ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 88638-C12-46/01 - Dispute filed byPIAC/NAPO on 26 June 2002.

Ottawa, 27 August 2002

CRTC File number: 8638-C12-46/01

To: Bill Management Tools and Access to Telephone Service Committee Members

Re: Dispute filed by PIAC/NAPO on 26 June 2002.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the National Anti-Poverty Organisations (PIAC/NAPO) filed the above-noted dispute in the context of the activities of the Bill Management Tools and Access to Telephone Service Committee (the BMT Committee). The dispute relates to the application and interpretation of the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' (ILECs) current Terms of Service provisions with respect to the disconnection of basic local service for non-payment of toll or other non-tariffed charges.

Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Northern Telephone Limited Partnership, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Télébec Société en commandite, (collectively, the Companies) and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS), filed comments on 28 July 2002.

PIAC/NAPO filed reply comments on 1 August 2002.

TELUS and the Companies' position

TELUS and the Companies submitted that the object of the dispute should be addressed in the upcoming Consumer Bill of Rights (CBOR) proceeding, or the possible and subsequent Terms of Service review proceeding. These proceedings are referred to in Regulatory framework for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34 Ottawa, 30 May 2002 (Decision 2002-34) at paragraphs 787 to 800.

In support of their position, the Companies submitted, amongst other things, that during the proceeding that led to Decision 2002-34, ARC et al. had submitted that the proposed Consumer Rights proceeding

should include the review of other consumer rights issues, including those that are raised in this dispute.

The Companies argued that the Commission should confirm whether or not disconnection and payment issues raised in the dispute will be part of the CBOR proceeding. The Companies further argued that, absent this confirmation, disposing of the dispute outside the CBOR proceeding would create a situation of « double jeopardy » for the Companies. They submitted that parties with interests contrary to their own could then have, in the Companies' view, two opportunities to obtain a desired outcome based on the same evidence.

The Companies submitted that the issues raised in the dispute would be best addressed through a public process. In their view, this would result in a well-documented record and would afford an opportunity for comments from a body of stakeholders and interested parties wider than the existing membership of the BMT Committee.

The Companies did not address the substance of the dispute in their comments, reserving the right to make submissions in the event that the Commission decided to proceed with the dispute.

According to TELUS the dispute would be best dealt with in the CBOR proceeding or the possible Terms of Service review. However, the company did address the substance of the dispute in its comments and submitted that PIAC/NAPO proposal in this dispute would require changes to TELUS' Terms of Service.

PIAC/NAPO's position

PIAC/NAPO stated that it is not clear that the CBOR proceeding will deal with the issues raised in this dispute.

PIAC/NAPO argued that, with respect to the contemplated Terms of Service review proceeding, it is their view that the Commission merely suggested that it would consider the need for such a review after the CBOR proceeding. PIAC/NAPO submitted that it would be inappropriate to delay consideration of issues raised at the BMT Committee merely because they could possibly be considered in the context of a potential future proceeding to review Terms of Service.

PIAC/NAPO submitted that the BMT Committee process is a public one where both ILECs and consumers are well represented. In addition, the BMT Committee generates a record to support its activities.

Conclusion

Commission staff is of the view that the dispute should be addressed forthwith.

We note that the dispute relates to the interpretation and application of the provisions in the ILECs' existing Terms of Service which govern the disconnection process, in the case of customers who make partial payments of an account that includes tariffed and non-tarrifed charges. The matters presented in the dispute involve existing rules and practices and, therefore, are not dependent on the conclusion, or the initiation, of any other process by the Commission.

The BMT Committee is a public process that generates a record to support its activities and the parties most affected by the substance of the dispute are well represented. The dispute was raised in the BMT Committee process. Thus, all documents filed by BMT Committee members, in the context of the BMT Committee's activities, are part of the record, and are at the disposal of the Commission to aid it in making determinations with regards to the dispute.

Accordingly, all ILECs are requested to file comments on the dispute, no later than 10 September 2002. PIAC/NAPO will then have until 24 September 2002 to file its reply comment. All documents are to be served on BMT Committee members and filed with the CRTC by these dates.

Sincerely,

Shirley Soehn
Executive Director, Telecommunications

Cc:  Philippe Tousignant
BMT Committee Chair