administrator and all details regarding arrangements concerning billing, collection and liability for members' unpaid bills for each sharing group referred to in Stentor's interrogatory response of 14 November 1994, as well as for any other sharing group in existence at the time of the report.
2. On an ongoing basis subsequent to the filing of the report noted in paragraph 1, the telephone companies are to notify the Commission forthwith, in writing, of the creation of any new sharing groups, providing the information specified in paragraph 1.
3. On an ongoing basis, the telephone companies are to notify the Commission forthwith in writing of any changes in the arrangements with regard to the matters specified in paragraph 1, above, for any sharing group, whether formed prior to or subsequent to the report ordered in that paragraph.
4. The relationship between a telephone company and individual sharing group members is to be limited to what would occur between the telephone company and the customers of a reseller.
5. In their dealings with sharing groups, the telephone companies are to adhere to their approved tariffs and to applicable Commission rulings in all respects, including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing) rates charged, billing and collection, and liability for services rendered.
6. Those telephone companies that are providing services to sharing groups and have not filed tariffs for the provision to sharing group administrators of information with which to bill and collect are to do so within 30 days of this Order.
7. Commencing 60 days from this Order, the telephone companies referred to in paragraph 6 are to disclose to sharing group administrators only the billing information specified in approved tariffs.
8. The telephone companies are to advise the Commission within 30 days of any objection they may have to this and all other Commission rulings regarding sharing groups being made orders of the Federal Court, pursuant to subsection 63(1) of the Telecommunications Act.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: