ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-5

Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-5

Ottawa, 4 February 2003

Suspension of service - Application by Mr. Neville Cox to review and vary Order CRTC 2000-1060

Reference: 8662-C109-01/02

In this decision, the Commission denies an application by Mr. Neville Cox to review and vary Suspension of service and multi-element plan service charges, Order CRTC 2000-1060, 28 November 2000.

1.

On 7 March 2002, Mr. Neville Cox filed an application to review and vary Suspension of service and multi-element plan service charges, Order CRTC 2000-1060, 28 November 2000 (Order 2000-1060). In Order 2000-1060, the Commission approved a revised rate structure for TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc.'s (TCI's) Suspension of Service in British Columbia.

2.

Suspension of Service permits customers to discontinue their local telephone service, at their request, without terminating the service. In Order 2000-1060, the Commission approved the replacement of the two one-time rate periods ($40.00 for three months or less and $50.00 for four to six months) with a continuous period up to 12 months, charged at 50% of the customer's regular monthly rate, and revisions indicating that the customer is required to pay a $45.00 service charge when the local telephone service is reactivated.

The application

3.

In his application, Mr. Cox requested that the Commission reconsider the rate increases it approved for TCI's Suspension of Service. In support of his request, Mr. Cox submitted that he was not given proper notice of TCI's application, and was denied a fair opportunity to make representations to the Commission with regard to the proposed rate increase. In Mr. Cox's view, approval of TCI's application resulted in a rate increase of 136.8%. Mr. Cox stated that the rate increase did not appropriately balance the interests of the residential telephone subscriber against the economic requirements of TCI. Mr. Cox submitted that the increase was unreasonable because TCI did not provide telephone service during the period of suspension.

4.

Mr. Cox further submitted that the rate increase was discriminatory as the vast majority of those affected by the revised rate structure were older, retired people with limited incomes.

TCI's comments

5.

TCI submitted that there would have been little or no merit in considering a customer notification process in the case of this particular application because Suspension of Service was a discretionary service. TCI further submitted that notification was not warranted for such applications in view of the associated financial burden on the general body of subscribers for the benefit of a limited few.

6.

TCI submitted that the rate changes approved by the Commission in Order 2000-1060 resulted in a 36.2% rate increase, and not 136.8% as claimed by Mr. Cox. TCI stated that for a six-month suspension period under the new rate structure, Mr. Cox would be charged a total of $68.10 ($11.35 per month) as opposed to the previous one-time charge of $50.00. TCI submitted that the only change in regard to the service charge was that customers were now required to pay the service charge upon reactivation of their local telephone service instead of when the service was suspended.

7.

TCI stated that the Suspension of Service charge reflected the cost of providing the service. TCI stated that the notion that it does not provide any services during the period of suspension was a misunderstanding of the service. In support of its argument, TCI submitted that, during the period of suspension, incoming callers were informed that the customer's service was suspended, except in exchanges without equipment to intercept calls, and the customer may have incoming calls referred to another telephone number. TCI also submitted that it was required to reserve and maintain the customer's facilities, continue the related administrative functions for the duration of the suspension period, as well as be ready to be re-activated to full working condition upon the customer's notice to reactivate service.

8.

TCI noted that no party other than Mr. Cox had challenged the reasonableness of the determinations made in Order 2000-1060. TCI stated that the absence of public concern since the filing and approval of its application was a fair indication that its application and the determinations made in Order 2000-1060 were reasonable, fair and non-discriminatory.

9.

TCI submitted that in light of the above, there was no justification to review and vary Order 2000-1060. TCI requested that the Commission deny Mr. Cox's application.

Mr. Cox's reply

10.

Mr. Cox submitted that in 2000, TCI did not apply the $45.00 service charge to temporarily suspend or to reconnect his telephone service. Mr. Cox also submitted that in 2001, TCI applied the service charge when his telephone service was suspended, instead of when his service was reactivated, as specified in the Suspension of Service tariff.

11.

In Mr. Cox's view, had customers been notified of TCI's application, they might have commented on it.

Commission analysis and determination

12.

The Commission notes that the criteria that must be satisfied to review and vary its decisions are set out in Guidelines for review and vary applications, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-6, 20 March 1998 (Public Notice 98-6). In Public Notice 98-6, the Commission established a test for determining whether or not to exercise its discretion to review and vary its decisions under section 62 of the Telecommunications Act. To meet this test, an applicant must demonstrate that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision.

13.

Mr. Cox argued that there was substantial doubt as to the correctness of Order 2000-1060 in that there was insufficient notice of TCI's application and the rate increase was unreasonable and discriminatory.

14.

The Commission notes that consistent with the Commission's practice, TCI's Suspension of Service application (Tariff Notice 4111) was available in the Commission's Public Examination Rooms in both Gatineau and Vancouver, and was also posted on the Commission's website. The Commission is of the view that the rules of natural justice did not require additional notice in this circumstance. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the application does not demonstrate that there was insufficient notice of TCI's application. The Commission therefore finds that there is no substantial doubt as to the correctness of Order 2000-1060 in this regard.

15.

The Commission notes that the companies it regulates are required to price discretionary services, such as Suspension of Service, at rates that permit them to recover the cost of providing the service. The Commission also notes that although a customer's service is not activated during a period of suspended service, the customer continues to receive many of the underlying functions from TCI during the period of suspended service. The Commission considers that TCI should be compensated for these underlying functions. In Order 2000-1060, the Commission found that the rates for TCI's Suspension of Service met the pricing constraints established for such discretionary services under the price cap requirements. In addition, the Commission notes that the residential Suspension of Service rates approved in Order 2000-1060 are not higher than those approved by the Commission for TCI customers in the province of Alberta, nor for Aliant Telecom Inc. customers in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

16.

The Commission considers that the rates approved in Order 2000-1060 are not unjustly discriminatory, as all TCI residential customers are provided the service under the same rates, terms and conditions.

17.

The Commission finds that the application does not demonstrate that the rate changes approved in Order 2000-1060 were unreasonable or discriminatory. Thus, the Commission finds that there is no substantial doubt as to the correctness of Order 2000-1060 in this regard.

18.

Finally, the Commission notes TCI's statement that prior to Order 2000-1060, it had been the company's practice to require residential suspension of service customers to pay a service charge at the time of activating temporary service suspension. The Commission further notes that prior to Order 2000-1060, TCI's Suspension of Service tariff did not indicate that such a service charge was applicable to residential customers. The Commission therefore finds that TCI was not in compliance with its tariff. The Commission reminds TCI that it is required to adhere to its tariffs with respect to all customers.

19.

In light of the above, the Commission finds that the application does not demonstrate that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Commission's original decision and, accordingly, denies the application.

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