ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2000-674
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Order CRTC 2000-674 |
|
| Ottawa, 20 July 2000 | |
|
MTS rate increases approved for Call Waiting Tariff Notice 399 |
|
| The Commission approves, by majority vote, MTS Communications Inc.'s request to increase monthly rates for Call Waiting from $3.65 to $4.65 when it is taken as a first feature, and from $2 to $3 as an additional feature. | |
| 1. | The Commission has traditionally treated calling features as optional local services because they are discretionary. |
| 2. | Price cap regulation and related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-9, dated 1 May 1997, established a new regulatory regime for the major incumbent telephone companies. Decision 97-9 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. |
| 3. | The Commission considers that MTS's application to increase Call Waiting rates conforms to the flexibility accorded to MTS for the pricing of uncapped services. |
| 4. | MTS filed this application on 14 April 2000 to revise Item 2142 - Calling Features, of its General Tariff 24001. |
| 5. | These revisions will take effect on 3 August 2000. |
| 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 |
|
| This is an application by Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. (MTS) to increase by $1.00 per month the individual line rate charged for residence and business Call Waiting. Customers who subscribe to Call Waiting as a first feature will, once these increases take effect, pay $4.65 per month rather than the present rate of $3.65. Call Waiting as an additional feature will jump from $2.00 to $3.00, a 50% increase. MTS filed no information explaining why such price changes are warranted. I would have deferred this application until it did so. | |
| Judging by the record, the applicant in this matter appears to take the position that where telecommunications service providers apply to the Commission to increase the rates charged for optional or discretionary services, no requirement exists to justify the need for such changes. In my view, such an interpretation of the burden of proof upon applicants in such a situation is both incorrect and harmful to consumer interests. It marginalizes the Commission's regulatory duty to act in the public interest and leaves consumers exposed to the threat of price gouging. | |
| Telecom Decision CRTC 97-9 (97-9), as the majority decision in this matter indicates did, "establish a new regulatory regime for the major incumbent telephone companies", but it did not abandon Canadians to fend for themselves when it came to the cost of optional services. The Commission did not cede to the vagaries of the marketplace its authority to ensure that all rates are "just and reasonable" (Telecommunications Act, s. 27). Quite the contrary, it reiterated its commitment to uphold the public interest under the newly introduced Price Cap regime by announcing in paragraph 181 of 97-9 its resolve to maintain "consumer safeguards" on a going forward basis. In order to keep faith with this commitment, the Commission requires a good deal more by way of substantiating information than is available on the record of this application. | |
| Accordingly, for the reasons noted above and those reasons more fully outlined in my dissent attached to Order, CRTC 2000-654, I would not have approved this application for rate increases. |
Date Modified: 2000-07-20
- Date modified: