|
|
|
Ottawa, 4 February 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-109
|
|
In Rates for Unlisted Number Service and Related Issues, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 97-31, 27 August 1997 (PN 97-31), the Commission requested comment on various issues identified in its Report to the Governor in Council on Directory Subscriber Listings and on Unlisted Number Service, 23 December 1996 (the Report).
|
|
|
File No.: 8665-C12-01/97
|
|
1. The Commission made BC TEL, Bell Canada (Bell), The Island Telephone Company Limited (Island Tel), Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (MT&T), MTS NetCom Inc. (MTS), The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited (NBTel), NewTel Communications Inc. (NewTel), Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel) and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) (collectively, the telephone companies) party to the proceeding.
|
|
2. In this Order, the term "unlisted number service" includes non-published service (omission for a monthly fee of a listing from both the telephone directory and the directory assistance database) and non-listed service (omission of a listing from only the directory, also for a monthly fee).
|
|
3. The Commission notes that current monthly rates for unlisted number service range from $1.55 (MTS) to $5.75 (MT&T), that NBTel provides free per-line blocking to unlisted number subscribers, and that Island Tel and MT&T make free per-line blocking available to non-published number service subscribers on request.
|
|
4. Consistent with the Report, in PN 97-31, the Commission requested comment on (1) the appropriateness of its preliminary view that rates for unlisted number service should be based on costs plus mark-up, (2) whether or not rates so established should apply to unlisted numbers for both business and residence subscribers, (3) issues related to any increase in directory assistance costs associated with increased demand for unlisted number service, including how any increased costs should be recovered, (4) the appropriateness of requiring those telephone companies that do not already do so to permit installment payments for charges applicable to a change in telephone number when the subscriber switches from listed to unlisted number service, and (5) the degree of flexibility that subscribers should have in specifying how their listings will appear in telephone directories and in directory assistance databases.
|
|
5. Pursuant to PN 97-31, the telephone companies filed preliminary information with regard to rates for unlisted number service and the associated costs and revenues, including proposed rates and supporting economic studies.
|
|
6. In their preliminary submissions, BC TEL and Bell filed proposals that would reduce their rates for unlisted number service to $3 per month for residence subscribers only, while NBTel proposed the introduction of a new "basic" unlisted number service (i.e., without per-line blocking) for residential subscribers at a rate of $1.95 per month. The other telephone companies proposed to maintain existing monthly rates for unlisted number service.
|
|
7. The Commission received submissions from Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) on behalf of the telephone companies; the Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance (CBTA); the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), on behalf of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs du Québec and the National Anti-Poverty Organization; the Public Interest Law Centre, on behalf of the Consumers' Association of Canada (Manitoba) and the Manitoba Society of Seniors; the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta; the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario; the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec; and various individuals and businesses.
|
|
8. Stentor opposed cost-based rates for unlisted number service. Stentor submitted that both business and residence customers would be best served by rates determined by market forces, but added that the privacy concerns identified in the Report do not typically apply to business customers.
|
|
9. Stentor noted that subsection 7(i) of the Telecommunications Act states that a Canadian telecommunications policy objective is to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons, but submitted that to establish rates for unlisted number service based on Phase II costs plus mark-up would reflect an undue emphasis on this objective, to the neglect of other equally important section 7 objectives.
|
|
10. Stentor argued, among other things, that rates for unlisted number service are substantially lower than rates for other discretionary services with significant penetration rates (for example, basic and full cable television services), and submitted that this provides evidence that unlisted number service is not priced beyond the financial reach of subscribers.
|
|
11. Stentor submitted, among other things, that the telephone companies already provide considerable flexibility with regard to how subscribers' listing information appears, and that to introduce additional flexibility would risk making directories ambiguous or difficult to use.
|
|
12. With regard to applicable service charges, Stentor submitted, among other things, that the telephone companies' current policies concerning installment payments are appropriate.
|
|
13. PIAC and other parties supported a low cost-based rate for unlisted number service, with some parties arguing that ideally there would be no charge for the service.
|
|
14. CBTA and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario submitted, among other things, that rates for unlisted number service should be the same for both business and residence subscribers.
|
|
15. PIAC and other parties generally supported maximum or complete flexibility for subscribers as to how their listings appear in the directory and in directory assistance databases, as well as the availability of installment payments for service charges associated with changing from listed to unlisted service.
|
|
16. The Commission finds correct the preliminary view expressed in the Report that increased availability of listing information in electronic form, especially combined with information from other sources, poses a threat to personal privacy. The Commission considers that privacy concerns such as those identified in its Report pertain primarily to residence subscribers.
|
|
17. The Commission notes Stentor's submission that there are numerous methods other than unlisted number service by which consumers can enhance their privacy, including the use of flexible directory listings, and that the Commission need not focus its attention narrowly on unlisted number service.
|
|
18. The Commission considers that the alternatives to unlisted number service cited by Stentor, while useful in many respects in protecting the customer's privacy, do not fully address concerns related to the various uses that can be made of directory listing information, especially directory listing information provided in electronic form.
|
|
19. With regard to the issue of directory listing flexibility, the Commission notes Stentor's submission that, since the primary purpose of the directory is to provide network users with easy and positive identification of subscriber telephone numbers, the degree of flexibility allowed to enhance privacy must be limited to some extent to maintain the usefulness of the directory.
|
|
20. Stentor also argued that the telephone companies must have the ability to determine which subscriber listings are acceptable in order to prevent the use of confusing or misleading listings.
|
|
21. The Commission considers that the telephone companies generally provide an appropriate degree of flexibility with regard to the way subscribers' listings appear in directories and directory assistance databases, and that the telephone companies should retain some discretion as to the minimum amount of information that appears in listings in order to ensure that the information in directories is useful.
|
|
22. The Commission encourages the telephone companies to provide as much flexibility as possible, but considers that affording subscribers complete flexibility as to how their listings appear in directories and in directory assistance databases could undermine the usefulness of the directory and complicate the provision of directory assistance.
|
|
23. PIAC submitted that there is no justification for wide disparities in the pricing of unlisted number service, or for differences such as the provision in some cases of per-line blocking along with the service, the availability of installment payments and options for listing flexibility. PIAC submitted that the same pricing, service attributes and options should apply across the board, unless a company can justify a departure.
|
|
24. The Commission considers PIAC's suggestion as it pertains to listing flexibility to be inconsistent with the concept of permitting the telephone companies to exercise some discretion with regard to directory listings. The Commission notes that subscribers who consider that the telephone companies have exercised their discretion inappropriately have the option of complaining to the Commission. The Commission has in the past received very few complaints in this regard.
|
|
25. In light of the above, the Commission does not consider that directory listing flexibility should be considered a substitute for unlisted number service.
|
|
26. The Commission considers that, in the current environment, the only effective way for subscribers to control dissemination of their listing information may be to subscribe to unlisted number service.
|
|
27. Stentor submitted that, with local competition, competitors would likely recognize privacy-concerned consumers as an attractive market niche, and compete through offerings that include unlisted number service. Thus, in Stentor's view, market forces can be expected to put downward pressure on prices.
|
|
28. CBTA submitted that, while it generally favours reliance on the marketplace, the market for unlisted number service may not be competitive for some time.
|
|
29. The Commission considers that, in the long-term, local competition will exert downward pressure on rates for unlisted number service, but also considers that local competition may take time to develop fully and that the Commission should not in the more immediate term rely on market forces alone to address concerns associated with rates for unlisted number service.
|
|
30. In the Report, the Commission expressed the preliminary view that a cost-based rate for unlisted number service would provide an acceptable compromise, taking into account privacy concerns, as well as the potential revenue impact of a reduced rate, and given that the use of the telecommunications system is enhanced by having subscriber listing information readily available.
|
|
31. Based on the information filed in this proceeding, the Commission considers that to set a cost-based rate would fail to take adequate account of considerations such as the usefulness of a reasonably complete directory and the revenue impact of reduced rates.
|
|
32. However, given increasing personal privacy concerns, the Commission also considers it inappropriate that monthly rates for unlisted number service for residence subscribers remain at levels that were established in the past with a view to maximizing revenues available to subsidize basic residential service.
|
|
33. Taking into account the increasing privacy concerns, as well as factors such as the revenue impact of reduced rates for unlisted number service and the contribution that readily available subscriber listing information makes to the usefulness of the network, the Commission considers it appropriate that the telephone companies provide an unlisted number service at a rate that does not exceed $2 per month for residence subscribers.
|
|
34. PIAC opposed NBTel's introduction of a new "basic" unlisted service, and urged the Commission to require those telephone companies that do not already do so to provide automatic call blocking with unlisted number service.
|
|
35. The Commission notes that per-call blocking is provided free of charge by the telephone companies.
|
|
36. The Commission notes Stentor's submission that the telephone companies' service representatives typically advise customers on the availability of per-call blocking and, where per-line blocking is not provided with unlisted number service, alert customers accordingly.
|
|
37. The Commission notes that, in previous rulings, it has required the provision of per-line blocking, free of charge to various social service agencies and, in certain circumstances, to individual subscribers. Other than as specified in those rulings, the Commission considers it reasonable to expect subscribers to unlisted number service to take responsibility for the security of their unlisted numbers by using per-call blocking.
|
|
38. Except as described above, the Commission therefore does not consider it appropriate to require the telephone companies to provide per-line blocking with unlisted number service.
|
|
39. In light of the above, the Commission considers MTS' existing rate for unlisted number service of $1.55 per month to be appropriate.
|
|
40. The Commission also considers appropriate NBTel's proposal to introduce a new "basic" unlisted number service, which does not include per-line blocking, at $1.95 per month. The introduction of this service will provide a choice to subscribers, while making unlisted number service more readily available to subscribers.
|
|
41. The Commission notes that MT&T and Island Tel also make per-line blocking available free of charge on request to non-published number service customers, while telephone companies other than Island Tel, MT&T and NBTel do not make free per-line blocking available with unlisted number service.
|
|
42. The Commission considers it appropriate that Island Tel and MT&T have the option of either (1) continuing to provide their existing unlisted number services at a reduced rate that does not exceed $2 per month for residence subscribers, or (2) retaining a service that includes per-line blocking at the existing rate while also providing a service for residence subscribers that does not include per-line blocking at a rate that does not exceed $2 per month.
|
|
43. PIAC submitted that unlisted subscribers should have the option, free of charge or at a rate significantly lower than regular unlisted service, of having their names appear in the telephone book with the notation "unlisted", arguing that this option would generate lower directory assistance costs. In reply, Stentor noted, among other things, that this option would not meet the customer's privacy needs in most cases.
|
|
44. The Commission does not consider the record of the proceeding sufficient to warrant directing the telephone companies to make such an option available.
|
45. In Implementation of Price Cap Regulation - Decision Regarding Interim Local Rate Increases and Other Matters, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-18, 18 December 1997 (Decision 97-18), the Commission noted that the decision in this proceeding would likely have an impact on going-in revenue requirements under price cap regulation, and accordingly made rates for unlisted number service (for telephone companies other than Northwestel) interim effective 1 January 1998.
|
|
46. Accordingly, rate revisions approved in this Order for telephone companies other than Northwestel are to take effect 1 January 1998.
|
|
47. In Decision 97-18, the Commission also stated that there may be some minor adjustments to the interim rates for basic residential service approved in that Decision.
|
|
48. The Commission considers that any billing adjustments necessitated by this Order should be undertaken with adjustments that may be required as a result of the final ruling contemplated in paragraph 58 of Decision 97-18, and will provide details as to the implementation of those adjustments in that final ruling.
|
|
49. PIAC submitted that service charges associated with switching from listed to unlisted number service should be as low as possible, and that any service charges over $20 should be subject to installment payments.
|
|
50. Stentor submitted, among other things, that the telephone companies' current policies regarding installment payments are appropriate, and that it was unaware of any evidence to suggest that the current service charges are beyond the financial reach of subscribers or play any substantial role in consumers' decision to subscribe to unlisted number service.
|
|
51. Stentor argued that the service charges are generally low and that, when charges are low, the availability of installment payments is of little benefit to subscribers.
|
|
52. With regard to the service charges applied by the various telephone companies, the Commission notes that the underlying costs can vary from company to company, and that the tariffs of the various telephone companies are structured somewhat differently. Service charges have traditionally been below cost, and in recent years the telephone companies have been filing proposals to bring the charges closer to costs. However, in the case of some telephone companies, service charges may not accurately reflect the underlying costs.
|
|
53. In light of the above, the Commission considers that variations in the level and applicability of service charges are to be expected.
|
|
54. In this context, the Commission notes that, for some telephone companies, the charge applicable to a change in telephone number is the same as the charge for a new installation without a premises visit. MTS, NBTel and NewTel do not apply a service charge when the customer changes to unlisted number service without a change in telephone number, while TCI makes installment payments available to the customer for the applicable service charge.
|
|
55. While the charges that do apply when a customer switches to unlisted number service without a change in telephone number are generally low, the Commission notes that the charge applied by one company ($25), exceeds the charge applied by some telephone companies for a new installation without a premises visit ($22 and $22.55).
|
|
56. The Commission notes that no party to the proceeding filed evidence to indicate whether or not the current level of service charges constitutes a deterrent to subscribers wishing to change from listed to unlisted number service.
|
|
57. However, in light of increasing privacy concerns, the Commission considers it important to ensure that service charges do not constitute a deterrent to subscribers wishing to change from listed to unlisted number service.
|
|
58. In addition, the Commission is concerned that these charges may rise in future, in which instance, any deterrent effect they might have on subscribers would increase, as would the usefulness to subscribers of the availability of installment payments.
|
|
59. Accordingly, the Commission considers it appropriate that the telephone companies make installment payments available for service charges applicable to switching from listed to unlisted number service, regardless of whether or not the subscriber's telephone number is changed.
|
|
60. In this proceeding, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario suggested that all telephone companies be required to make the availability of privacy-enhancing options known to the public through billing inserts. Other parties commented on the need to ensure that information is available to consumers. Stentor replied, among other things, that the public is well aware of privacy enhancing options, and submitted that the costs associated with options such as the sending of billing inserts would not be commensurate with the additional degree of consumer awareness generated.
|
|
61. In its Report, the Commission stated that it considered it appropriate that the telephone companies send billing inserts to residence subscribers and establish a 1-800 number through which subscribers may obtain information as to the use of listing information, the possible implications for their privacy, and the means by which they can protect their privacy, including the ability to have their names removed from lists provided to third parties by directory affiliates and the availability of unlisted number service. The Commission considered that these measures were more appropriately implemented after the conclusion of the proceeding to re-examine rates for unlisted number service.
|
|
62. In light of the above, the Commission orders that:
|
|
(a) Northwestel is to issue, by 16 February 1998, revised tariff pages with an effective date of 1 March 1998 specifying a rate for unlisted number service for residence subscribers that does not exceed $2 per month;
|
|
(b) BC TEL, Bell, NewTel and TCI are to issue, by 16 February 1998, revised tariff pages with an effective date of 1 January 1998 specifying a rate for unlisted number service for residence subscribers that does not exceed $2 per month;
|
|
(c) NBTel is to file, by 2 March 1998, proposed tariffs providing for the introduction of an unlisted number service for residence subscribers that does not include per-line blocking specifying a rate of $1.95 per month and with a proposed effective date of 1 April 1998;
|
|
(d) Island Tel and MT&T are to advise the Commission by 16 February 1998 whether they intend to (i) reduce the rates for residence subscribers to their existing unlisted number services to an amount (to be specified) that does not exceed $2 per month, or (ii) retain unlisted number services that include per-line blocking at the existing rates while also providing a service for residence subscribers that does not include per-line blocking at a rate (to be specified) that does not exceed $2 per month;
|
|
(e) Island Tel and MT&T are to notify the Commission of the annual net revenue impact, along with all assumptions necessary to calculate that impact, associated with their respective choices pursuant to subparagraph (d) above, by 16 February 1998;
|
|
(f) If Island Tel and MT&T choose to reduce rates for residence subscribers to their existing unlisted number services, they are to issue, by 16 February 1998, revised tariff pages with an effective date of 1 January 1998 specifying a rate for unlisted number service for residence subscribers that does not exceed $2 per month;
|
|
(g) If Island Tel and MT&T choose to retain unlisted number services with per-line blocking at the existing rates, while also providing an unlisted number service for residence subscribers without per-line blocking at a reduced rate that does not exceed $2 per month, they are to file proposed tariffs providing for the introduction of the reduced rate service, by 2 March 1998, specifying a proposed effective date of 1 April 1998;
|
|
(h) Approval of MTS' existing rate for unlisted number service is made final effective 1 January 1998;
|
|
(i) The telephone companies are directed to make installment payments available, on request, for service charges applicable when a customer changes from listed to unlisted number service;
|
|
(j) This Order does not affect previous rulings mandating the provision of free per-line blocking as described in paragraph 37, above.
|
|
(k) The telephone companies, or Stentor on their behalf, are to show cause, by 6 March 1998, why they should not be required to send billing inserts and establish a 1-800 number as described in the Report. Copies of the telephone companies' (or Stentor's) submission(s) are to be served on parties to this proceeding. Parties may file comments, serving copies on the telephone companies (or Stentor, as the case may be), by 20 March 1998. The telephone companies (or Stentor) may file a reply, serving copies on those who filed comments, by 30 March 1998; and
|
|
(l) Documents to be filed or served pursuant to this Order are to be actually received, not merely sent, by the specified dates.
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|