Search

ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2000-832

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Order CRTC 2000-832

Ottawa, 8 September 2000
Standard directory assistance service approved for Alberta
Reference: TCI Tariff Notice 237
The Commission approves by majority decision TCI's request for a common directory assistance service throughout Alberta. TCI is to notify customers prior to the changes becoming effective.
Amalgamating TCI and TCEI directory assistance

1.

TELUS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications (Edmonton) Inc. (TCEI), along with a number of other TELUS subsidiaries, have amalgamated to form TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI).

2.

TCI proposed to amalgamate the directory assistance (DA) service of the two former operating companies under a common tariff to provide standard DA structure, rates and terms and conditions of service throughout Alberta.
Revisions to directory assistance service

3.

As part of this amalgamation TCI proposed revisions to the integrated tariff pages including:
  • apply a DA charge for new and not-in-book listings if DA information is provided;
  • provide postal code information when address information is provided (this will be offered at no additional charge);
  • make the Automated Directory Assistance Call Completion option available to long distance directory assistance;
  • remove wake-up call service from the tariff; and
  • include reference to the new Alberta area code 780.

4.

As part of its DA service, TCI will not charge for requests which originate in Alberta where the requested telephone number or address/postal code information is not available through local DA service.
Implementation and customer notification

5.

The Commission concludes that TCI's application is in the public interest and approves it by majority decision.

6.

The Commission has previously approved telephone companies charging for DA for new and not-in-book listings and required customer notification before these changes came into effect. TCI is directed to notify customers within 60 days of this order and to inform the Commission when notification has occurred.

7.

TCI requested an effective date approximately two months after the approval date. This is required by the company to complete front-line training and customer communication as part of the merger of the DA services. The order will take effect 60 days following TCI's letter informing the Commission of customer notification.

8.

TCI filed this application on 1 June 2000 to establish Item 780 of its General Tariff.
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
Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Stuart Langford
I disagree with the majority on one aspect of this matter. I refer to point one in paragraph 3 of the majority decision, the application of a directory assistance (DA) charge, "…for new and not-in-book listings if DA information is provided".
This application is not the first by a Canadian telephone company to charge customers for information that cannot be obtained in any other way than by calling 411. (For other examples see Telecom Orders CRTC 97-1491, 98-617 and 99-985.) Compared to some other telephone companies, in fact, TELUS Communications Inc.'s approach to the provision of DA is remarkably consumer sensitive in that its customers will not be charged when information cannot be provided. As welcome as this approach is, however, it does not go far enough.
Two fundamental principles appear to underlie the past Orders referred to above. The Commission has declared charges for "new and not-in-book" number inquiries appropriate, first, because they discourage abuse of the system and, second, because they result in a DA service that is more equitable because as much as possible it is financed by identifiable users rather than subscribers in general. As laudable as it may be to promote equity and discourage abuse, there is no guarantee that the majority's decision in this application will achieve either goal and considerable reason to believe that it will fall short on both counts.
Users and abusers are two different species. Until such a time as service providers can program their computers to distinguish one from the other, it seems to me unreasonable to penalize the former so as to discourage the latter. To charge customers who have diligently searched their phone books for a number that is not there because other customers might repeatedly call 411 for not-in-book listings rather than note them in their personal number and address directories, is to penalize the responsible for the activities of the irresponsible. Such an approach may do wonders for a company's profit and loss statements but it is hardly fair.
Similarly, not every cost of doing business can be traced back to a particular customer or class of customers. The expenses incurred by TCI in providing its subscribers with information that cannot be obtained elsewhere is, in my view, a case in point. How in all fairness can a subscriber seeking information that is not in the phone book be deemed responsible for the costs associated with providing that information? People move after a local directory has gone to print; the telephone company may inadvertently leave out a listing; a wrong number may mistakenly be noted beside a subscriber's name. Equity demands that where circumstances make a rigid "user-pay" scheme unfair, costs should be borne by the broader shoulders of all customers or by the company in the form of lower profit margins.
For the reasons set out above, I disagree with the majority decision in this matter and would not have allowed TCI to charge its customers for information those customers cannot obtain without calling DA.
Date modified: