ARCHIVED -  Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-44

Telecom Public Notice

Ottawa, 26 September 1995

Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-44

TARIFFS FOR EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH SERVICE ENTITIES

I INTRODUCTION

On 19 May 1995, the Commission presented its report, Competition and Culture on Canada's Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition, to the government in accordance with Order in Council P.C. 1994-1689, 11 October 1994. This report was the result of a public proceeding, initiated by Public Notice CRTC 1994-130, 20 October 1994.

In that report, the Commission stated that "many educational institutions made submissions in this proceeding that focused on what they find to be the high costs for telecommunications. Stentor considered that its shareholders might support preferential tariffs for education and health services. Further, Stentor indicated that it would be reasonable for its shareholders to make an investment in the development of applications that will be available on the information highway, such as those directed to providing a superior level of distance education."

The Commission went on to state that it "considers that, in certain circumstances, telecommunications service tariffs that discriminate in favour of educational or health service entities may be desirable, and not anti-competitive. This would be the case if criteria are developed to determine, among other things, who should benefit from the discrimination. It would also have to be demonstrated that other subscribers are not asked to pay more, and that the prices charged cover the costs. This last criterion would ensure that pricing for educational or health service entities is not detrimental to the development of a fully competitive marketplace." The Commission then indicated that it intended to seek comment on a proposal based on these criteria.

II DIRECTIONS TO FILE PROPOSALS

The Commission considers it appropriate that AGT Limited (AGT), BC TEL, Bell Canada (Bell), The Island Telephone Company Limited (Island Tel), Manitoba Telephone System (Manitoba Tel), Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (MT&T), The New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited (NBTel) and Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited (Newfoundland Tel) (the Stentor companies) file proposals reflecting the terms on which they consider telecommunications services should be offered so as to discriminate in favour of educational or health service entities. Therefore, the Commission directs the above noted Stentor companies to file such proposals in accordance with the procedure set out below.

The Commission is aware that the Stentor companies have been engaged in ongoing consultations on issues relating to the use of telecommunications services by the educational sector with the organizations involved in that sector. The Commission considers that, to the extent possible, it would be desirable to develop common terms and conditions for any preferential tariffs, and so encourages the companies to file a common submission through Stentor Resource Centre Inc.

The Commission notes that, with the exception of ED TEL, the form of regulation for the independent telephone companies (the independents) which came under its jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Attorney-General of Quebec et al v. Téléphone Guèvremont Inc. is currently under consideration. Although the form of regulation for the independents has not yet been determined, the Commission encourages them to provide their views on the issues under consideration in this proceeding.

In addition, the Commission considers it appropriate that ED TEL, Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel) and Telesat Canada (Telesat) provide their views in this proceeding with respect to preferential tariffs for educational and health entities and to file proposals reflecting those views. Therefore, ED TEL, Northwestel, Telesat are directed to provide their views and to file their proposals, as noted above, in accordance with the procedure set out below.

All proposals should reflect the criteria set out in the Convergence Report, as noted in the Introduction of this Public Notice. It is the Commission's preliminary view that the criterion that "prices charged cover the costs" requires that (a) with respect to the Stentor companies, the imputation test applicable to competitive services be met in respect of such services offered under any preferential tariff, and (b) with respect to ED TEL, Northwestel and Telesat, services whose rates now recover causal costs should continue to do so under any preferential tariff.

The companies directed to file proposals are also requested to include in their submissions their views on the issues set out below.

1. All Companies

(a) the criteria which should apply to determine who should benefit from the discrimination, and the basis on which those criteria were developed;

(b) a discussion of possible tariffing approaches, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and the company's preferred approach;

(c) a discussion of whether it would be appropriate to permit resale of services offered under any preferential tariff;

(d) a list of the company's current tariffs, including tariff item numbers, which provide for preferential treatment to educational or health service customers and a discussion of whether those tariffs satisfy the criteria and approach put forth by the company in its proposal; and

(e) a list of persons consulted in the preparation of the company's proposal.

2. Stentor companies

(a) the companies' views on how the criterion that "the prices charged cover the cost" should be satisfied, including the companies' discussion of the Commission's preliminary view that the imputation test set out in Review of Regulatory Framework - Targeted Pricing, Anti-Competitive Pricing and Imputation Test for Telephone Company Toll Filings, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-13, 13 July 1994, as modified by Review of Regulatory Framework, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, 16 September 1994 (Decision 94-19), must be met in respect of competitive services offered under any preferential tariff;

(b) a discussion of how the criterion that "other subscribers are not asked to pay more" could be satisfied with respect to each of the Utility and Competitive segment services, including a discussion of whether it is appropriate to put in place preferential tariffs for Utility segment services, given the desirability of reducing the Utility segment shortfall; and

(c) a discussion of whether and, if so, how it would be appropriate to modify the Commission's approach to customer-specific tariffs, primarily involving elements from the general tariff, which bundle services tailored to a particular customer's needs (the second type of arrangement set out in Decision 94-19, pages 105 and 106) to provide the companies with increased regulatory flexibility.

3. ED TEL, Northwestel and Telesat

(a) a discussion of how the Commission's criterion that "other subscribers are not asked to pay more" should be satisfied in its operating territory; and

(b) the company's views on how the criterion that "the prices charged cover the cost" should be satisfied, including its discussion of the Commission's preliminary view that this criterion entails that services whose rates now recover causal costs should continue to do so.

III PROCEDURE

1. AGT, BC TEL, Bell, ED TEL, Island Tel, Manitoba Tel, MT&T, NBTel, Newfoundland Tel, Northwestel and Telesat (the carriers) are made parties to this proceeding.

2. Other parties wishing to participate in the proceeding must notify the Commission of their intention to do so by writing to Mr. Allan J. Darling, Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, fax: 819-953-0795, by 24 October 1995. The Commission will issue a complete list of parties and their mailing addresses.

3. The carriers are to file proposals with the Commission, serving copies on all other parties, by 27 November 1995.

4. Parties may address interrogatories to the carriers on the proposals filed pursuant to paragraph 3. Any such interrogatories must be filed with the Commission and served on the carrier or carriers in question, by 18 December 1995.

5. Carriers are to file responses to any interrogatories, serving copies on all other parties, by 15 January 1996.

6. All parties may file comments, serving copies on all other parties, by 5 February 1996.

7. All parties may file replies to any comments, serving copies on all other parties, by 26 February 1996.

8. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General