|
Order CRTC 2000-259
|
|
Ottawa, 7 April 2000
|
|
Increased rates for extra listings
approved for Bell Canada
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notice 6446
|
|
The Commission approves Bell's request to increase the monthly rates from $2.90 to $3.25 for business extra listings in the Toronto and Montréal alphabetical lists. It also approves increases from $1.65 to $1.85 for all other business and residential extra listings.
|
1.
|
The principal listing of the customer's service is provided at no additional charge by Bell as part of primary exchange or local service.
|
2.
|
The Commission has traditionally treated extra listings as an optional local service as extra listings are discretionary.
|
3.
|
In Price cap regulation and related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-9, dated 1 May 1997, the Commission established a new regulatory regime for the existing telephone companies. Price cap regulation provides the telephone companies with some pricing flexibility while protecting consumers with a price cap to limit rate increases.
|
4.
|
In Decision 97-9, the Commission excluded optional local services from the price cap regime. Given the discretionary nature of this class of service, the Commission was of the view that an upper pricing constraint was not warranted.
|
5.
|
The Commission considers that Bell's application to increase the rates for extra listings conforms to the flexibility accorded to Bell for the pricing of uncapped services.
|
6.
|
Bell filed this application on 8 February 2000 to revise Item 220 of its General Tariff.
|
7.
|
These revisions will take effect on 25 April 2000.
|
|
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
|
|
Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Stuart Langford
|
|
I disagree with the majority decision in this matter in so far as it applies to residential extra listings. Changing social realities in Canada dictate that the $0.20 monthly increase proposed by the applicant should have been either denied or, at the very least, deferred pending a review by the Commission of the extra listing issue.
|
|
For some time, a residential extra listing – typically purchased when two customers with different surnames share one living space and one telephone number – has been categorized for pricing purposes as an optional or "uncapped" service and has been regulated accordingly. Put simply, phone companies may charge whatever they believe the market will bear for such services though rate increases must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval.
|
|
Basic service, in essence, one line and one number, entitles a customer to one "light-face type" listing in the alphabetically organized local directory or white pages. If for some reason a subscriber to basic service wishes to have a second listing, he or she must pay for it. Fair enough. The question is, how much?
|
|
The majority decision in this application raises the monthly charge for an extra residential listing by $0.20, from $1.65 to $1.85. That translates into an annual cost to the customer of $22.20. Is such a service worth it? Is there any correlation between the figure $22.20 and the actual cost, with a reasonable mark-up, of adding another line in a telephone directory? If not, there should be.
|
|
Not all people who live together share a common surname. In this day and age, men and women cohabit without the benefit of clergy, same-sex couples make a life together and, more and more often, married women retain their birth names. It may be unreasonable to expect phone companies to provide free extra listings in such cases merely because times have changed, but in my view it makes eminent sense to recognize evolving social circumstances and to ensure that where appropriate regulated services correspond with them. In fact, not to do so may raise questions of discrimination.
|
|
This Commission has ruled in the past that a residential listing in a customer's local directory is part of basic service. In light of modern realities, it seems reasonable to me to consider whether extra residential listings should be treated in a similar fashion. Is the status quo in step with the times, social values and customers' basic needs? The answer here is clearly, no. Accordingly, I would have denied this application or deferred it pending a review of the extra listing issue.
|
|