|
Order CRTC 2000-167
|
|
|
|
Ottawa, 3 March 2000
|
|
|
|
Final rates set for basic listing interchange file (BLIF) service
|
|
Reference: Stentor TN 669;
TCI TNs 1047/A/B/C; and associated agreements
|
|
This order provides final rates for the incumbent telephone companies' exchange of subscriber listings with new local competitive telephone companies. The exchange of subscriber listings will allow all local telephone companies to provide telephone books and/or directory assistance service. This order also denies access to the BLIF service by wireless, toll or operator services companies.
|
|
Carriers exchange non-confidential customer listing information
|
1.
|
On 28 May 1998, TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) filed Tariff Notice (TN) 1047 for approval of revisions to its Carrier Access Tariff pertaining to the introduction of BLIF service and an associated standard licensing agreement.
|
2.
|
BLIF service provides a machine-readable file containing non-confidential customer listing information of listed TCI customers to local exchange carriers (LECs) for use in providing telephone directories and/or directory assistance (DA) services. BLIF service updates are provided on a variety of update frequencies (daily, weekly, bi-weekly or monthly) to meet individual customer requests.
|
3.
|
On 17 July 1998, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. filed, on behalf of the federally-regulated operating companies other than TCI who were then members of Stentor, TN 669 for the introduction of BLIF service, including an associated standard licensing agreement.
|
4.
|
TCI and Stentor stated that the introduction of BLIF service meets the obligation of the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), as identified in Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8 dated 1 May 1997, to provide for the exchange of subscriber listings between LECs. BLIF service is in accordance with the guidelines established and provided by the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC), and specifically the Operator Services and Directory Listings Sub-Working Group.
|
5.
|
Comments and/or reply comments were filed by Stentor, TCI, Call-Net Communications Inc., Clearnet Communications Inc., Rogers Cantel Inc. and DACo Telecommunications Inc.
|
6.
|
In Telecom Order CRTC 98-994 dated 9 October 1998, the Commission granted interim approval to the applications, stating that the availability of BLIF service would assist all LECs to provide telephone directories and/or directory assistance as envisioned in Decision 97-8. In that order, the Commission noted that various issues raised by the parties would be resolved in the context of the final disposition of the applications.
|
|
Interveners seek BLIF access for WSPs, IXCs and third parties
|
7.
|
Interveners submitted that BLIF service should be available to wireless service providers (WSPs), interexchange carriers (IXCs) and third-party service providers to reduce the dominant position of the ILECs in the DA market. Cantel submitted that BLIF service provides a standard national data format for a more efficient and economical DA services.
|
8.
|
DACo submitted that BLIF service should include non-basic listings (for example, numbers for departments within a business), so it could be used on its own for DA.
|
9.
|
Clearnet stated that previous rulings in Provision of directory database information and real-time access to directory assistance databases, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-3, dated 8 March 1995, and Final tariffs for directory file service, Telecom Order CRTC 98-728, dated 23 July 1998, augmented access by WSPs and IXCs, in addition to LECs, to directory file service (DFS) and mediated real-rime access or electronic directory database access (EDDA) services. Cantel added there was no rationale for excluding WSPs from access to BLIF service, especially since wireless customers make extensive use of DA services. Cantel added that WSPs would be disadvantaged by not getting access to BLIF service.
|
10.
|
TCI stated that WSPs may register with the Commission as competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), which would enable them to be eligible for BLIF service.
|
11.
|
Decision 97-8 directed the ILECs to provide comprehensive directories to their subscribers. At paragraph 222 of Decision 97-8, the Commission concluded that the only way in which ILECs and/or CLECs could publish complete directories is if they exchanged subscriber listings for their respective customers. The Commission also found that such listings should be available for the provision of directory assistance by LECs.
|
12.
|
The Commission considers that BLIF service is intended as the appropriate means for the exchange of the subscriber listings between LECs as directed in Decision 97-8. The terms, conditions and economics of the BLIF service recognize that each LEC has an obligation to exchange subscriber listings with other LECs. Since WSPs, IXCs and third parties wishing to offer DA services do not have any of the obligations imposed on LECs in Decision 97-8, the Commission concludes that they should not be entitled to the privileges accorded to LECs as determined in Decision 97-8.
|
13.
|
The Commission notes that DFS and EDDA services are currently available for WSPs and IXCs to offer competitive DA services, but are not available to third parties in light of privacy concerns.
|
14.
|
Accordingly, the Commission denies access to BLIF service for WSPs, IXCs and non-carrier third parties, including, for example, operator services companies.
|
|
New rates set for BLIF service
|
15.
|
In support of their proposed rates, the ILECs filed economic studies with study periods of approximately five years. The proposed rates were set based on Phase II costs plus a 25% mark-up.
|
16.
|
Clearnet noted that Stentor TN 669 provides for a uniform rate for business, government and residential listings as well as for master file listings and update listings for each ILEC. Clearnet contrasted this tariff structure with TCI's proposal to charge a higher rate for both business and government and update listings. Clearnet supported the uniform rate structure proposed by Stentor and submitted that there is no justification for any pricing differential among the various categories of supplied listings as proposed by TCI.
|
17.
|
Clearnet submitted that the pricing levels are unacceptably high given the minimal activities and resources required to provide the BLIF service offering. Clearnet also questioned why the proposed rates among the ILECs are inexplicably diverse.
|
18.
|
The Commission notes that there are significant differences in the estimated costs of directory database operations among ILECs. The Commission notes that it has in the past recognized similar cost differences among ILECs when setting final rates of various services due to factors such as differences in the ILECs' operations and labour unit costs.
|
19.
|
The Commission also notes that Decision 97-8 mandated a 25% mark-up in the pricing of essential facilities.
|
20.
|
In light of the size of the investment required to introduce the platform for BLIF service, and given that the proposed study period dates back to 1998, the Commission considers that a seven-year study period covering the years 1998-2004 is appropriate for this service. The Commission notes that it also adopted a seven-year study period in setting rates for the DFS and EDDA services.
|
21.
|
The Commission also considers that the ILECs have underestimated demand for the BLIF service, as it is likely to become the most efficient and economical subscriber listings service to be used in support of national DA services.
|
22.
|
Accordingly, the Commission is setting rates based on a seven-year study period with an additional 15% demand growth from that forecast by the ILECs.
|
23.
|
In response to Commission interrogatories, Stentor submitted that the costs associated with generating BLIF master listings is not expected to vary significantly from the costs for BLIF update listings. Accordingly, Stentor submitted that a simplified rate structure with a flat rate per listing is appropriate.
|
24.
|
TCI's tiered rating structure is less efficient than the simplified Stentor rate structure, particularly as there are minimal cost differences in providing the various types of listings. In addition, the BLIF service will be purchased by national customers. Accordingly, the Commission believes that a common tariff structure across the country is appropriate and will set TCI's rate using a uniform rate per listing.
|
25.
|
The Commission grants final approval to the tariffs, including the associated agreements, substituting the following rates per listing:
|
|
BC TEL $ 0.047
Bell $ 0.056
Island Tel $ 0.150
MTT $ 0.102
MTS $ 0.107
NBTel $ 0.084
NewTel $ 0.122
TCI $ 0.063
|
26.
|
The Commission directs the ILECs to issue revised tariff pages consistent with the revised rates.
|
27.
|
The Commission also directs the CLECs to issue tariff pages consistent with this order.
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|