ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 96-1522

This page has been archived on the Web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, 23 December 1996
Telecom Order CRTC 96-1522
IN THE MATTER OF an application filed by Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) on behalf of BC TEL, Bell Canada (Bell), The Island Telephone Company Limited (Island Tel), Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (MT&T), The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited (NBTel), NewTel Communications Inc. (NewTel) and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), (formerly AGT Limited) to review and vary Provision of Directory Database Information and Real-time Access to Directory Assistance Databases, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-3, 8 March 1995 (Decision 95-3), and White Directory - Application to Review and Vary Decision 95-3, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-14, 27 June 1995 (Decision 95-14), as amended by Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001, 25 June 1996; and
Reference: 96-2375
IN THE MATTER OF the application of Decisions 95-3 and 95-14, as amended, to MTS NetCom Inc. (MTS) and Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel).
Reference: 95-1063
WHEREAS, in Decision 95-3, the Commission ordered BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, MT&T, NBTel, NewTel and TCI to issue general tariffs making non-confidential residential and business listing information available in machine-readable form, unbundled on an exchange-level basis [hereafter referred to as Directory File Service (DFS)];
WHEREAS, in Decision 95-3, the Commission required the above-noted companies to implement various measures to inform subscribers as to the provision of directory listing information to third parties and to permit them to remove their information from listings provided to third parties (the delisting mechanism);
WHEREAS the Commission also found that, subject to the resolution of certain issues, it was in the public interest that the above-noted companies offer mediated real-time access (MRTA) to their directory assistance databases;
WHEREAS, on 28 March 1995, White Directory of Canada Inc. (White Directory) filed an application pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act requesting that the Commission review and vary Decision 95-3 so that the delisting mechanism would not apply to independent telephone directory publishers who use non-confidential listing information solely to compile, produce, publish and distribute telephone directories, on condition that the listing information not be resold, rented or otherwise disposed of to any other third party;
WHEREAS, in Decision 95-14, the Commission denied White Directory's application, with Commissioners F. Bélisle, D. Colville and P. Senchuk dissenting in writing;
WHEREAS, in their dissent, Commissioners Bélisle, Colville and Senchuk stated, among other things, that they would have granted the relief sought by White Directory;
WHEREAS, on 25 August 1995, Southam Inc., Thomson Newspapers Company Limited, White Directory and Koocanusa Publications Inc. filed a petition with the Governor in Council requesting that Decision 95-14 be varied to require that the companies make available to them the same non-confidential residential listing information that they provide to their directory publishing affiliates for the purpose of producing telephone books, on condition that the listing information not be resold, rented or otherwise disposed of to any other third party;
WHEREAS, by letter dated 17 July 1995, the Commission delayed the implementation of all directions and orders in Decisions 95-3 and 95-14, pending the disposition of the petition;
WHEREAS, in Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001, the Governor in Council varied Decision 95-14 by substituting for the majority decision the minority decision included therein;
WHEREAS, by letter dated 29 July 1996, the Commission issued directions to the companies as to the implementation of (1) a full list DFS for the provision of listing information to independent directory publishers, (2) a delisted DFS for the provision of listing information to parties other than independent directory publishers, and (3) MRTA to their directory assistance databases;
WHEREAS Stentor filed its application to review and vary on 22 August 1996, requesting that the companies not be required (1) to file interim and final tariffs for the provision of delisted DFS for parties other than independent directory publishers, (2) to implement delisted DFS, with the associated delisting mechanism, within 120 days of a customer request for the service, and (3) to file proposed tariffs for MRTA;
WHEREAS, by letter dated 27 September 1996, the Commission granted Stentor's request of 6 August 1996 for a stay with regard to the implementation of delisted DFS and MRTA;
WHEREAS, in its application to review and vary, Stentor stated, among other things, that its request was based on a fundamental change in circumstances or facts since Decisions 95-3 and 95-14 were issued;
WHEREAS Stentor submitted that demand for both delisted DFS and MRTA would be limited;
WHEREAS, with regard to MRTA, Stentor stated, among other things, that interest in the service appears to have diminished since the proceeding leading to Decision 95-3 and that companies with which it had consulted showed little or no serious interest in the service;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that the original request for MRTA from Rogers Cantel Inc. (Cantel) had been motivated by Cantel's inability to flow through charges to its customers requesting directory assistance, and that Cantel now bills its customers directly for directory assistance, eliminating cost recovery as a reason for it to require MRTA;
WHEREAS Stentor submitted that Decision 95-3 stated that carriers using MRTA would have access only to a delisted directory assistance database, and that MRTA based on a delisted database would not be attractive to potential customers;
WHEREAS Stentor stated that the level of compensatory rates for MRTA would eliminate any interest in or demand for the service;
WHEREAS the Commission received comments from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), Clearnet Communications Inc. (Clearnet), Microcell Telecommunications Inc. (Microcell) and Cantel, who opposed Stentor's application and expressed interest in MRTA;
WHEREAS Cantel rejected Stentor's statement that potential providers of operator services expressed interest in a wholesale operator services product and that this would imply that they would not want MRTA;
WHEREAS Cantel submitted that it has requested MRTA and is waiting to see the tariff before it proceeds;
WHEREAS Cantel stated that it wants the flexibility that MRTA offers and the cost savings it expects from having access to the service;
WHEREAS CWTA expressed a similar view;
WHEREAS Cantel acknowledged that, as with any new service, a carrier must estimate demand in order to develop a tariff;
WHEREAS Cantel agreed that, if the proposed terms, conditions or rates for MRTA are unreasonable, they would be challenged through the regulatory process;
WHEREAS Clearnet, Microcell and CWTA were of the view that neither Decision 95-3 nor Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001 limits carriers to MRTA to a delisted database;
WHEREAS Cantel submitted that the Commission, in compliance with the spirit of Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001, should direct that the companies not implement a delisting mechanism for MRTA to directory assistance databases;
WHEREAS, in reply, Stentor emphasized, among other things, that expressions of interest fall short of any commitment to use MRTA, and that no proof of demand has been demonstrated by the parties;
WHEREAS Stentor submitted that the Commission should clarify whether the delisting mechanism applies to MRTA;
WHEREAS Stentor also submitted that the Commission should require interested parties to submit forecasts of their demand for MRTA to serve as a starting point for the economic studies required to support proposed rates;
WHEREAS the provision of primary exchange service by the telephone companies has generally included a listing in the directory, the provision of White and Yellow Pages Directories and the availability of the subscriber's telephone number through directory assistance;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that subscribers currently expect that, unless they request an unlisted number, their telephone numbers will be published in the telephone companies' directories and will be available through directory assistance;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that subscribers can be considered to have consented to these uses if they initiate service without requesting an unlisted number;
WHEREAS Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001 adopted the position of those Commissioners dissenting from Decision 95-14;
WHEREAS those Commissioners were of the view that, if individuals release their names for the purpose of being published in a telephone directory, it does not matter whether publication is in one directory or in several directories;
WHEREAS Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001 stated that privacy safeguards should be cost-effective and competitively neutral and should not unduly interfere with the introduction of new services;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that to apply the delisting mechanism to MRTA would be inconsistent with the above;
WHEREAS, with regard to Stentor's request that rates be made interim from the date of service introduction in order to ensure that costs are recovered, the Commission notes that it has the option of giving such approval to proposed rates filed by the companies;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that interveners have demonstrated evidence of demand for the service;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that Stentor has not established a change in facts or circumstances with regard to demand for MRTA;
WHEREAS the Commission therefore considers that Stentor's request that the companies not be required to file proposed tariffs for MRTA should be denied, but that Decision 95-3 should be varied to require the provision of MRTA on a full list basis;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that privacy safeguards or other conditions on access to MRTA can be considered when proposed tariffs are filed, but that, in order to ensure that use of the information is consistent with the purpose for which the subscriber provided it, conditions should provide that information accessed via MRTA is to be used only in the provision of directory assistance;
WHEREAS the Commission considers the filing of demand forecasts for MRTA unnecessary;
WHEREAS the Commission considers with regard to DFS that Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001 has created two services, when the intent of Decision 95-3 was to create only one;
WHEREAS none of the interveners commented on Stentor's application as it relates to delisted DFS, other than Microcell who stated that the companies should make it available;
WHEREAS, in light of the above, the Commission considers that Stentor has established a fundamental change in facts or circumstances with regard to DFS, and that Decision 95-3, as amended, should be varied so that the companies are not required to file tariffs for the provision of a delisted DFS for parties other than independent directory publishers;
WHEREAS, in Manitoba Tel and Northwestel - Provision of Directory Database Information and Real-time Access to Directory Assistance Databases, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-16, 6 April 1995 (Public Notice 95-16), the Commission requested comments on whether Decision 95-3 should apply to MTS and Northwestel;
WHEREAS, by letter dated 5 October 1995, the Commission deferred consideration of the applicability of Decision 95-3 to MTS and Northwestel pending the outcome of the petition then before Cabinet;
WHEREAS, in the proceeding initiated by Public Notice 95-16, MTS submitted that Decision 95-3 should apply to it;
WHEREAS Northwestel submitted with regard to DFS that while its exclusive provision of non-confidential listings to Tele-Direct (Services) Inc. (Tele-Direct) confers a preference on Tele-Direct, that preference is not undue or unreasonable;
WHEREAS Northwestel indicated that it did not at the time have an agreement that would permit Tele-Direct to sell Northwestel's listing information to third parties;
WHEREAS Northwestel stated that, in recent years, demand for listings from alternative directory publishers has been negligible, and maintained that this situation is likely to continue in view of the small number (about 45,000) of White page listings in its territory;
WHEREAS Northwestel expressed concern that implementing DFS would cause it to incur costs that would exceed revenues;
WHEREAS Northwestel stated that, with changes to its data systems, it was unable to estimate development and on-going costs for DFS at the time;
WHEREAS Northwestel stated that the provision of a listing service to alternative directory publishers would erode the company's advertising revenues, which contribute to the local/access shortfall;
WHEREAS Northwestel submitted that the Commission's findings with regard to revenue erosion in Bell Canada - Provision of Telephone Directory Data Base Information in Machine-readable Form, Telecom Decision CRTC 90-12, 14 June 1990, are inapplicable to Northwestel;
WHEREAS, for the above reasons, Northwestel submitted that the provision of directory database information in machine-readable form was not in the public interest at the time;
WHEREAS, with regard to MRTA, Northwestel stated that the 30-day time frame for the filing of proposed tariffs specified in Decision 95-3 was inadequate, since it shares area codes with BC TEL, Bell and TCI, cannot handle all long distance directory assistance calls with respect to its operating area, and would require additional time to make the necessary arrangements, to determine costs and to develop rates;
WHEREAS Northwestel also submitted that the technical specifications required and the development of a tariff for MRTA would be affected by major changes to its data systems;
WHEREAS Northwestel submitted that there was no need to offer MRTA until at least the earlier of the effective date of a cellular access tariff or of a carrier access tariff permitting message toll service competition;
WHEREAS AT&T Canada Long Distance Service Company (AT&T Canada LDS) (formerly Unitel Communications Inc.) submitted that the provision of MRTA should not depend on the state of cellular and message toll service competition in Northwestel's operating territory, since there would be a need for competitive providers of long distance services to provide directory assistance and therefore to have access to Northwestel's database;
WHEREAS AT&T Canada LDS submitted that Northwestel had not clearly demonstrated why its circumstances are significantly different from those of the other telephone companies;
WHEREAS Northwestel submitted in reply that customers of southern-based telephone companies and competitive carriers currently have access to Northwestel's directory
listings through directory assistance operators from BC TEL, Bell and TCI;
WHEREAS Northwestel stated that customer requests from within Northwestel's operating area for a number that is in both the same area code and operating area are handled by its operators, unless the request originates in area code 819 in the eastern Northwest Territories outside Iqaluit, where it is handled by Bell;
WHEREAS Northwestel stated that it understood that access to MRTA will be by area code and that all three of its area codes are not unique to it;
WHEREAS Northwestel stated that it would have to make arrangements with BC TEL, Bell and TCI, as MRTA would have to be offered through these companies with regular input of listing information from Northwestel or its affiliate;
WHEREAS Northwestel stated that changes to its directory assistance system are expected to occur in the first quarter of 1997 and that it should not be required to provide listings for MRTA until after these changes to its data systems are made;
WHEREAS Tele-Direct has the same exclusive access to Northwestel's listings that it had to the listings of other telephone companies;
WHEREAS, in the Commission's view, Northwestel has not provided satisfactory evidence that advertising revenues would be seriously eroded by the presence of alternative directory publishers;
WHEREAS Decision 95-3 contemplates that final rates for DFS will be compensatory and will apply retroactively to the date of service introduction;
WHEREAS the Commission finds therefore that Northwestel has not established that the preference given to Tele-Direct with respect to access to listing information is not undue;
WHEREAS the Commission generally considers with regard to DFS that Decision 95-3, as amended by Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001 and by the Commission's determinations with regard to Stentor's application to review and vary, should apply to MTS and Northwestel;
WHEREAS, given that Northwestel has a small subscriber base and a large number of exchanges, the Commission considers that the interim rates prescribed in Decision 95-3 for DFS may not be appropriate for Northwestel;
WHEREAS it may be appropriate that Northwestel investigate arrangements with Tele-Direct that would provide an efficient and cost-effective means for it to deliver DFS;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that, in other respects, the implementation procedures specified with respect to DFS are generally appropriate for MTS and Northwestel;
WHEREAS the Commission considers with regard to MRTA that Decision 95-3 as amended by Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001 and by the Commission's determinations with regard to Stentor's application to review and vary should apply to MTS;
WHEREAS the Commission approved a cellular access tariff for Northwestel in Telecom Order CRTC 95-734, 30 June 1995, to take effect 20 November 1995;
WHEREAS the Commission considers that MRTA to the directory assistance databases applicable to Northwestel's operating territory could be made available through arrangements between Northwestel and BC TEL, Bell and TCI; and
WHEREAS the Commission considers that Northwestel should be given time to complete the necessary negotiations with BC TEL, Bell and TCI -
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Decision 95-3, as amended by Order in Council P.C. 1996-1001, is varied (a) to delete any requirements related to the provision by BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, MT&T, NBTel, NewTel and TCI of a delisted DFS for parties other than independent directory publishers, and (b) to delete any requirement for a delisting mechanism applicable to MRTA to the companies' directory assistance databases.
2. BC TEL, Bell, Island Tel, MT&T, MTS, NBTel, NewTel and TCI are to file proposed tariffs for the provision of MRTA to full list directory assistance databases, with supporting economic studies, 24 March 1997.
3. The above-noted companies are to include in their supporting economic studies a sensitivity analysis that assumes that demand for MRTA may vary by plus or minus 30% from the base scenario.
4. Northwestel is to initiate negotiations with BC TEL, Bell and TCI with a view to filing, by 23 April 1997 a proposal, for the provision of MRTA to databases used in the provision of directory assistance with regard to listings for Northwestel subscribers.
5. If Northwestel is unable to file a proposal as specified in paragraph 4, it is to file a status report on the progress of its negotiations and development efforts.
6. MTS and Northwestel are to issue, by 22 January 1997, interim tariffs for the provision of full list DFS to independent directory publishers at the interim rates specified in Decision 95-3.
7. As an alternative to paragraph 6 above, Northwestel may file, by 22 January 1997, proposed interim tariffs specifying alternative interim rates, with supporting economic rationale, for the provision of full list DFS to independent directory publishers.
8. Interim tariffs referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 above are to provide that DFS will be available within 120 days of the date that the company first receives a request for the service or within 120 days of the date of this Order, whichever is later.
9. Coincident with the availability of DFS, MTS and Northwestel are to file proposed final tariff pages, setting out proposed final rates, with supporting economic studies.
10. If MTS or Northwestel is not in a position to file proposed final rates at the time DFS is first made available under interim tariffs, they may file instead proposals for the development and filing of such rates.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: