|
Order CRTC 2000-1049
|
|
Ottawa, 24 November 2000
|
|
Bell Canada's proposal for a permanent winback promotion on business services denied
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notice 6485
|
|
The Commission denies Bell Canada's application for a permanent winback promotion that would waive the service charge and provide one-month free service to customers who switch from a competitor and subscribe to individual flat rate business lines or Advantage KeyPack or Local Link Package or Centrex III voice locals.
|
1.
|
Bell Canada proposed to introduce permanent winback promotion for Centrex III voice locals, Local Link Package locals, Advantage KeyPack bundle and individual flat rate business lines. The company proposed to waive the service connection charge and provide one-month free service to customers who subscribe to one of these services and are returning from a competitive local service provider.
|
2.
|
AXXENT Corp. intervened on behalf of itself, C1.com Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc., Combined Xchange Telecom Inc., EastLink Limited, GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Norigen Communications Inc. and Vidéotron (1998) ltée (the companies). The companies submitted that Bell Canada's proposed permanent winback completely undermines the competitive balance that the Commission's winback guidelines were designed to attain and, accordingly, was clearly not in the public interest. They also stated that the introduction of an incumbent local exchange carrier permanent winback promotion was not warranted at this time.
|
3.
|
Bell Canada replied that competition within the business local exchange market is well established and that the competitive local exchange carriers, being unregulated, are able to waive service charges and offer an almost unlimited number of inducements without prior Commission approval. The company's proposal provides it with the flexibility to respond to this significant erosion of its market.
|
4.
|
The proposed tariff for a permanent winback offer would be available to new customers who switch to Bell Canada from a competitor but not to other new customers. On the basis of the record in this proceeding, the Commission is not persuaded that this discrimination is justified.
|
5.
|
Bell Canada filed the application on 20 June 2000 to revise Items 70, 675, 680 and 685 of its General Tariff.
|
6.
|
Accordingly, the Commission denies Tariff Notice 6485.
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|