|
|
|
Ottawa, 23 June 1998
|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 98-620
|
|
In a letter dated 5 May 1998, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor) submitted revised tariff pages to withdraw Voice Messaging (VM) services for Stentor and Bell Canada. Subsequently, the Commission received similar revisions from the other Stentor companies, namely BC TEL, The Island Telephone Company Limited, Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., The New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited and NewTel Communications Inc., withdrawing their VM tariffs. TELUS Communications Inc. submitted revised tariff pages for both itself and TELUS Communications (Edmonton) Inc.
|
|
|
File No.: 8640-S1-03/98
|
1. Stentor noted that in Telecom Order CRTC 96-1392 (Order 96-1392), the Commission granted forbearance to electronic messaging and information (EMI) services, as well as to future EMI services of the same class.
|
|
2. Stentor submitted that VM services are of the same class as the EMI services granted forbearance in Order 96-1392 and that therefore VM services should not be subject to the Commission's regulatory oversight with respect to the approval of tariffs. Stentor indicated that the functionality of VM services is identical to the basic functionalities provided by certain of the EMI services identified in its applications. Stentor also indicated that the type of content which a message contains (e.g., voice, facsimile, ASCII text) is irrelevant for determining the regulatory status of messaging services.
|
|
3. AT&T Canada Long Distance Services Company (AT&T Canada LDS) and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. submitted that the Commission should not allow the companies to withdraw the tariffs for VM services. AT&T Canada LDS also requested that the Commission issue a Public Notice to deal with the issues raised in Stentor's submissions.
|
|
4. The Commission is of the view that VM services are not of the same class as the services addressed in Order 96-1392. VM services deal mainly with voice applications while the services forborne from in Order 96-1392 are primarily text in nature. Moreover, VM and EMI services cater to different markets. The Commission therefore considers that Order 96-1392 granting forbearance to future EMI services of the same class does not apply to VM services.
|
|
5. The Commission notes that the Stentor companies may submit applications for forbearance of VM services, addressing the criteria for forbearance.
|
|
6. In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs Stentor and the companies to remove the revised tariff pages purporting to withdraw tariffs for VM services, and to
retain the existing tariff pages for these services.
|
|
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
|
|
|