|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 2003-378
|
|
|
Ottawa, 12 September 2003
|
|
|
Complaint regarding termination of telephone service by Aliant Telecom Inc.
|
|
|
Reference: 4764-106
|
|
|
The Commission finds that Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom) was justified under its Terms of Service in terminating the complainant's telephone service because his use of Aliant Telecom's services was preventing fair and proportionate use by others. The Commission finds that Aliant Telecom would have to reconnect service if the complainant signs an affidavit swearing that he would no longer use Aliant Telecom's services so as to prevent such use.
|
|
|
Application
|
|
1.
|
By letter dated 6 October 2002, the complainant asked that the Commission review the matter of Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom) having terminated his telephone service.
|
|
|
Background
|
|
2.
|
In December 2001, Aliant Telecom terminated the complainant's telephone service after receiving complaints by the Nova Scotia Government (Government). The Government had complained that the complainant was making so many calls to various government departments using 1-800 numbers that the government phone lines were tied up for hours, thereby preventing other citizens from getting through.
|
|
3.
|
On 5 March 2002 the complainant filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that Aliant Telecom should not have terminated his telephone service. On 28 March 2002 Aliant Telecom responded to the complaint and the complainant filed reply comments on 8 April 2002. On 8 July 2002 Aliant Telecom responded to Commission staff interrogatories. The complainant filed a further reply on 10 July 2002.
|
|
4.
|
On 30 September 2002, Commission staff sent a letter to the complainant, stating that it considered Aliant Telecom was justified in terminating his telephone service because his use of Aliant Telecom's services had prevented fair and proportionate use by others.
|
|
5.
|
By letter dated 6 October 2002, the complainant requested that the Commission review the matter. On 1 November 2002, Aliant Telecom notified the Commission by email that it would not send any comments because the complainant's letter did not raise any new issue for Aliant Telecom to address.
|
|
|
Analysis and determination
|
|
|
Grounds for termination
|
|
6.
|
The complainant submitted that he had technical problems with his telephone line which account for some of the calls shown on the Government's telephone bills. The Commission notes Aliant Telecom's statement that it maintains records of all repair requests since October 2000 and that these records do not indicate any repair request for that telephone line. The Commission also notes that Aliant Telecom's test of the cable pair and line equipment in use on 2 July 2002 showed the line to be clear, with no technical problem.
|
|
7.
|
The Commission notes that the evidence shows that the complainant made thousands of 1-800 calls in a short timeframe from his telephone line. Of the 9620 such calls that the complainant made from August 2000 to December 2001, 6309 calls were made from April 2001 to December 2001. The Commission notes that the Government has a finite number of employees to answer telephone calls and a finite number of telephone lines available for callers to get through to various government departments. The Commission considers that in making a very large volume of calls in a short timeframe, the complainant was taking up lines that were not available for other customers of Aliant Telecom to access in order to obtain information, thereby preventing them from making fair and proportionate use of such lines.
|
|
8.
|
The Commission notes that the Government had activated Call Screen in June 2001 for a number of its lines. The Commission notes that an individual could still call other Government numbers that did not have the Call Screen placed on them, in order to get transferred to the lines that had the Call Screen in place. The Commission notes that blocking an individual from making long distance calls, which would include 1-800 calls, would not prevent such individual from calling a local Government number and asking to be transferred to the desired Government departments in Halifax. In light of the above and noting that an organization such as the Government uses many different lines for inbound calls, the Commission considers that technical options such as Call Screen or Call Blocking would not have been effective in this case to stop the complainant from using Aliant Telecom's services in a way that prevented fair and proportionate use by others.
|
|
9.
|
Aliant Telecom justified the termination in part in relation to Article 22(1)(f) of Aliant Telecom's Terms of Service, which provides that a customer's service may be terminated where the customer uses Aliant Telecom's services for the purpose of making annoying or offensive calls. The Commission finds that the record does not show that the complainant was using Aliant Telecom's services for the purpose of making annoying or offensive calls.
|
|
10.
|
Aliant Telecom also justified the termination in part in relation to Article 22(1)(e) of its Terms of Service, which provides that a customer's service may be terminated where the customer uses Aliant Telecom's services so as to prevent fair and proportionate use by others. The Commission notes that: i) Aliant Telecom based its decision to terminate the complainant's telephone service on evidence gathered over more than a year; ii) Aliant Telecom gave the complainant proper notice of its intention to terminate his telephone service if the call pattern continued; and iii) Aliant Telecom took into consideration all other technical options available, such as Call Screen or Call Blocking, before deciding to terminate service.
|
|
11.
|
In light of the above, the Commission finds that Aliant Telecom was justified under Article 22(1)(e) of its Terms of Service in terminating the complainant's telephone service.
|
|
|
Requirement for services to be restored
|
|
12.
|
Based on Article 22.8 of Aliant Telecom's Terms of Service, Aliant Telecom must restore service where the grounds for termination no longer exist. The Commission notes that in order to demonstrate that the grounds for termination no longer exist in this case, the complainant would have to provide sufficient evidence that he will no longer use Aliant Telecom's services so as to prevent fair and proportionate use by others.
|
|
13.
|
The Commission finds that an affidavit, addressed to Aliant Telecom and signed by the complainant, would constitute sufficient evidence. In the affidavit, the complainant would have to swear that he will no longer use Aliant Telecom's services in a way that would prevent fair and proportionate use by others and, more specifically, in a way that would block other citizens' telephone access to public services. In addition, the complainant would have to acknowledge that if his telephone service were restored and he continued to use Aliant Telecom's services in a way that would prevent fair and proportionate use by others, Aliant Telecom would be entitled under its Terms of Service to terminate his service again.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|
Date Modified: 2003-09-12