ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8665-C12-13/01 - Further CommissionInterrogatories - PN 2001-34 CRTC seeks public input on telemarketing rules, 5March 2001.

Letter

Ottawa, 14 September 2001

Our file: 8665-C12-13/01

To: Distribution List

Re: Further Commission Interrogatories - PN 2001-34 CRTC seeks public input on telemarketing rules, 5 March 2001.

Pursuant to the process set out in Public Notice CRTC 2001-34, as amended in a 16 August 2001 letter to interested parties, please find attached the Commission's supplementary interrogatories (Attachment 2).

Each interrogatory indicates the party or parties required to respond. In some cases, parties have been grouped for convenience of reference. Attachment 1 to this letter contains a listing of parties by group. In each party's answer to these questions, please assign the following notation:

[Answering Party](CRTC)14Sep01-[Interrogatory number]PN01-34

Because they are likely to have information that is considered necessary for this proceeding, a number of organizations have been added to the list of interested parties. These include Call-Net Communications Inc., Gateway Telephone Limited , and Halifax Cablevision.

Note that the Commission's website for this proceeding, which includes submissions and interrogatories to date, is

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/Eng/2001/8665/C12-13.htm

Responses to these interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, served on all interested parties and received, not merely sent, no later than 5 October 2001. Questions regarding procedure or electronic information should be addressed to: procedure@crtc.gc.ca

Sincerely,

Campbell Laidlaw
Director
Policy, Numbering Administration and Consumer Affairs

Attachments

c.c.: Christine Dimsdale (819) 953-5810
Darren Goodyear (819) 994-5174

Attachment

Recipients of Round 2 Interrogatories Public Notice 2001-34

Attachment 2

Interrogatories

1001 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - Parties to this proceeding and individuals who have provided comments have cited a number of examples of do not call programs currently in operation in jurisdictions in the United States. Among others, the programs of the following states have been cited as models that might be explored in the context of this proceeding:

Missouri: http://www.ago.state.mo.us/
New York: http://www.consumer.state.ny.us/dnchome.htm
Florida: http://www.800helpfla.com/tmkinstruct.html

a) Provide comment on these models stating, with reasons, which of these models or elements of them would be most appropriate for Canada on a national scale.

b) Identify any other do not call model or models, or elements of them, and state with reasons why they would be appropriate.

1002 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - With regard to a national do not call list, respond to the following:

a) What would be the most appropriate manner for subscribers to register and why? (e.g. via phone, fax or internet)

b) What would be the most appropriate method of distributing this information to telemarketers and why?

c) What subscriber information would be required to administer such a list?

d) What would be the most appropriate method of updating the list when a subscriber chooses to remove his/her name from the list, when a number is reassigned, or when any other amendment is required?

e) How often should the list be updated to reflect changes?

f) Would this be appropriate for fax as well as voice solicitations?

g) Would this provide for an appropriate balance between the rights of subscribers and telemarketers? If not, why not?

h) What would be a reasonable length of time to make a do not call list operational?

a) In your response, indicate whether you think any subscriber information that would likely be required to be on the list would be currently confidential within the meaning of any regulation or legislation?

b) If certain information is not currently confidential, as described in (a) above, describe in your response whether a subscriber should be permitted to specify that he/she wished it to be treated as private, or should it be automatically so treated unless the subscriber gives specific consent that it may be shared? If the latter, what form should this consent take?

c) If information should be confidential or private and is not currently covered by any regulation or legislation, what specific obligations in this respect should be imposed upon each of the following: the list administrator? Telemarketers? Canadian Carriers? Others (specify) Explain in each case.

1004 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - If there were a call block mechanism available to subscribers that subscribers could use to block incoming telemarketing calls (voice or fax) to specific subscriber telephone numbers, respond to the following:

a) Would this be more or less effective than a national do not call list? Why?

b) Would this provide for an appropriate balance between the rights of subscribers and telemarketers? Why or why not?

1005 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - Comment on how the design and operation of a national do not call list or call block mechanism would be affected if they allowed subscribers to choose to receive calls or faxes from some organizations but not others?

a) Should there be any provision for exempting certain types of telemarketers from a national do not call list or a call blocking mechanism (such as registered charities or non-profit groups or groups that place calls for purposes other than for solicitation for money or money's worth)? Why or why not?

b) If there were exemptions, or if a subscriber could pick and choose which telemarketers he/she receives calls from, would this impact the operation of either a national do not call list or call blocking mechanism?

a) should the rules still require telemarketers (both voice and fax) to maintain their own individual do not call lists, as is the case under the current rules? If not, why not?

b) If a national do not call list could not provide for subscribers who might wish to selectively accept calls from some telemarketers but not others, would the continued maintenance of individual do not call lists be justified for this specific purpose? Why or why not?

1007 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - How would the establishment of a national do not call list or call block mechanism impact the economic viability of telemarketers (both voice and fax) in Canada? Provide reasons and assumptions?

1101 (To Group 1) - In order to implement Telemarketer call blocking, a technical solution has been proposed. To better explain this solution the following example is used. In Item 2165.3. (c) of its General Tariff 6716 Bell Canada offers a service called "Call Screen". This service enables the subscriber to have incoming calls that originate from up to 12 pre-selected telephone numbers diverted to a standard announcement. Bell Canada also offers "replacement number" in Bell Canada General Tariff CRTC 6716 Item 86.3. This service permits customers to have one or more lines or locals arranged to transmit a replacement telephone number in lieu of the originating telephone number. If all telemarketers were assigned a replacement number that was known, and if the "Call Screen" service was set to screen these calls, subscribers could effectively block telemarketers' calls. In order to explore the possibility of using a combination of the "replacement number" service and an enhanced version of the "Call Screen" service to provide a means by which subscribers could cause calls from telemarketers to be screened, the company is requested to provide responses to the following questions:

a) If a Telemarketer Call Blocking NPA (referred to herein as TCB) was identified and applied to all lines used by telemarketers, would it be feasible to replace the usual calling line number used for display with a number from the TCB series (i.e., TCB + NXX + 4 digits)? (Assume each telemarketer would have a unique number in the TCB block.)

b) Provide the company's views regarding the NPA number that should be selected for the TCB. What issues, existing policies and procedures and bodies must be considered in examining the feasibility of this approach and the selection of the number?

c) Are there any other switch limitations, or is the company aware of local switches in use in its network that cannot provide the "replacement number" service or something similar? Provide full details.

d) With regard to the Call Screen service, what are the limitations with regard to the maximum quantity of telephone numbers that can be screened for special treatment by the switches employed by the company?

e) With regard to the Call Screen service, is it possible to define a range of numbers (say TCB 20I-0000 to TCB-299-9999) that are to be diverted to a standard announcement?

f) With regard to the Call Screen service, is it possible to use wild cards (say TCB-201-**** or TCB-***-**** where * can be any digit) for screening calls?

g) If the call screening features in (e) and (f) above are not currently available, discuss the feasibility and provide details of the possibility of having switches enhanced to provide a service that could cause calls from a sequence of numbers to be screened for special treatment.

h) Provide comments on the ability of the company's switches to deny Call Display Blocking to all calls originated from a TCB number.

i) Provide cost estimates to enable call screening as described in e, f and h above. Include all calculations and underlying assumptions used to develop the cost estimates for:

1) Development costs assuming a technical solution is not readily available;

2) Start-up investment in terms of switching costs (by software and/or hardware) and other costs as appropriate;

3) Ongoing operating expenses once such a system was in place;

4) Ongoing administration and monitoring, (process related) once such a solution was operational; and

5) Identify possible cost recovery mechanisms for this call blocking system and indicate who would be required to maintain it.

j) Provide comments on how the specific set of numbers for telemarketers' lines could be administered and assigned.

1102 (To Group 1) - In the CCS7 protocol, the Initial Address Message (IAM) that is transmitted between switches when a call is being placed, includes a data element referred to as Originating Line Information (OLI). If a specific OLI code was defined and used for all lines used for telemarketing applications it would be possible for these calls to be identified at the terminating switch and screened out for subscribers not wishing to receive calls from telemarketers.

a) Could an OLI code be defined for use with telemarketing?

b) Would any of the company's switches not be able to set this element to the OLI code defined for telemarketers when a call is originated?

c) What are the existing capabilities of the company's switches to perform call screening of terminating calls for a subscriber on the basis of a specific OLI?

d) If the company's switches are not capable of screening terminating calls on the basis of a predetermined OLI, provide details of the possibility of having switches enhanced to provide a feature that could cause calls from a predetermined OLI to be screened for special treatment by the terminating switch on subscriber request. Include estimates of costs and time of availability for switches used by the company.

e) Provide comments on the ability of the company's switches to deny Call Display Blocking universally to all calls originated from a line with a specific OLI.

f) Provide cost estimates to enable call screening as described in the OLI approach described above. Include all calculations and underlying assumptions used to develop the cost estimates for:

1) Development costs assuming a technical solution is not readily available;

2) Start-up investment in terms of switching costs (by software and/or hardware) and other costs as appropriate;

3) Ongoing operating expenses if such a system was in place; and

4) Ongoing administration and monitoring, (process related) once such a solution was operational.

5) Identify possible cost recovery mechanisms for this call blocking system and indicate who would be required to maintain it.

6) Give a break down of the estimated time line required to implement this solution.

1104 (To Group 1) - Compare (pros and cons, costs, benefits and an estimated time lines) of the methods of providing customers with the ability to block telemarketers' calls using the methods referred to in 1101 and 1102 above. If the company has other network-based solutions they should also be described and evaluated here.

1105 (To Call-Net and AT&T) - In Response to Interrogatory AT&T (CRTC) 16 August 01 - 1001 PN 01-34 Question (B) AT&T stated that "calls originated by telemarketers can be segregated". Provide details on how this segregation can be accomplished by your company or why it cannot be done. Can these segregated calls be terminated in a way that ensures that the calling line number is transmitted to the terminating switch? Explain how. Provide the time and estimate of the cost required to implement this.

1106 (To Call-Net and AT&T) - Provide comments on the ability of your company to reliably transmit calling line telephone number and originating line information through its network and to the terminating switch.

1107 (To Group 2 and PIAC) - In order to implement a Telemarketer Call Blocking mechanism, where a subscriber can request the blocking of all calls from telemarketers, two solutions have been proposed. The first method is described below:

In Item 2165.3.(c) of its General Tariff 6716 Bell Canada offers a service called "Call Screen". This service enables the customer to have calls that originate from up to 12 selected telephone numbers diverted to a standard announcement. Another service offered by Bell Canada is "replacement number" available in Item 86.3 of Bell Canada's General Tariff CRTC 6716. This service permits customers to have one or more lines or locals arranged to transmit a replacement telephone number in lieu of the originating telephone number. If all telemarketers were assigned a replacement number that was known, and if the "Call Screen" service was set to screen these calls, subscribers could effectively block telemarketers' calls.

An alternate method may also have some potential for controlling calls from telemarketers. In the CCS7 protocol, the Initial Address Message (IAM) is transmitted between switches when a call is being placed, includes a data element referred to as Originating Line Information (OLI). If a specific code was defined and was to be used for all lines used for telemarketing applications it would be possible for these calls to be identified at the terminating switch and screened out for subscribers not wishing to receive calls from telemarketers.

Provide your comments regarding the effect of implementing either of these network-based approaches to control telemarketers calls to subscribers. Also provide your view on what regulatory changes would be required to implement these approaches.

a) Confirm that the EANT trunk is a trunk side interconnection and that a NTNAPRI trunk is used for a line side interconnection. If that is not the case explain the difference.

b) Provide a detailed description of the process necessary to make the changes to the routing transactions as referenced in the company's response to part d) of the above interrogatory;

c) Provide the company's costs and time estimate to implement these changes including details of all calculations and assumptions;

If the company's cost and time estimates are not yet available, provide the date by which the company would expect them to be made available.

a) A detailed description of the design functionality of its new internet-based system;

b) The scheduled date of start-up for the CMA's new internet-based system; and

c) The CMA's estimate of the additional costs related to server maintenance and software upgrades.

a) An estimate of the costs required to upgrade/develop the CMA Do Not Call list on a national basis to encompass a program which would include some 3,000,000 consumer records. (This assumes such a program would include a take-range of 10% on a base of some 30 million wireline and wireless consumers. The 10% take-range was referenced by The Companies in response to The Companies(CRTC)14May01-118). Include details of all underlying calculations and assumptions;

b) An estimate of the costs as requested in part a) only assume a take-range of 30%; and comment on the likelihood and implications of take-ranges exceeding 30%.

c) An estimate of the costs to maintain the data of the system indicated in parts a) and b) including ongoing requests to add, change or remove consumer information, answer queries and clear discrepancies. Include details of all underlying calculations and assumptions;

d) Identify possible cost recovery mechanisms for a national Do Not Call list system and indicate who should be required to pay for such a system according to each of the cost recovery mechanisms identified ; and

e) Identify the terms and conditions under which the CMA would be willing to operate a national Do Not Call list system.

1204 (To Aliant et al.) - In The Companies(CRTC)14May01-118, The Companies provided high level cost estimates and other information related to the establishment of a national "Do Not Call" system. Provide the following :

a) All underlying assumptions and calculations related to the dollar amounts included in the response to this interrogatory as well as the 10% take-range and size of the total subscriber universe on which the cost estimates were based;

b) An update to estimates of The Companies' cost projections assuming a subscriber take-range of 30% and comment on the likelihood and implications of take ranges exceeding 30%.

c) Identify possible cost recovery mechanisms for a national Do Not Call list system and indicate who should be required to pay for such a system according to each of the cost recovery mechanisms identified; and

d) Identify the terms and conditions under which The Companies would be willing to operate a national Do Not Call list system.

e) Provide estimates of the following as referenced in the response to The Companies(CRTC)14May01-118 using a take range of 10 % and a take range of 30%:

i)  Costs of additional reports and processes required to integrate current telemarketing "Do Not Call" systems into the separate national "Do Not Call" system, for all companies involved in telemarketing;

ii) Costs of developing, maintaining and administering a billing system application to recover the costs from each Canadian telephone customer whose name is added to the "Do Not Call" list;

iii) Costs of obtaining agreement, implementing industry standards, and developing interfaces between the various applications used by companies across Canada; and

iv) An estimate of costs that might be required due to system security or privacy concerns.

a) A take-range of 10% of subscribers;

b) A take-range of 30% of subscribers and comment on the likelihood and implications of a take ranges exceeding 30%;

c) An estimate of the costs to maintain the data for such a system using a take range of 10% and a take range of 30% including ongoing requests to add, change or remove subscriber information, answer queries and clear discrepancies. Include details of all underlying calculations and assumptions;

d) Identify possible cost recovery mechanisms for a national Do Not Call list system and indicate who should be required to pay for such a system according to each of the cost recovery mechanisms identified; and

e) Identify the terms and conditions under which you would be willing to operate a national Do Not Call list system.

a) For enforcement purposes, indicate in your view what would be the most effective and efficient mechanism/procedure for identifying telemarketers where call tracing is difficult;

b) Cost estimates associated with developing, implementing and maintaining such a national call trace system including all underlying calculations and assumptions;

c) Comment on any technical or other issues that might preclude implementing a national call trace system; and

d) Identify possible cost recovery mechanisms for a national call trace system and indicate who should be required to pay for such a system according to each of the cost recovery mechanisms identified.

Comment on your willingness to participate in such a feasibility study in the absence of CRTC/ federal government funding.

1209 (To Group 1, except TELUS) - In TELUS(CRTC)14May01-117, TELUS indicated it does not support CMA's recommendation to establish a central body that would identify the name of a telephone carrier of a telemarketer so subscribers could expedite "do not call requests". In the last paragraph of its response TELUS maintains that a better solution would be to require all telemarketing companies to have a manned inbound number during regular business hours, with voice mail or e-mail back-up after hours, for the purposes of responding to customer requests. Provide comments on TELUS's proposed solution including reference to possible technical and/or operational impediments to implementation.

1211 (To Telus) - In TELUS(CRTC)14May01-121, the company estimates that it has 10-12 full time equivalent resources involved in responding to fax/nuisance complaints. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost to the company related to the handling/responding to fax/nuisance complaints. Include all underlying calculations and assumptions used to derive the cost estimate.

1301 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - Who should handle complaints, investigations, and determine the relevant action to be pursued in respect of non-compliance with the rules on telemarketing? Provide reasons for your answer.

1302 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - Currently telephone service to all lines used in connection with the placing of calls which contravene the telemarketing rules may be suspended or terminated two business days after notice from the telephone company. Noting that the current rules on telemarketing do not oblige a telephone company to disconnect a telemarketer found to have contravened the rules:

a) Is the regime currently in place for dealing with telemarketing complaints adequate?

b) What other specific types of sanctions or incentives would best promote compliance with the rules on telemarketing?

c) Are other measures required to prompt the telephone companies to enforce their rules with greater diligence considering that many of the telephone companies may not be sufficiently motivated to act against telemarketing firms who are often their valued business customers? Provide reasons for your answer.

d) In the event of non-compliance, should disconnection or suspension of service be made mandatory?

1303 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - What procedures should be set up for dealing with non-compliant calls originating from outside a telephone company's territory?

1304 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - How should repeat offenders be treated?

a) What measures should apply to repeat infringements that occur as a result of honest mistakes by a telemarketer?

b) Should the telephone companies' costs associated with complaints, investigation and/or disconnection be recoverable as part of a reconnection fee/charge payable by a repeat offender?

c) In its response to the Commission's Interrogatory Telus (CRTC) 14 May01-117, Telus suggested that "disreputable telemarketing firms may make it a practice to continually switch service providers to avoid." compliance or to avoid enforcement sanctions. Do you agree? If so, what regulatory measures would be effective in curbing these avoidance practices?

d) Currently, a telemarketer who has been disconnected can obtain a new connection on request. Is this a satisfactory and balanced approach to dealing with telemarketers? Should there be a more stringent sanction regime for dealing with noted repeat offenders?

1401 (To Groups 1, 2 and PIAC) - Several parties to this proceeding have referred to the Commission's powers pursuant to section 41 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to make orders that would apply directly to telemarketers (for example, see paragraph 33 of PIAC's 24 April 2001 submission and The Companies(CRTC)14 May 01 - 126(c) PN 01-34).

These parties make reference to the Commission's powers to make orders pursuant to section 51 of the Act and to register such orders with the Federal Court pursuant to section 63. They note that such orders may then be enforced as if they were orders of the court. They also refer to section 73(2)(b) which establishes that any person who contravenes any prohibition or requirement of the Commission under section 41 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable for significant dollar fines.

a) If the Commission decided to impose requirements or prohibitions directly on persons providing unsolicited telecommunications, what (if any) specific provisions should it impose on such persons in its decision in this proceeding with respect to their use of the facilities of Canadian carriers? If your response would differ according to the type of regulatory scheme adopted by the Commission, please provide your response under each of the scenarios listed below:

i)  under a scenario such as has existed since Order CRTC 2001-193;

ii) under a scenario similar to such as has existed since Order CRTC 2001-193 but with one or more of the following variations:

1) including a national call trace system that would have the ability to tell subscribers the source of a particular phone number so that the subscriber could expedite a "do not call request" with a particular telemarketer;

2) including a requirement that all telemarketers have a manned inbound number during regular business hours, with voice mail or e-mail back-up after hours, for the purpose of responding to customer requests;

3) with some other variation (please specify).

iii) under a scenario where a "do not call" list was established nationally;

iv) under a scenario in which telemarketers would have a unique block of calling numbers or a unique identifier such that their calls could be blocked by subscribers who did not wish to receive them;

v) under a scenario in which unsolicited faxes are prohibited; and

vi) under any other scenario that you recommend the Commission adopt (describe such a scenario in your response).

b) If the Commission did impose requirements or prohibitions directly on persons providing unsolicited telecommunications, describe the sequence that you think should occur if a telemarketer provided service contrary to such requirements or prohibitions. Include a description of the role of each of: (a) the subscriber receiving such a communication, (b) the telephone company or companies involved, (c) the Commission and (d) any other party or body that you think would be involved. What process should be followed and what should be the involvement of the telemarketer in such a process? How long would the process typically take, what costs would be involved to all parties and are there significant risks that might jeopardize what you would consider to be a successful outcome to the process you have described?

c) Comment on the pros and cons of the Commission imposing requirements or prohibitions directly on persons providing unsolicited telecommunications. Do you support such an approach? Provide reasons for your response.

a) a scenario such as has existed since Order CRTC 2001-193;

b) a scenario similar to such as has existed since Order CRTC 2001-193 but with one or more of the following variations:

1) including a national call trace system that would have the ability to tell subscribers the source of a particular phone number so that the subscriber could expedite a "do not call request" with a particular telemarketer;

2) including a requirement that all telemarketers have a manned inbound number during regular business hours, with voice mail or e-mail back-up after hours, for the purpose of responding to customer requests;

3) with some other variation (please specify).

c) a scenario where a "do not call" list was established nationally;

d) a scenario in which telemarketers would have a unique block of calling numbers or a unique identifier such that their calls could be blocked by subscribers who did not wish to receive them;

e) a scenario in which unsolicited faxes are prohibited.

a) a description of what telemarketing practices you are referring to;

b) a description of any inconvenience or nuisance caused and to whom;

c) an explanation of why you do or do not consider this to be "undue" giving due regard to freedom of expression; and

d) the evidence upon which you base your position.

1501 (To CMA) - In CMA's April 24, 2001 submission, p.2, CMA stated that it had conducted a study of the economic impact of direct response advertising in Canada (CMA 2000/2001 Fact Book). Please provide a copy of this CMA study.

1502 (To CMA) - In its submission, CMA indicated that it has 800 member organizations.

a) How many of these are outbound call centres/service bureaux or agencies whose principal activity is live voice solicitation campaigns carried out on behalf of businesses or charities?

b) Provide the number of member organizations whose principal activity is unsolicited fax solicitation campaigns done on behalf of other businesses or charities.

c) For those organizations which do not fall into the above categories, provide an estimate of the number/percentage of member organizations which engage in live voice or fax solicitations using their own resources, as part of their overall activities of carrying out their business.

1503 (To CMA) - Provide a copy of the Ernst & Young survey on Canadians and Call Centres, 1997, which was cited in CMA's July 6/2001 answer to PIAC's Interrogatory 5, which asked "Comment on studies relating to subscriber preferences for telemarketing and provide details of any CMA studies concerning the level of consent and the impact on marketing campaigns."

If you are aware of other surveys or reports by CMA or other organizations, please provide these.