ARCHIVED - Order CRTC 2001-772

Order CRTC 2001-772

Ottawa, 19 October 2001

Zero-dialed access to emergency service providers

Reference: Bell Canada tariff notice 6429, TCBC TN 4030, TCI TN 192, APTC TNs  7 and 16, and MTS TN 389

Summary

The Commission finds that it is not necessary to have a standard national method in Canada to route zero-dialed emergency calls. The Commission gives final approval to a TCI and TCBC zero-dialed emergency call routing service. The Commission also gives final approval to the tariff provisions, excluding rates, filed by Bell Canada, Island Tel, NBTel, MTT, NewTel and MTS that had been approved on an interim basis; the Commission directs these companies and SaskTel to file rates that reflect the use of the service. The Commission also finds that, in areas where 9-1-1 services do not exist, that it is appropriate for wireless service providers to use the services proposed for zero-emergency call routing or the existing local operator assistance service.

On 9 November 1999, the Commission directed the 9-1-1 CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee to explore technical solutions that would ensure all pay telephone users receive prompt access to emergency service providers when they dial zero from a payphone.

On 23 December 1999, Bell Canada filed tariff notice (TN) 6429, offering a zero-dialed emergency call routing service (0-ECRS) only to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs).

On 14 January 2000 ,TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) and TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. (TCBC) [collectively, TELUS] filed their proposed 0-ECRS for alternate operator service providers (AOSPs), to be available to regulated parties such as CLECs, wireless service providers (WSPs), interexchange carriers (IXCs) and competitive pay telephone service providers (CPTSPs).

top

On 18 February 2000, the Commission granted interim approval to the proposed tariffs, with the following changes:

a) the service is to be available to CLECs, WSPs, IXCs, CPTSPs and AOSPs. In order to be eligible to receive the service under the tariffs, AOSPs must register as a local reseller to provide 0-emergency calling only to CPTSPs, WSPs, CLECs, and IXCs. In addition, service will only be provided if arrangements are in place to ensure that the AOSP will comply with the Commission's consumer safeguards concerning operator services set out in Telecom Order CRTC 95-316, dated 15 March 1995; and

b) Bell Canada, TCI and TCBC were directed to replace the words "9-1-1 call" and/or "0-emergency call" with "emergency call" to accommodate the routing of emergency calls from wireless carriers. Further, Bell Canada, TCI and TCBC should incorporate the above-referenced consumer safeguards into the tariff and the associated service agreements.

Subsequently, the Commission also gave interim approval, with the above changes, to tariffs filed by the Atlantic Provinces Telecommunications Council (APTC) under TN 7 on behalf of Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (MTT), NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc.; by APTC under TN 16 on behalf of Island Telecom Inc.; and by MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) under TN 389. These tariffs are for a 0-ECRS similar to that filed by Bell Canada.

In addition, in Order CRTC 2000-604, Tariffs and associated form agreements, dated 29 June 2000, the Commission approved tariffs for Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) that included a 0-ECRS consistent with the service approved for Bell Canada on 18 February 2000.

In this order, the companies identified in paragraphs 5 and 6 above together with Bell Canada, are collectively referred to as "the companies".

top

On 15 August 2000, the Commission established a further process that provided opportunities for interrogatories, comments and reply comments before the Commission would consider final approval for the proposed tariffs.

Summary of proposed services

Zero-dialed emergency call routing service

This service has been proposed by the companies:

a) under 0-ECRS, carriers whose end-customers dial "0" in an emergency will have calls routed directly to the designated public service answering position (PSAP) or other emergency response agencies within the incumbent local exchange carrier's (ILEC's) territory without involving the companies' operators.

b) in areas served by a province-wide 9-1-1 platform, 0-ECRS will permit customers to access the 9-1-1 platform.

c) in areas served by older versions of 9-1-1 and in areas that do not have 9-1-1 service, 0-ECRS will provide a list of telephone numbers for emergency response agencies. These lists will allow 0-ECRS customers to route emergency calls directly to the appropriate emergency response agency.

Emergency services - operator access coordination service (ES-OACS)

TELUS has proposed the following service:

Emergency services - operator access coordination service (ES-OACS) will allow AOSPs to directly contact one of the companies' operators for assistance in order to coordinate the establishment of a link between the AOSP and the appropriate Public Safety Answering Position (PSAP) or emergency service provider in the companies' operating territories to allow the AOSP to properly process any "0" emergency call.

top

The need for a standardized routing approach

The companies stated that a national, standardized routing approach to handle zero-dialed emergency calls may not be necessary.

The companies further stated that, as long as the Commission is satisfied that both solutions offer an appropriate and efficient manner for response to zero-dialed emergency calls, it is not necessary for the Commission to mandate a single, national standardized routing approach.

TELUS stated that, if so ordered by the Commission, they could provide a 0-ECRS similar to that proposed by the companies at the same rates as Bell Canada has proposed. However, TELUS submitted that, in light of confidentiality concerns, it would reserve the right to include only those telephone numbers in a TELUS database solution for which an explicit approval has been obtained to release the telephone number from the PSAP or emergency services provider.

TELUS further submitted that any standardized solution that the Commission orders may necessarily be temporary at best. TELUS stated that it recognizes that there is significant research activity to address these emergency services issues, such as the USA National Mayday Readiness Initiative. TELUS further stated that it is aware that the PSAPs are discussing these issues to establish processes and procedures that will allow them to better manage and control access to their services.

top

TELUS noted that there is no need to implement a national, standardized solution as long as the Commission is satisfied that both existing solutions, as currently approved, offer an appropriate and efficient manner for response to zero-dialed emergency calls.

The Canadian Payphone Association (CPA) stated that it represents CPTSPs across Canada. Many of these CPTSPs operate in both TELUS and non-TELUS territories. The CPA submitted that, where it is technically feasible to offer essentially an identical service of a public safety nature across Canada, the Commission should strive to ensure that the same service is offered on a national basis, rather than through a patchwork of provincial standards. The CPA further submitted that there is no technical reason why TELUS cannot offer the 0-ECRS solution offered by the companies.

The Commission notes that the routing proposals under consideration in this proceeding have been operating in the territories of Bell Canada and TELUS, on an interim basis, since February 2000 without an apparent problem.

In the Commission's view, no party demonstrated that one solution is a more efficient method than the other to respond to zero-dialed emergency calls.

The Commission finds that that there is no need to implement a national standardized solution. The Commission is satisfied that both existing solutions, as currently approved, offer an appropriate and efficient manner for response to zero-dialed emergency calls.

top

Proposed rates

The Commission notes that the charges proposed by TELUS for ES-OACS reflect rates for components used in the provision of ES-OACS, which the Commission has previously approved.

The Commission approves, on a final basis, the rates proposed by TELUS, which were given interim approval on 18 February 2000.

The companies proposed rates that consist of a monthly rate and a service charge.

Some parties argued that the proposed rates are onerous for small volume users. They suggested that the service be priced on a per-call basis.

Bell Canada submitted that most costs will be incurred in the development and implementation phases of the service. The company stated that the number of calls placed by end-customers is not a material cost factor.

Bell Canada also submitted that, even if the volume of emergency calls is low initially for some entrants, the number of zero-dialed emergency calls will increase as local competition intensifies and new entrants gain market share.

The Commission notes that the rates proposed by the companies are based on a seven-year demand forecast for CLECs only. However, in granting interim approval, the Commission required that the service also be made available to WSPs, IXCs, CPTSPs and AOSPs.

top

Bell Canada stated that if service is extended to a larger base of customers, the rates would not likely be lower. In addition, if the service is extended to AOSPs, the number of customers may be lower compared to the scenario where service is provided only to CLECs. As CLECs do not wish to provide zero-dialed emergency services themselves, they could contract out the services to an AOSP. This would result in a lower number of prospective 0-ECRS customers.

The Commission notes that, as ordered on 18 February 2000, the larger base of customers includes not only AOSPs but also WSPs, IXCs and CPTSPs. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the companies should resubmit their cost studies to take into account the larger base of potential customers.

In addition, the Commission considers that the companies have not adequately justified a monthly charge as opposed to a per-call compensation regime. In the Commission's view, a rate structure with a usage-based component would more appropriately reflect the costs of providing the service to users.

Accordingly, the Commission directs the companies to submit new rates with a usage-based component. In addition, the Commission directs the companies to include complete support and justification for the rates that they propose.

The Commission further directs the companies to file their proposed rates and supporting information within 90 days of the date of this order.

top

The 0-ECRS agreement

Call-Net Enterprises Inc. expressed concern with subsections 6.2 and 6.3 of the 0-ECRS agreement.

In subsection 6.2, the companies seek to exclude their liability to the customer or its agent for any inaccuracies in the list of the telephone numbers extracted from the companies' traffic operator position system of emergency response agencies (ERAs) located within the companies' operating territories. Such a list is referred to as TOPR.

In subsection 6.3, the companies seek to exclude their liability as a result of making the TOPR listing information available to a third party under the agreement and applicable tariffs.

Call-Net objected to such limitations. The point of the service is to supply customers with accurate information to re-direct end-user emergency calls. Call-Net recommended that the two clauses be deleted and the companies guarantee the accuracy of the TOPR content as an exception to its limitation of liability.

Bell Canada replied that, while it will always strive to ensure that the TOPR content is 100% accurate, inaccuracies are sometimes beyond the company's control. Bell Canada submitted that it relies on the ERAs to input correct telephone number information into the TOPR. From time to time, the telephone numbers of ERAs change and when such a change occurs, Bell Canada's TOPR may not be accurate for a period of time until it is notified of the change by the ERA or municipality. Bell Canada noted that these changes have occurred recently in Ontario as municipalities have amalgamated.

top

Bell Canada further submitted that when an occurrence as slight as a typographical error by one of its employees is enough to risk unlimited liability, it is entirely reasonable for the company to seek to exclude its liability even when the inaccuracy in TOPR content is, in theory, under its control.

With respect to subsection 6.3, Bell Canada submitted that it is not in a position to physically control the use of such information once it provides it to a customer. This is more than sufficient reason to justify subsection 6.3.

CanopCo Inc. expressed concern about subsection 7.1. This clause requires both the company and the customer to maintain sufficient insurance coverage to cover monetary obligations that might arise as a result of any liability incurred by a party under the agreement. CanopCo noted that the company could use the provision to limit competition in the operator services market by refusing to sign agreements for service with entities that cannot obtain the necessary insurance coverage.

The Commission considers that subsection 6.2 is overly broad. Subsection 6.2 states that the company shall not be liable to the customer for any inaccuracies in the TOPR content, however they are caused. In the Commission's view, not only would such a broad limitation exclude liability for "human error" negligence on the companies' part, but it could also cover willful misconduct by employees.

The Commission notes that such a broad limitation on liability is not included in 9-1-1 service agreements. This limitation is not included in the TELUS ES-OACS agreement. Accordingly, the Commission directs that subsection 6.2 be deleted from the 0-ECRS agreement.

With respect to subsection 7.1, the Commission notes that such an insurance provision is common in many business agreements. The Commission does not consider the provision to be an attempt to limit competition in the operator services market. Accordingly, the Commission finds subsection 7.1 to be appropriate.

top

Except as noted above, the Commission approves, on a final basis, the 0-ECRS filed by Bell Canada under TN 6429; by APTC under TN 7 on behalf of MTT, NBTel and NewTel; by APTC under TN 16 on behalf of Island Tel; and by MTS under TN 389.

The Commission also approves, on a final basis, the ES-OACS filed by TCI under TN 192 and by TCBC under TN 4030.

Routing of WSP emergency calls by ILECs

In Telecom Order CRTC 99-1155, Directory information service and local operator assistance service, dated 15 December 1999, the Commission established, among other things, a procedure to address the routing of WSP emergency calls by the ILECs in rural areas where there is no 9-1-1 service.

Comments in this proceeding from Microcell Telecommunications Inc. and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) centred mainly around the use of
0-ECRS and local operator assistance service (LOAS) in handling WSP emergency calls in areas where there is no 9-1-1 service.

Using 0-ECRS

Microcell requested that the Commission confirm that 0-ECRS and ES-OACS are acceptable long-term alternatives for the routing of 9-1-1 calls from wireless carriers.

The companies agreed that 0-ECRS is an acceptable long-term alternative for the routing of 9-1-1 calls from wireless carriers in areas where there is no 9-1-1 service. The companies confirmed that 0-ECRS is not an acceptable alternative for the routing of 9-1-1 calls in areas that have 9-1-1 service. The companies stated that 0-ECRS is not a substitute for the routing of 9-1-1 calls and should not be used to terminate or replace 9-1-1 calls.

top

TELUS stated that, in 9-1-1 service areas, 9-1-1 calls must be delivered to the ILEC as a 9-1-1 call. In areas where 9-1-1 is not available, or for emergency calls that are zero-dialed, TELUS stated that it would support routing these calls to the ILEC operator.

Using LOAS

Through LOAS, WSPs can provide their customers with access to local operator assistance. Then the WSP customer can tell the local operator which particular assistance he or she requires. This service can be used for WSP end-customer zero-dialed emergency calls; 9-1-1 calls in an area where 9-1-1 service is not available; and 9-1-1 calls in area where 9-1-1 is available, as an interim arrangement only, until such time as trunk-side access to 9-1-1 service is available to WSPs.

Both CWTA and Microcell agreed that, for the routing of emergency calls in those areas where there is no 9-1-1 service, LOAS is both workable and desirable.

CWTA suggested that, if the Commission does not see fit to permit the current routing arrangements to continue until such time as wireless enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) is in place, wireless carriers should have the option to use the LOAS tariff to route emergency calls and have a further six-months for a transition period.

top

In response, Bell Canada noted that LOAS has been available to WSPs since 17 December 1999 for the routing of their emergency calls in the manner described above. In Bell Canada's view, the CWTA provided no compelling reasons to support its request for the continued expansion of line-side access arrangements until wireless E9-1-1 is available or that a further six month extension beyond that time is necessary. LOAS has been available to WSPs since December 1999 and Bell Canada noted that it should be permitted to terminate the provision of line-side access arrangements immediately.

Bell Canada agreed that LOAS is an acceptable long-term alternative to route 9-1-1 calls from wireless carriers in areas where 9-1-1 service is not available. Bell Canada stated that its operator service should not be used as an alternative to the delivery of 9-1-1 calls where 9-1-1 service is available. Bell Canada submitted that there could be additional delays in responding to an emergency if a 9-1-1 call was translated into a zero-dialed call and then routed back to the 9-1-1 platform by a Bell Canada operator.

Bell Canada further submitted that LOAS can be used for 9-1-1 calls in areas where 9-1-1 is available, as an interim arrangement only, and only until such time as trunk-side access arrangement is available to the WSPs. Bell Canada submitted that LOAS is not an acceptable long-term alternative for the routing of 9-1-1 calls from wireless carriers in areas where 9-1-1 is available. Bell Canada stated that the promotion of alternatives to the use of the 9-1-1 platform is not in the public interest.

Microcell requested that Bell Canada modify the LOAS tariff to explicitly accommodate 9-1-1 calls from wireless carriers in geographic areas where 9-1-1 service does not exist. In response, Bell Canada stated that, if so directed by the Commission, it would add a phrase to Item 88.3 of the LOAS tariff to allow 9-1-1 calls in areas where 9-1-1 is not available. TELUS also stated that it was prepared to modify the TCBC LOAS tariff as suggested by Microcell.

top

Microcell further requested that Bell Canada be permitted to withdraw line-side routing to operator services only when the planned wireless 9-1-1 trunk-side trial in Bell Canada territory has been completed and only when a commercial arrangement has been put in place.

Bell Canada replied that it should be permitted to withdraw obsolete line-side access arrangements to operator services immediately. Bell Canada submitted that Microcell can avail itself of LOAS as an interim measure until such time as trunk-side access to 9-1-1 service is available in Bell Canada territories.

The Commission notes that no arguments were presented against the use of 0-ECRS, ES-OACS or LOAS to provide for the routing of emergency calls in those areas where 9-1-1 service does not exist. The Commission finds that, in the circumstances, these services are appropriate to provide for the routing of emergency calls in those areas where 9-1-1 service does not exist.

In Order 99-1155, the Commission permitted the ILECs to discontinue line-side access to operator services by 15 March 2000. Subsequently, in granting interim approval to 0-ECRS and ES-OACS, the Commission suspended the 15 March 2000 termination date, pending a decision in this proceeding.

top

The Commission finds that there is no compelling reason why there should be a further six-month transition period to allow for the termination of line-side access to operator services. The Commission notes that LOAS has been available to WSPs since December 1999 and that 0-ECRS has been available since February 2000.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission approves the withdrawal of line-side access to operator services 45 days from the effective date of this order.

Proposed changes to LOAS tariff

CWTA alleged that wireless carriers should not be required to commit to either minimum volume requirements or minimum contract terms for LOAS. Microcell also suggested that the LOAS tariff be modified to eliminate the minimum usage requirements for WSPs that certify in writing that they will employ LOAS solely for the purpose of routing emergency calls and solely in those areas where they are permitted to do so, consistent with Commission directives. Microcell submitted that, if the ILECs do not find this acceptable, an alternative would be to reduce the minimum usage commitment in the LOAS tariffs to the level currently in effect in the TCBC tariff, which is 27,000 seconds per month.

In response, Bell Canada submitted that there are certain minimum conditions that must be met with any service offering in order to make it economically viable. Bell Canada further noted that WSPs have alternatives to LOAS, such as 0-ECRS. LOAS was designed to meet specific market needs and there is no public policy reason why the rates for this service should not recover Bell Canada's costs. Moreover, according to Bell Canada, LOAS is provided pursuant to a tariff that received final Commission approval. Bell Canada argued that CWTA has placed nothing on the record of this proceeding to raise substantial doubt about the correctness of the Commission's original approval of the LOAS tariff. Bell Canada stated that, should WSPs choose to use Bell Canada's LOAS tariff to route emergency calls, they should do so under the terms and conditions of the LOAS tariff as approved by the Commission.

top

With respect to the removal of the minimum usage and minimum contract terms, the Commission is of the view that such terms are necessary to ensure that the LOAS rates are just and reasonable.

With respect to modifying the LOAS tariff to explicitly accommodate 9-1-1 calls in areas where there is no 9-1-1 service, the Commission notes the willingness by Bell Canada and TELUS to modify the tariff.

Accordingly, the Commission denies the requests to modify the minimum usage and minimum contract terms of the LOAS tariffs and approves the modification to explicitly accommodate 9-1-1 calls in areas where there is no 9-1-1 service.

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