ARCHIVED -  Telecom Decision CRTC 95-20

Telecom Decision

Ottawa, 18 September 1995

Telecom Decision CRTC 95-20

YORK UNIVERSITY - PROVISION OF COMPETITIVE LOCAL PAY TELEPHONE SERVICE

I THE APPLICATION

On 15 March 1995, York University (York) filed an application, pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure, requesting approval of a restricted local pay telephone service on its main campus and Glendon College campus sites. In addition, York requested (1) an order requiring Bell Canada (Bell) to grant access to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) to facilitate provision of the service, and (2) an order, if required, defining the expression "network termination point" so as to exclude all connections from York's pay telephone terminals to the PSTN. As an alternative to the second order requested above, York requested immediate and unconditional forbearance in respect of the service on an interim basis, and an order exempting York from the application of the Telecommunications Act.

York stated that it would purchase, own, install, operate and maintain pay telephones that meet existing technical certification standards. The telephones would be configured to allow for only local calling at a discounted price of $0.20 per call, and would not be capable of providing directory assistance or of accepting any form of credit card, with the exception of debit cards issued to students and staff. In addition, the telephones would return coins on incomplete calls, and be hearing aid compatible and accessible by the physically challenged. In lieu of access to 911 emergency service, York would provide 24-hour coinless access to its emergency operations centre.

York indicated that it would maintain at least one pay telephone at all sites currently served by Bell on York property for at least as long as Bell maintained service at such locations. York also indicated that it would permit and encourage Bell to maintain at least one pay telephone at all current locations once York's contract for pay telephone service with Bell expires.

In York's view, consumer safeguard concerns, expressed by the Commission in previous decisions, either did not arise due to the restricted nature of the service to be offered or had been satisfactorily addressed.

II POSITIONS OF PARTIES

On 28 April 1995, Bell submitted that York's application was, in effect, an attempt to review and vary Competition in the Provision of Public Long Distance Voice Telephone Services and Related Resale and Sharing Issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 92-12, 12 June 1992 (Decision 92-12), Trunk-Side Access by Resellers to the Public Switched Telephone Network, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-8, 23 July 1993 (Decision 93-8), and Bravo Technologies Switzerland - Provision of Alternate Pay Telephone Service, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-16, 22 August 1994 (Decision 94-16).

In Bell's view, in Decision 92-12, the Commission permitted only carriers subject to the Telecommunications Act to provide long distance pay telephone service and only on the condition that such carriers had an approved operator services tariff. As well, the Commission required that access to the long distance services of the telephone companies and other interexchange carriers be made available via each other's pay telephone services.

Bell stated that, in Decision 93-8, the Commission specifically indicated that non-regulated service providers should not be permitted to provide pay telephone service.

Furthermore, Bell submitted that the Commission's finding in Decision 94-16 (i.e., that Bravo's proposal to provide a pay telephone service based upon a technology alternative was so narrow as to be inappropriate to examine in isolation from competitive pay telephone service in general) should apply equally to York's application, based upon a restricted service definition and specific geographical area.

Bell considered that the application neither addressed the requirements for pay telephone competition as set out in various Commission decisions, nor contemplated a competitive environment, as York had not indicated that other competitive pay telephone providers would be able to compete on York's campuses. According to Bell, the application appeared to propose a regime whereby York competed with a subset of Bell's pay telephone services, while Bell continued to be obligated to provide a full range of pay telephone services.

In the opinion of Bell, the proposed "no frills" service did not provide the fundamental components of public pay telephone service, including operator services, directory assistance, direct access to 911 emergency service, access to 1-800 numbers, access to long distance services, and alternative methods of payment. Accordingly, Bell submitted that York's application should be denied.

In reply, York noted that Decisions 92-12 and 93-8 both related principally to the issue of long distance competition by interexchange carriers and resellers, and tangentially to the issue of the competitive provision of pay telephone service for both local and long distance services. York stated that its application was solely to provide restricted local pay telephone service and, therefore, Bell's argument that it was a section 62 application to review and vary Commission decisions was not relevant.

York also stated that there has never been a legal or regulatory requirement for the owner of private property to allow pay telephone providers to compete on that property.

In York's view, its application responded to all of the relevant policy concerns expressed by the Commission over the years, and there was no legitimate legal or regulatory impediment to granting the application.

III CONCLUSIONS

The Commission continues to hold the view expressed in Decision 94-16 that it would be difficult to establish a workable regime that would provide for pay telephone competition in specific cases, such as the use of stored-value pre-paid cards or, as in this case, restricted local calling service, while continuing to prohibit other types of competitively provided pay telephones. Moreover, the Commission is concerned that York's proposed service does not adequately address the consumer safeguards previously enunciated by the Commission, especially with respect to operator services and direct access to 911 emergency service.

In Review of Regulatory Framework, Telecom Decision CRTC 94-19, 16 September 1994 (Decision 94-19), the Commission found as a general principle that barriers to entry in telecommunications should be removed and that increased competition in the local telecommunications market would be in the public interest. However, consistent with previous decisions relating to matters such as competition in the provision of pay telephone service, the Commission explicitly cited restrictions on entry related to consumer safeguards as an exception to this general principle. Consistent with Decision 94-19, the Commission finds that it would not be in the public interest to permit competition in local pay telephone service until a mechanism, including certification requirements, is in place to ensure the enforcement of consumer safeguards with respect to unregulated service providers. Accordingly, the application is denied.

On 11 July 1995, the Commission issued Implementation of Regulatory Framework - Local Interconnection and Network Component Unbundling, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-36 (Public Notice 95-36). One of the elements of this proceeding will be an examination of certification requirements for competing local exchange carriers, including, among other things, adoption of regulatory requirements related to consumer safeguards, access to 911 and relay services, privacy considerations and protection of confidential information.

The Commission is of the preliminary view that the resolution of certification issues for competing local exchange carriers, in the context of Public Notice 95-36, will be sufficient to address concerns that the Commission has identified with respect to local pay telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission expects to initiate a proceeding, following the establishment of general certification requirements, to consider permitting local pay telephone competition and to seek comment on whether such requirements would be sufficient or whether other safeguards would be required as a condition of allowing competition in this market.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General