ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 99-985

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 12 October 1999

Telecom Order CRTC 99-985

MTS Communications Inc. - Revisions to Directory Assistance and Introduction of Automated Directory Assistance Call Completion Service

File No.: Tariff Notice 368

1.On 21 June 1999, MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) filed an application under Tariff Notice 368, for approval of tariff revisions providing for the introduction of Automated Directory Assistance Call Completion (ADACC) service and for revisions to Directory Assistance (DA) service.

2.Under its application, MTS proposed to retain the existing rate of $0.75 for each call to DA including ADACC for both local DA and long distance DA.

3.MTS also proposed to remove some exceptions and exemptions that currently exist both for local and long distance DA service.

4.In particular, for local DA, MTS proposed to remove the exemptions for requests for telephone numbers not available in the current directory. For both local and long distance DA, MTS proposed to remove the exemptions for requests for listings when MTS' DA operator cannot provide the telephone number or address (within Manitoba).

5.In addition, MTS proposed to remove the exemption for persons calling from mobile service.

6.With regard to the introduction of ADACC service, the Commission is of the view, consistent with Telecom Order CRTC 99-741 (Order 99-741), that ADACC is an optional service, the costs of which should be borne by those who use the service and not by the general body of DA users. Accordingly, the Commission denies the proposal by MTS to integrate ADACC into DA at no charge.

7.With respect to the removal of the exemption from DA charges when MTS is unable to provide a listing, the Commission finds the proposal by MTS to be appropriate for the reasons stated in Order 99-741 with respect to a similar proposal by Bell Canada.

8.With respect to the removal of the exemption from local DA charges for requests for telephone numbers not available in the current directory (i.e. new listings that would appear in the next issue of the directory), the Commission finds the proposal by MTS to be appropriate for the reasons stated in Telecom Orders CRTC 97-1491 and 98-617 with respect to similar proposals by Bell Canada and by BC TEL.

9.With regard to MTS' proposal to remove the exemption for persons calling from mobile service, the Commission finds that MTS did not address the public policy implications of its request and has not provided any compelling rationale for removing this particular exemption.

10.In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:

(1) the exemption from DA charges for requests for listings when MTS' DA operator cannot provide the telephone number or address (within Manitoba) shall be removed from the tariff;

(2) the exemption from DA charges for requests for telephone numbers not available in the current directory shall be removed from the tariff; and

(3) all other exemptions and exceptions currently in effect shall remain in the tariff.

11.In addition, the Commission orders MTS to notify its customers, through a billing insert, of the changes to DA set out in this Order. The billing insert is to explain that callers will now be charged for requests when a number or address cannot be provided and when the number is not available in the current directory.

12.The Commission directs MTS to issue revised tariff pages reflecting the decisions set out in this Order. Such revised tariff pages shall not become effective prior to the customer notification required in paragraph 11.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca

Dissenting opinion by Commissioner Stuart Langford: MTS, Directory Assistance Exemptions

I disagree with paragraphs 7 and 8 of the majority decision in this application. To allow MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) to charge for directory assistance services not provided is neither reasonable nor fair. In my opinion, to support such a decision, as in part the majority does, by relying on a "user pay" philosophy or by pointing to the possibilities for abuse should such services be provided at no cost, is to disregard more compelling arguments to the contrary. Often, an operator's inability to fulfil an information request can in no way be traced to the person making that request. User pay in such circumstances is unjustifiable.

In Telecom Orders CRTC 97-1491, 98-617 (referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the majority decision) the Commission noted instances in which no-charge exemptions for directory assistance could be abused by users. In paragraph 16 of Order 97-1491, for example, it said: "The Commission considers that by providing LDA at no charge for new and out-of-book numbers, there is no incentive for subscribers to reasonably limit their use of the service, for example, by retaining a number once it has been provided ... ". In paragraph 9 of Order 98-617, that same rationale in slightly different wording was provided. In paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Order 99-741, the focus was on numbers that cannot be provided either because they are unlisted or simply cannot be found for whatever reason. Noting that "... costs are incurred ..." even when a number cannot be provided and with an eye to "... optimizing the efficiency of Bell's DA service," the Commission declared it "... reasonable that the costs incurred with respect to unsuccessful requests should be borne by those who use the service." I disagree.

Abuser pay and user pay should not be made synonymous. By justifying a charge for supplying new and out-of-book listings on the grounds that some may abuse the system by preferring repeatedly to endure the frustrations of dealing with automated directory assistance services rather than noting a listing once it has been supplied, is to punish the responsible majority for the failings of an irresponsible few. To charge for information not supplied when there is no way to evaluate whether the inability to supply is operator-, system- or user-caused, flies in the face of common sense. To attempt to recapture the costs associated with DA requests for unlisted numbers is reasonable enough but the person charged should be the customer who has requested anonymity not the DA user who can have no way of knowing before dialling 411 that the number sought is unlisted.

"Optimizing the efficiency" of a DA service is a valid goal but it cannot be justified in all circumstances. Until such a time as MTS can devise a DA system that differentiates between its and its users' failures, that properly assigns costs to beneficiaries and that does not reward service delivery and non-delivery equally, it should not be allowed to remove existing DA exceptions and exemptions. Accordingly, I dissent from the decision of the majority in this application.