ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2001-281

Order CRTC 2001-281

Ottawa, 5 April 2001

Access to directory file service and basic listing interchange file service approved for CanopCo

Reference: 8622-C67-01/00

The CRTC approves an application by CanopCo Inc. to access directory file service and basic listing interchange file service of local exchange carriers.

On 12 October 2000, CanopCo Inc. filed an application under part VII of the Telecommunications Rules of Procedures, seeking amendments to the tariffs of the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and independent telephone companies (Independents) to permit alternative operator service providers (AOSPs) to subscribe to the companies' directory file service (DFS).

In the alternative, if it was not possible for all Independents to provide DFS, CanopCo requested that access to the basic listing interchange file (BLIF) be provided.

The issue

CanopCo indicated that AOSPs, who are not carriers and who are not trunk-side resellers, can only subscribe to directory information service (DIS). CanopCo stated that DIS does not allow it to compete effectively with the local exchange carriers (LECs) and therefore, it is currently using U.S. sources of Canadian directory assistance information. This solution is unsatisfactory since the U.S. sources do not have access to the same level of directory updates that the LECs have with DFS.

Citing White Directory - Application to review and vary Decision 95-3, Telecom Decision CRTC 95-14, dated 27 June 1995, and other rulings, CanopCo maintained that the current restrictions on access to DFS discriminate unduly against CanopCo and other AOSPs since this provides a preference to its competitors in the operator service market who are LECs, interexchange carriers (IXCs) or wireless service providers (WSPs). In CanopCo's view such restrictions contravene section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act.

As a condition of granting access to DFS, CanopCo proposed that the following specific safeguards be imposed on AOSPs and that these safeguards be set forth in the LECs' DFS tariff and/or associated licence agreements:

b) include a term in both the tariff and licence agreement permitting termination of service and of the licence if the restriction is breached;

c) require AOSPs to be registered with the Commission, as was required in the Commission's letter of 18 February 2000 in respect of Zero-Dialed Emergency Call Routing Service;

d) require AOSPs to have entered into an agreement with ILECs to ensure that the AOSPs will comply with the Commission's consumer safeguards concerning operator services as set out in Order CRTC 95-316; and

e) prohibit any sub-licensing of DFS information as in the existing DFS licence agreement.

Interested parties' submissions

The former Stentor members, Télébec ltée and Québec-Téléphone did not oppose allowing AOSPs access to their DFS provided that safeguards are adopted. TELUS submitted that the Commission should establish procedures to satisfy itself that the consumer safeguards are being honored.

Télébec indicated that in the event that the Commission agreed that AOSPs should be allowed to have access to DFS, it would be willing to negotiate the appropriate service attributes and to file a proposed DFS tariff that would be accessible to AOSPs.

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay -Telephone Division (Thunder Bay Telephone) indicated that CanopCo's application more or less contemplates the existence of local competition in the serving areas of the independent telephone companies. Given that the Commission has yet to address this issue, Thunder Bay Telephone was of the view that CanopCo's application is premature.

With regard to CanopCo's suggestion that, if it is not possible for all Independents to provide DFS, CanopCo and other AOSPs should be permitted to have access to BLIF, the former Stentor companies and Télébec indicated that it would be appropriate that alternative listing services be considered only for companies that do not currently offer DFS. TELUS, however, indicated that the competitive local exchange carriers' (CLECs') subscriber listings are equally essential in order for any competitor to provide an adequate directory assistance service. Consequently, TELUS recommended that the Commission order all LECs to make available their subscriber listings to AOSPs, subject to consumer safeguards.

CanopCo's reply

CanopCo stated that Thunder Bay Telephone's opposition appears to be based on the assumption that its application is premised on the existence of local competition in the territories of independent telephone companies. CanopCo stated that its request for access to DFS is not dependent on the existence of local competition. It is required in order to offer its customers, in any region of Canada where it is permitted to operate, the ability to obtain the correct telephone number of a prospective called party residing in Thunder Bay Telephone's operating territory.

Conclusion

Consumer safeguards

The Commission notes that the safeguards proposed by CanopCo are essentially the same as those currently imposed on independent telephone directory publishers and LECs. In addition to the existing safeguards, CanopCo proposed that AOSPs be required to register with the Commission. The Commission is of the view that the safeguards that have already been established are adequate and that it is not necessary to establish additional ones for AOSPs at this time.

In regard to TELUS' concerns regarding enforcement of the safeguards, the Commission notes that TELUS has sufficient authority to enforce its tariff. Accordingly, the Commission does not consider it necessary to establish additional procedures.

Access to DFS/BLIF

The Commission notes that, with the exception of Thunder Bay Telephone, carriers did not oppose CanopCo's request. The Commission does not consider Thunder Bay Telephone's argument linking DFS access to local competition to be relevant. The Commission is of the view that DFS is necessary for AOSPs to provide accurate information to their customers that reside outside of any company's territory whether or not local competition exists in that territory.

The Commission has already established that it is in the public interest to allow viable competition in the directory assistance marketplace. This can only be achieved if all competitors are granted access to comparable subscriber listings. Accordingly, the Commission grants CanopCo's application seeking amendments to the tariffs of the ILECs and Independents to permit AOSPs access to their DFS.

CanopCo, in its application, has requested access to the BLIF of the Independents who do not offer DFS. In this regard, the Commission is of the view that to allow AOSPs access to the BLIF of the Independents which do not provide DFS would be consistent with its recent ruling that allowed independent directory publishers access to the BLIF of the ILECs and CLECs (Order CRTC 2001-260, dated 28 March 2001) and would be in the public interest.

TELUS recommended that the Commission order all ILECs and CLECs to make their BLIF available to AOSPs, subject to consumer safeguards. The Commission notes that this request is outside the scope of this proceeding, but considers, on a preliminary basis, that such an order would be in the public interest.

The Commission, therefore, orders:

a) ILECs and Independents that currently offer DFS to issue, within 30 days, amendments to their DFS tariff, and to modify their license agreement, to provide access to AOSPs for the sole purpose of providing directory assistance;

b) Télébec to file, within 45 days, a proposed DFS tariff that would be accessible to AOSPs for the sole purpose of providing directory assistance;

c) Independents that do not offer DFS to file, within 45 days, proposed tariffs to provide access to BLIF to AOSPs for the sole purpose of providing directory assistance; and

d) all ILECs and CLECs to show cause, within 30 days, why they should not provide access to BLIF to AOSPs for the sole purpose of providing directory assistance.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca