ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 96-1157
This page has been archived on the Web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, 18 October 1996
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 96-1157
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF an application from Bell Canada (Bell) under Tariff Notice 5626 (TN 5626) dated 10 November 1995, proposing revisions to Item 24, Resale and Sharing, of the company's General Tariff (the resale and sharing tariff) pertaining to the provision of Calling Cards to resellers, rebillers and sharing groups.
|
|
WHEREAS Bell proposed to revise the resale and sharing tariff by: (1) restricting resellers' and sharing groups' customers to 800 access calling card arrangements; and (2) grandfathering the current 0+ access Calling Card arrangements of existing resellers' and sharing groups' customers;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell stated that this restriction was needed to ensure that calling cards provided by other service providers are differentiated from 0+ Calling Cards provided by Bell;
|
|
WHEREAS with respect to the grandfathering provision, Bell states that if the reseller, rebiller or sharing group chooses to alter the arrangement currently in place for its existing users or if the end user chooses a different service provider, the existing 0+ access Calling Card would be withdrawn;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell noted that the Commission has approved Rebiller Agreements which explicitly provide that rebillers are not entitled to provide 0+ Calling Cards;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that its position with respect to the provision of Calling Cards received extensive review in the proceeding which led to 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);
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that in Decision 92-12, the Commission accepted the telephone companies' position that Calling Cards were an integral part of their long distance service portfolio;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell noted that subsequent to Decision 92-12, many of its competitors have introduced their own cards, typically with 800 number access arrangements, that are clearly differentiated from the Calling Cards offered by Bell to its customers;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell also noted that equal access competitors have the option of providing their own calling card platforms and processing 0+ cards via equal access connecting arrangements;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell argued that the Calling Card arrangement in its own right is not a telecommunications service, but rather an arrangement available with many of the company's services to which premium charges apply pursuant to each individual service tariff;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell stated that in order to minimize confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace, there is an immediate requirement to establish a uniform policy with respect to the provision of Calling Cards and, accordingly, requested that the proposed tariff revisions be approved as quickly as possible;
|
|
WHEREAS, on 6 February 1996, the Commission addressed interrogatories to Bell;
|
|
WHEREAS comments were received from ACC TelEntreprises Ltd. (ACC), Argos Alliance inc. (Argos), Cam-Net Communications Inc. (Cam-Net), fONOROLA Inc. (fONOROLA), Posicom Inc. (Posicom), Unitel Communications Company (Unitel) (now called AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company) and Sprint Canada Inc. (Sprint);
|
|
WHEREAS interveners submitted that TN 5626 should be denied;
|
|
WHEREAS Posicom and other interveners submitted that TN 5626 is unduly discriminatory to service providers which have thus far received this arrangement from Bell;
|
|
WHEREAS interveners disagreed with Bell's view that 0+ Calling Card service is not a telecommunications service as defined under the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and cited sections of the Act and Railway Act, Bell's tariffs and previous Commission decisions to support their position;
|
|
WHEREAS interveners submitted that, accordingly, Calling Cards should be available on a non-discriminatory basis for resale purposes;
|
|
WHEREAS Posicom argued that approval of TN 5626 would be an approval of a fundamental change to the current resale and sharing policy and would establish a dangerous precedent;
|
|
WHEREAS Posicom and Cam-Net submitted that the Commission's ruling in Decision 92-12 dealt with the issue of access to calling card databases, not to Bell's Calling Card service;
|
|
WHEREAS interveners submitted that 800 access arrangements for calling cards are inferior to the existing 0+ access arrangements for calling cards;
|
|
WHEREAS ACC submitted that the telephone companies have a tremendous advantage with respect to calling cards due to the lack of ability of end customers of competitors to swipe their cards through the payphones provided by the telephone companies (swipe card access), the lack of access to the Calling Card database, as well as the lack of billing and collection arrangements;
|
|
WHEREAS ACC and other interveners submitted that a public process is required to review access to the Calling Card database, billing and collection arrangements, as well as swipe card access for calling cards offered by competitors;
|
|
WHEREAS several parties argued for swipe card access and/or equal access at the telephone company payphones for their calling cards;
|
|
WHEREAS Argos noted that U.S. carriers have swipe card access due to their reciprocity arrangements with Canadian telephone companies;
|
|
WHEREAS fONOROLA submitted that TN 5626 is clearly contrary to section 27(2) of the Act as Bell is seeking to reserve for itself all calling cards with a 0+ access arrangement;
|
|
WHEREAS ACC submitted that it would be inappropriate at this time to make a ruling with respect to TN 5626 without considering the broader implications for the calling card market;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell filed reply comments on 7 and 11 March 1996;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell noted that the Calling Card combines three separate components: (1) the 0+ functionality; (2) the access to Bell's database; and (3) the swiping functionality from some payphones;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that Posicom and Argos acknowledged that equal access competitors have the option of providing their own calling card platform and processing 0+ cards via equal access connecting arrangements;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell stated that it is prepared to route 0+ calls originating from its competitors' customers to such competitors;
|
|
WHEREAS, with respect to the swiping functionality, Bell submitted that this matter is not relevant to this proceeding and that, in any event, the Commission has established conditions that must be met by competitors to provide pay telephone services for the purpose of processing long distance calls;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that the Calling Card arrangement constitutes one of several payment options available to customers and, accordingly, is not a "telecommunications service" because it is not per se provided by means of "telecommunications facilities" as contemplated by section 2 of the Act;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that, in the same way a credit card purchase does not involve components fundamental to the item being acquired, a Calling Card arrangement is not incidental to the provision of a telecommunications service as the use of Calling Cards does not involve components or facilities fundamental to the provision of telecommunications services;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that, contrary to Posicom's allegations, it is not proposing that the Commission vary the resale and sharing policies established pursuant to the Commission's rulings;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that the Calling Card payment option is targeted primarily at the long distance market and used primarily for long distance calling and, accordingly, Bell is under no obligation to provide Calling Card functionality to its competitors;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that many payment alternatives to its Calling Cards are available, such as cards from competing Canadian carriers such as Unitel and Sprint and from resellers such as ACC; commercial credit cards, and a host of prepaid cards;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell clarified that existing technical arrangements provide for the necessary 0+ functionality should a competitor wish to use that form of access;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that there is no undue preference or discrimination as its Calling Card is already subject to competition from a number of other cards and 0+ access is also available to any equal access competitor;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that its proposal to grandfather existing cards is intended to minimize the short-term impact on end users, but that on a going forward basis the movement of end users to new services is the appropriate trigger to convert Calling Cards to an 800 access arrangement;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell noted that in York University - Provision of Competitive Local Pay Telephone Service, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-20, 18 September 1996 (Decision 95-20), the Commission stated its intention to initiate a new proceeding, following the establishment of general certification requirements for competing local exchange carriers, to consider the issues of public pay telephone competition;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that it would not be appropriate to address a public pay telephone issue in isolation, given the Commission's expectation that a public proceeding will examine the full scope of issues related to payphone competition;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell also submitted that a public notice proceeding is unnecessary and beyond the scope of the company's tariff notice;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that, consistent with their description in the Stentor National Services Message Toll Services Tariff, 0+ calling card arrangements are a billing mechanism;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that, consistent with previous determinations, because they are a billing mechanism, 0+ calling card arrangements are a telecommunications service as defined in the Act;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission agrees with Posicom that the company's application is an attempt to vary the Commission's resale and sharing rules pursuant to which resale and sharing are permitted for all telecommunications services offered by the telephone companies except where the tariff otherwise provides;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is not persuaded that the resale and sharing rules should be modified so as to prevent the availability of 0+ access arrangements to end users of resellers and sharing groups;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes Bell's argument that the 0+ Calling Card is a competitive tool which the company should be free to exploit without having to make it available to resellers and sharing groups in order to promote branding and market identity for the company;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission agrees with interveners that approval of Bell's application would confer an undue preference on the company given that: (1) 0+ access arrangements are a superior form of access as compared to 800 access arrangements since at the moment 800 access cards do not have swipe card access; and (2) end users of resellers and sharing groups would no longer have access to the 0+ cards, while other customers of Bell would;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission agrees with interveners that the lack of swipe capability for 800 access calling cards is a major disadvantage for competitors;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that it would be appropriate to address the issue of swipe card access before the initiation of the local pay telephone competition proceeding referred to in Decision 95-20;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that, at this time, swipe card access constitutes a bottleneck service component;
|
|
WHEREAS, in light of the competitors' requests, the Commission considers that Bell and the other Stentor companies should file a tariff within 90 days to provide competitive swipe card access, or to show cause why such access is impractical to offer or why a longer period is required to file such tariff;
|
|
WHEREAS, upon the resolution of swipe card access, the Commission would be prepared to reconsider the matter of resale and sharing of Bell's 0+ Calling Cards;
|
|
WHEREAS in its reply comments, Bell noted that it was a defendant in a patent infringement action brought by AT&T and Unitel relating to the technology used in its 0+ Calling Cards;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell submitted that if its application is denied, the Commission should direct that resale and sharing of the 0+ Calling Card is conditional on the resellers or sharing groups executing a comprehensive indemnity clause;
|
|
WHEREAS, in the Commission's view, the matter of an indemnity clause is a new issue on which parties did not have an opportunity to comment, given that it was introduced in the reply stage of the proceeding;
|
|
WHEREAS, in the circumstances, the Commission considers that this particular request should be denied at this time;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that the standard rebiller agreements of Bell and BC TEL approved by the Commission contain provisions which prevent resellers from being entitled to 0+ Calling Cards offered by the telephone companies;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that the treatment of 0+ Calling Cards was not specifically addressed in the proceedings leading to the Commission's disposition of those agreements; and
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the preliminary view that the provisions preventing resellers from having access to 0+ Calling Cards in the rebiller agreements are inconsistent with the directions in this Order, and that Bell and BC TEL should delete these provisions in their rebiller agreements -
|
|
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
|
1. The proposed tariff revisions submitted by Bell under Tariff Notice 5626 are denied.
|
|
2. Bell and BC TEL are directed to delete the provisions in their rebiller agreements pursuant to which resellers are not entitled to 0+ Calling Cards, or to show cause why such provisions should not be deleted.
|
|
3. Bell's request that resellers and sharing groups be required to execute indemnity clauses is denied.
|
|
4. Bell and the other Stentor companies are directed to file tariffs within 90 days for competitive swipe card access or to show cause why such access is impractical to offer or why a longer period is required to file tariffs.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: