ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8665-C12-13/01-   IModificationto procedure for Public Notice 2001-34 CRTC seeks public input on telemarketingrules - Requests for further responses to interrogatories, and supplementaryCommission interrogatories

Letter

Ottawa, 16 August 2001

Our file: 8665-C12-13/01

To: Interested Parties to Public Notice 2001-34

Re: Modification to procedure for Public Notice 2001-34 CRTC seeks public input on telemarketing rules - Requests for further responses to interrogatories, and supplementary Commission interrogatories

This letter modifies the procedure in the above-noted proceeding, deals with requests for further responses to interrogatories which were answered by the Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance (CAFII), Canadian Marketing Association (CMA), and AT&T Canada Corp. (AT&T), and includes supplementary Commission interrogatories related to the proceeding.

1. Requests for Further Responses

Requests were filed by Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Northwestel Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively, the Companies) and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (ARC/PIAC).

Responses to these requests were filed by CAFII, CMA, and AT&T.

This letter reflects the Commission's objective of ensuring that all parties have the benefit of the maximum amount of information placed on the public record at the earliest appropriate stage, in order to facilitate a more efficient and effective proceeding.

With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure apply. The general principles enunciated by the Commission in past proceedings include the following considerations:

The major consideration is the relevance of the information requested to the matter at issue.

The availability of the information requested is also a factor, which is balanced against the relevance of the information. If the provision of the information sought would require an effort disproportionate to the probative value of the information itself, further responses will not be required.

Another factor considered is the extent to which an interrogatory answer is responsive to the interrogatory as it was originally asked. Generally, parties are not required to provide further responses to requests for further information from a party that did not ask the original interrogatory.

Having regard to all of the above considerations, no further responses to the interrogatory responses are required.

2. Supplementary Commission Interrogatories

In light of the response to interrogatory AT&T(The Companies)14 May 01-1, the Commission considers it appropriate to ask a supplementary interrogatory to AT&T. This supplementary interrogatory is attached.

The Commission also considers it appropriate to ask a supplementary interrogatory to PIAC in light of its submission dated 8 August 2001. That supplementary interrogatory is also attached.

Responses to both supplementary interrogatories must be filed and served on all interested parties by 21 August 2001. Parties are reminded that documents must be received, and not merely sent, by the date indicated.

3. Modification to Procedure

In light of submissions on the public record dealing with a National Do Not Call List and the 7 July 2001 comment filed by Mr. Gary Zone (available in full on the Commission's website) proposing that:

" all telemarketers ... be issued telephone numbers with a reserved set of exchanges (much like '800' numbers) and that at the request of the consumer, the telephone company will be required to block all calls originating from any of these exchanges "

the Commission considers it appropriate to ask supplementary interrogatories on these issues. Accordingly, the procedure set out in CRTC Public Notice 2001-34 is modified as set out below:

a) The Commission will issue these supplementary interrogatories on
14 September 2001.

b) Responses to these supplementary interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission and served on all interested parties by 5 October 2001.

c) Any person, including interested parties, may file comments by

26 October 2001.

Any person who wishes merely to file written comments in this proceeding, without receiving copies of the various submissions, may do so by writing to the Commission at Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A ON2, or by sending an email to the Commission at procedure@crtc.gc.ca by 26 October 2001. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary. Alternatively, they may call the Commission at 1-877-249-2782 to express their views on the issues raised in this proceeding. The Commission will make these comments given by phone available on its website.

However, interested parties who have registered with the Commission shall serve a copy of their comments on all other parties. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.

d) Interested parties may file reply comments with the Commission serving a copy on all other parties by 2 November 2001. Submissions longer than five pages should include a summary.

5. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.

Yours sincerely,

Campbell Laidlaw
Director
Policy, Numbering Administration & Consumer Affairs
Telecommunications

Attachment

cc: Christine Dimsdale - CRTC - (819) 953-5810

Darren Goodyear - CRTC - (819) 994-5174

Barbara Ursel - CRTC

James Wilson - CRTC

Attachment

Page 1 of 2

AT&T(CRTC) 16 Aug01 - 1001 PN 01-34

1001. Further to response to interrogatory AT&T (The Companies) 14May01-1 PN 01-34, provide additional information as requested below.

A) Provide the specific details of the technical problem that prevents AT&T Canada from forwarding the CLID when the caller blocks the call display on calls placed via Megalink services that AT&T Canada leases from Bell Canada.

B) In its response to the referenced interrogatory AT&T Canada stated: "Where the caller blocks the call display capability, the originating CLID is not delivered through the Megalink services leased from Bell Canada". Is there any way by which calls originated from telemarketers can be segregated from calls originated by others so as to permit only the CLID of telemarketers to be transmitted where the telemarketer/caller blocks call display?

C) Does this problem exist with similar interconnections with other local carriers with whom AT&T Canada has interconnection? If not, why not?

D) Provide full details of the technical solution to this problem, including a detailed breakdown of the expected timeframe. Provide full details of the network upgrades already undertaken, and planned to be undertaken, by AT&T Canada that will fully resolve the problem.

E) Provide details regarding the prevalence of this problem (e.g., number of subscribers? Calls originating in Bell territory only? Calls terminating in Bell territory only?)

Attachment

Page 2 of 2

PIAC(CRTC)16 Aug01 - 101 PN 01-34

101. Provide a complete copy of the survey report referred to in PIAC's submission dated 8 August 2001.