Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-14

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

 

Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-14

  Ottawa, 1 March 2004
 

TELUS Québec v. Bell Canada − Québec City telephone directory listings

  Reference: 8622-T69-01/02
  In this decision, the Commission denies an application by TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (TELUS Québec) requesting that the Commission order Bell Canada to resume publishing in Bell Canada's White Pages telephone directory for Québec City at no charge the subscribers' listing for five TELUS Québec exchanges located near Québec City. A dissenting opinion by Commissioner Langford is attached.

1.

The Commission received an application dated 29 April 2002 from TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (TELUS Québec), pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure. TELUS Québec requested that the Commission:
  i) investigate Bell Canada's decision to cease publishing at no charge subscribers' listings for five TELUS Québec exchanges located near Québec City in the White Pages telephone directory for Québec City; and
  ii) order Bell Canada to resume publishing in its White Pages telephone directory for Québec City at no charge the said subscribers' listings.

2.

The Commission received comments from Bell Canada on 29 May 2002, and TELUS Québec's reply on 10 June 2002. Additional comments on new arguments raised by TELUS Québec were received from Bell Canada on 11 July 2002. An additional reply was received from TELUS Québec on 22 July 2002.

3.

On 18 November 2002, Bell Canada was requested to file additional information concerning the costs incurred by Bell Canada to publish the subscribers' listings for the five TELUS Québec exchanges in its White Pages telephone directory for Québec City. Bell Canada provided the requested information on 2 December 2002, some of which was filed in confidence.

4.

On 5 December 2002, TELUS Québec requested disclosure of the information filed by Bell Canada in confidence. Bell Canada filed its answer on 12 December 2002. On 17 December 2002, TELUS Québec's request for disclosure was denied. TELUS Québec filed its final comments on 13 January 2003.
 

Positions of parties

 

TELUS Québec

5.

TELUS Québec submitted that following the establishment of extended area service between some of its exchanges and Bell Canada's exchange for Québec City in 1967 and 1968, Bell Canada had agreed to publish at no charge listings for TELUS Québec subscribers in the Saint-Augustin, Saint-Charles-de-Bellechasse, Saint-Henri-de-Lévis, Saint-Lambert and Saint-Michel-de-Bellechasse exchanges in the White Pages telephone directory for Québec City. TELUS Québec also submitted that Bell Canada had continued to publish listings at no charge for subscribers in the five exchanges in question as an acquired right until 2001, despite the fact that Bell Canada had refused to publish listings for subscribers in other TELUS Québec exchanges that had subsequently obtained an extended area service link with Québec City.

6.

TELUS Québec alleged that an agreement existed between itself and Bell Canada, similar to agreements between certain small incumbent telephone companies and Bell Canada, to publish its subscribers' listings in Bell Canada telephone directories. TELUS Québec submitted that, unlike Bell Canada's agreements with other small independent telephone companies, the agreement between TELUS Québec and Bell Canada provided that Bell Canada would publish TELUS Québec subscribers' listings at no charge. TELUS Québec submitted that, contrary to subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), Bell Canada had unjustly discriminated against it by terminating the agreement while it had continued to publish subscribers' listings for certain small incumbent telephone companies in its directories. TELUS Québec further submitted that Bell Canada had also discriminated against it by not proposing any alternatives to TELUS Québec when it had terminated the agreement. In TELUS Québec's view, Bell Canada's decision was based on three considerations: the agreement did not generate revenue for the company; TELUS Québec was a potential competitor; and Bell Canada was attempting to raise the ire of TELUS Québec's business subscribers in order to get them to choose Bell Canada as their local service provider.

7.

TELUS Québec submitted that under the agreement it was a Bell Canada subscriber and, consequently, Bell Canada should have applied its General Tariff Terms of Service (Terms) to terminate the agreement. TELUS Québec further submitted that Bell Canada had terminated the agreement despite the fact that none of the criteria set out in article 22 of the Terms had been satisfied. TELUS Québec alleged that Bell Canada had not given it reasonable notice before terminating the agreement, and had thereby precluded it from notifying its subscribers that their listings would no longer be published in the Bell Canada White Pages telephone directory for Québec City.

8.

TELUS Québec submitted that Bell Canada had contravened section 24 of the Act by failing to seek Commission approval prior to its rationalization of its Québec City area telephone directories.
 

Bell Canada

9.

Bell Canada denied the existence of any agreement between itself and TELUS Québec to publish TELUS Québec subscribers' listings for the five exchanges noted above in its White Pages telephone directory for Québec City. Bell Canada submitted that its decision to no longer publish, at no charge, TELUS Québec subscribers' listings in its Québec City White Pages telephone directory was part of its White Pages telephone directory rationalization program. Bell Canada stated that it had notified TELUS Québec of its decision to no longer list the subscribers in question over 18 months prior to refusing TELUS Québec subscribers' listings.

10.

Bell Canada submitted that the situation between itself and TELUS Québec was different from the agreements it had with certain small incumbent telephone companies. Bell Canada noted that TELUS Québec customers in the five affected exchanges receive a TELUS Québec directory covering their exchange and are listed in that directory. Bell Canada also noted that TELUS Québec contracts with its own directory publishing company to produce its directories, while the small incumbent telephone companies contract with Bell Canada and its publishing affiliate, Bell Actimedia, to publish their directories. Bell Canada further noted that, under written agreements, Bell Actimedia is compensated by those small incumbent telephone companies for the cost of publishing directories for the primary publication of their subscribers. Bell Canada added that the subscribers' listings of those small incumbent telephone companies are either published in the same book as Bell Canada's directory listings or in a standalone directory. Bell Canada indicated, however, that it did not publish subscribers' listings of those small incumbent telephone companies in two directories without charging the applicable fee for an extra listing. Bell Canada also indicated that since it began to rationalize its directories, it no longer lists its own subscribers in another of its directories without charging the applicable fee for an extra listing, as set out in its General Tariff.

11.

Bell Canada submitted that its Terms applied solely to its subscribers and not to TELUS Québec subscribers and the onus was on TELUS Québec to notify its subscribers that their listings would no longer be published in the Bell Canada White Pages telephone directory for Québec City.

12.

Bell Canada submitted that its General Tariff did not require it to seek Commission authorization to rationalize the publication of its directories, but did require it to publish a listing for each of its subscribers at no charge in the telephone directory of the subscriber's serving exchange. Bell Canada submitted that it had fulfilled that requirement.
 

Commission analysis and determination

13.

Subsection 27(2) of the Act states that "[n]o Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage." The Commission's analysis of the application is conducted in two phases. The Commission must first determine whether there is discrimination or preference. Where it determines that there is discrimination or preference, the Commission must then decide whether the discrimination is unjust or the preference undue or unreasonable.

14.

The Commission notes TELUS Québec's allegations that Bell Canada had unjustly discriminated against it by ceasing to publish its subscribers' listings for the five affected exchanges in the Québec City White Pages telephone directory while it still continued to publish the subscriber listings of certain small incumbent telephone companies in its directories. However, the Commission notes that TELUS Québec uses a separate directory publishing company to publish directories for its own serving exchanges, while certain small incumbent telephone companies contract with Bell Canada and Bell Actimedia to have their subscribers' listings published in a directory. Moreover, the Commission notes that the agreements between those small incumbent telephone companies and Bell Canada and Bell Actimedia are for the primary publication, for a fee, of those small incumbent telephone companies' subscribers' listings, not for an additional publication of their subscribers' listings in another directory, for free. In this regard, the Commission notes Bell Canada's submission that it does not publish subscribers' listings of those small incumbent telephone companies in another directory, without charging the applicable fee for an extra listing. By contrast, the Commission notes that TELUS Québec's subscribers in the five affected exchanges have their primary listing published in a TELUS Québec directory for their exchange. In addition, TELUS Québec is requesting that Bell Canada also publish those subscribers in Bell Canada's White Pages telephone directory for Québec City, at no charge. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the small incumbent telephone companies are not in the same position as TELUS Québec with regard to the publication of their subscribers' listings by Bell Canada and Bell Actimedia.

15.

In light of the above, the Commission concludes that Bell Canada did not discriminate against TELUS Québec by publishing, for a fee, subscribers' listings of certain small incumbent telephone companies while refusing to publish, without charge, TELUS Québec's subscribers' listings for the five affected exchanges in its White Pages telephone directory for Québec City.

16.

With respect to TELUS Québec's argument that Bell Canada had contravened article 22 of its Terms, the Commission notes that item 10 of Bell Canada's General Tariff states that Bell Canada's Terms cover all services, equipment and facilities provided by the company in accordance with the provisions of its various tariffs. Also, article 1.1 of the Terms states that they apply only to services subject to a tariff approved by the Commission.

17.

In this regard, the Commission notes that Bell Canada's General Tariff stipulates that it must publish all subscribers' listings in the telephone directory for their serving exchanges. However, Bell Canada does not have to publish in its White Pages telephone directory for Québec City the subscribers' listings for TELUS Québec's five exchanges, since these subscribers are not situated in Bell Canada's serving exchange. Moreover, there is no tariff for this service.

18.

The Commission concludes that publishing the listing of the subscribers of the five TELUS Québec exchanges in the Bell Canada White Pages telephone directory for Québec City is not a service that is subject to Bell Canada tariffs and, therefore, the Terms do not apply in this situation.

19.

With respect to the rationalization of Bell Canada's White Pages telephone directory for Québec City, the Commission notes that neither Bell Canada's General Tariff, nor any Commission determination requires it to obtain the Commission's approval to rationalize its directories. The Commission concludes that Bell Canada was not required to obtain Commission approval prior to rationalizing its White Pages telephone directory for Québec City and, therefore, did not contravene its regulatory obligations.

20.

The Commission considers that the dispute between TELUS Québec and Bell Canada concerning the actual existence and nature of an agreement between the two parties and the issue of reasonable notice arising out of such an agreement are not within the Commission's jurisdiction but, rather, come under the jurisdiction of a competent civil court of justice.

21.

Accordingly, the Commission denies the TELUS Québec application.

22.

The dissenting opinion of Commissioner Langford is attached.
  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
 

Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Stuart Langford

  I disagree with the majority in this matter and would have granted TELUS Québec the relief sought at least until a new agreement between the companies could have been negotiated or, failing that, determined by the Commission upon application by one or both parties. To do otherwise is to reward Bell Canada's unacceptable behaviour and to frustrate the legitimate expectations of the Québec City subscribers affected.
 

People count

  In my view, people count. When their telecommunications rights and needs are trampled upon, the Commission has a duty to find a way to protect them. To read the majority decision in this matter is to conclude that what is at stake here is no more than a question of who should pay for and which of two wealthy corporations should profit from services obtained and provided. That issue is relevant, no doubt, but nowhere near as fundamental in my opinion as the rights of subscribers which the majority decision overlooks entirely.
  For 23 or 24 years, Bell Canada's Québec City telephone book contained the names and numbers of all Québec City residents even though subscribers in five exchanges within the city received their telephone service from TELUS Québec, or its predecessor, not Bell Canada. For all those years, neither TELUS Québec nor its predecessor paid Bell Canada for the listings.
  The record of this proceeding indicates some confusion over facts and precise timelines, but it appears that one day, two or three years ago, some sharp-eyed Bell Canada employee discovered the anomalous situation in Quebec and shortly afterwards Bell Canada pulled the plug, so to speak. When the next Bell Canada telephone directory was delivered to city residents, the names, addresses and numbers of the good citizens of Saint-Augustin, Saint-Charles-de-Bellechasse, Saint-Henri, Saint-Lambert and Saint-Michel-de-Bellechasse were conspicuous only by their absence. To borrow from the vernacular, these subscribers were dumped. A service they had come to depend upon for 23 or 24 years was unceremoniously withdrawn. If they were inconvenienced by this abrupt departure from long standing practice, the silence of the majority appears to say, too bad.
 

Cold comfort

  Whether or not an agreement existed between TELUS Québec and Bell Canada, whether the agreement was fair, whether Bell Canada breached that agreement, whether TELUS Québec has discharged the burden of proof imposed upon it by the arcane demands of a regulatory proceeding founded upon a charge of undue preference or discrimination: these are fascinating questions, no doubt. Unfortunately the answers to them will do nothing to relieve the frustration and inconvenience the "dumped" residents of Québec City must have experienced when they awoke one day a few years back to discover that their listings were nowhere to be found in the Bell Canada-supplied phone book they had relied upon for more than a generation.
  The majority's suggestion that TELUS Québec and Bell Canada can take their dispute to "a competent civil court of justice" offers cold comfort indeed to those who have lost their phone book listings. As a solution it offers too little and comes too late. It may be correct technically, but it overlooks completely the Commission's fundamental mandate to regulate Canadian telecommunications in a reliable, timely and fair manner.
  Nothing the Commission or "a competent civil court of justice" could have done would have returned the missing names to the Québec City telephone book. At the very least, however, the Commission should have declared itself ready to move and move quickly to protect legitimate consumer rights. The majority decision not only fails to protect consumers, it appears not even to recognize that legitimate consumer rights have been violated, that there is more to this case than a picayune dispute between competitive corporate rivals.

Date Modified: 2004-03-01

Date modified: