ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 96-1229
This page has been archived on the Web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, 7 November 1996
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 96-1229
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF applications received from Bell Canada (Bell) under Tariff Notices 5685 dated 29 January 1996 and 5685A dated 7 February 1996, proposing revisions to General Tariff Item 1800, and from BC TEL under Tariff Notice 3444 dated 14 February 1996, proposing revisions to General Tariff Item 13.
|
|
WHEREAS Bell and BC TEL proposed revised conditions for unsolicited live voice and facsimile (fax) calls for the purpose of solicitation;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell and BC TEL proposed that the transmission of unsolicited facsimile messages for the purpose of solicitation be restricted to the hours between 9 A.M. and 9:30 P.M., Monday to Friday, and between 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sunday;
|
|
WHEREAS Bell and BC TEL proposed that the current interval in which telemarketers must remove a customer's name and telephone number from their calling lists for unsolicited live voice and fax solicitations be reduced from 30 to 7 calendar days following a customer's request to do so;
|
|
WHEREAS, in support of their applications, Bell and BC TEL stated that customer complaints received by the companies' service representatives regarding unsolicited faxes have increased significantly over the last three years;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission addressed interrogatories to Bell and BC TEL regarding their applications;
|
|
WHEREAS by Telecom Public Notice CRTC 96-10 dated 4 April 1996 the Commission invited comments on the companies' applications;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission received comments from Association des compagnies de téléphone du Québec inc. (ACTQ), the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre representing the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization and other B. C. consumers' groups (BCOAPO et al.), the Canadian Direct Marketing Association (CDMA), DFD Telebroadcasting Inc. (DFD), FAX Network, joint comments from Fédération Nationale des Associations de Consommateurs du Québec/Public Interest Advocacy Centre (FNACQ/PIAC) and from numerous individuals including those who own and/or operate small businesses;
|
|
WHEREAS ACTQ, BCOAPO et al., DFD and most other parties supported the proposed calling hour restrictions to be applied to unsolicited fax calls for purposes of solicitation, while FNACQ/PIAC suggested that the permitted calling hours be further restricted to the hours between 9 A.M. and 9 P.M. on weekdays;
|
|
WHEREAS CDMA endorsed the intent of the proposed changes, but expressed concern that restricting fax calling hours as proposed by Bell and BC TEL would force unsolicited faxes to be sent during regular business days by telemarketers who would not be able to take advantage of some of the more favourable long distance rates;
|
|
WHEREAS in reply to CDMA's concerns Bell and BC TEL stated that long distance discount plans are available to telemarketers and that fax calls placed outside of peak business hours would be eligible for discounts;
|
|
WHEREAS FNACQ/PIAC suggested that since telemarketing is carried out across time zones, the permitted calling hours should refer to those of the called party;
|
|
WHEREAS in response to the above suggestion, Bell agreed to amend its proposal to specify that the permitted unsolicited fax calling hours refer to those of the called party;
|
|
WHEREAS with respect to removal of customer names and numbers from calling lists, CDMA and DFD supported "do not fax" lists but expressed concern that depending on the equipment used, some companies may have difficulty in complying with a 7-day interval allowed for removal and suggested that more time may be needed;
|
|
WHEREAS the majority of comments from individuals/small businesses cited the inappropriate hours in which unsolicited faxes for the purpose of solicitation were received or the time taken to remove a called party's name and number from the soliciting party's list;
|
|
WHEREAS the majority of persons that addressed the companies' applications supported their proposals or advocated more restrictive hours and a shorter time frame allowed for "do not call" list changes;
|
|
WHEREAS with respect to unsolicited communications, section 41 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) states that: "The Commission may, by order, prohibit or regulate the use by any person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications to the extent that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression";
|
|
WHEREAS one of the policy objectives in section 7 of the Act is "to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons";
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission has considered how best to fulfil the intent of section 41 of the Act and achieve the objectives set out in section 7 in arriving at whether or not to impose greater restrictions on unsolicited fax or voice solicitations, while taking into account the legitimate uses of such communications;
|
|
WHEREAS in reviewing parties' comments the Commission has also taken into account the scope of the proposed restrictions and the guarantee of freedom of expression set out in the Charter;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that unsolicited fax calls cause greater inconvenience than unsolicited live voice calls since there is no means by which persons can interact with or hang up on the faxing party while the fax is being transmitted;
|
|
WHEREAS unsolicited fax transmissions require the use of recipients' own materials and equipment to deliver the unsolicited message;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that it is in the public interest to restrict unsolicited fax transmission for purposes of solicitation in view of the significant annoyance and inconvenience experienced by subscribers and in view of their difficulty to control the trend in receiving faxes at inappropriate hours and after they have requested to have their names removed;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the changes proposed by Bell and BC TEL balance the protection against undue inconvenience and nuisance and commercial freedom of expression;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that the proposed restrictions are limited to those situations which clearly cause undue inconvenience or nuisance as specified in section 41 of the Act;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that most parties, including consumer groups and the CDMA, support calling hour restrictions, and that there were no comments received from fax solicitors who flatly oppose such restrictions;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that the purpose and effect of the companies' proposed restrictions for unsolicited fax solicitations are not to restrict the content of the message, and that such solicitations could be delivered within the proposed hours or by other means;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission notes that the permitted hours proposed by Bell and BC TEL for unsolicited fax calls for solicitation allow fax callers time to take advantage of long distance discount plans;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the proposed hours are not unduly restrictive;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that since it is the called party that is being inconvenienced by the solicitation, it would be appropriate to provide due consideration to the called party in respect of fax calling hours;
|
|
WHEREAS with respect to removal of a party's name and number, the Commission notes that CDMA, DFD, FAX Network, FNACQ/PIAC and most other parties support reducing the time allowed for such delisting;
|
|
WHEREAS, while CDMA and DFD proposed that the time allowed for de-listing be greater than 7 days, the Commission considers that no compelling arguments were put forth in support of a longer time frame;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that it is in the interest of both the sender and the receiver of unsolicited fax solicitations that requests for removal be carried out expeditiously in order to reduce the aggravation experienced by the receiver and time spent by the originator in transmitting future faxes;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that the balance of interest should favour the fax recipient in his request not to be solicited;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that in view of the above, a 7-day interval is not an overly restrictive amount of time for removal of a name/number listing upon receiving a request to do so;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that reducing the interval from 30 days to 7 days will, in the case of a violation, permit the companies to act within a shorter time frame in enforcing the provisions in their current tariff concerning termination of service;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission will continue to monitor complaints regarding unsolicited fax solicitations and encourages the companies to do so, with a view to revisiting the issue in future if public annoyance continues to be significant;
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission considers that the proposed measures regarding unsolicited fax solicitations will send a signal to those engaged in such solicitations that calls placed at inappropriate hours and delays in removal of customer names are not in the best interests of the soliciting party and that disconnection provisions can be summarily applied to those who violate the companies' tariffs in this regard;
|
|
WHEREAS, in respect of live voice solicitations, few concerns were expressed in this proceeding regarding the time allowed for de-listing a customer's name and number; and
|
|
WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that unsolicited live voice solicitations are not at this time causing undue annoyance to the extent that the proposed tariff changes regarding de-listing should apply -
|
|
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
|
|
1. The permitted calling hours proposed by Bell and BC TEL for unsolicited fax messages for purposes of solicitation are approved, and that the permitted calling hours are to refer to those of the called party.
|
|
2. The period of 7 days proposed by Bell and BC TEL for removal of a customer's name and number from a fax calling list is approved.
|
|
3. With respect to unsolicited live voice solicitations, the proposed period of 7 days for removal of a customer's name and number from calling lists is denied. The de-listing period of 30 days, as currently stated in the companies' tariffs, shall continue to remain in effect.
|
|
4. Bell and BC TEL are directed to issue, forthwith, tariff pages reflecting the changes stated above.
|
|
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General |
|
|
- Date modified: