ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-6
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Telecom Decision CRTC 2004-6 |
|
| Ottawa, 5 February 2004 | |
Bell Canada - Exemption from the automatic directory assistance call completion charge |
|
| Reference: 8638-C12-200312439 | |
| In this decision, the Commission directs Bell Canada to issue tariff revisions allowing for an exemption from the automatic directory assistance call completion charge for its customers with special needs. | |
Background |
|
|
1. |
The Commission received an application from the Advocates for Sight Impaired Consumers (ASIC), dated 27 February 2003, requesting that TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) exempt the registered blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind TCI customers (disabled customers) from the automatic directory assistance call completion (ADACC) charge. In reply comments, TCI supported ASIC's proposal and further proposed that the exemption apply to its registered customers with special needs, which included disabled customers who were unable to use the directory due to an impairment certified by an organization, physician or individual acceptable to TCI and which were registered with TCI. |
|
2. |
In Part VII application by the Advocates for Sight Impaired Consumers to amend TELUS Communications Inc. General Tariff item 308, Operator Services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-61, 10 September 2003 (Decision 2003-61), the Commission concluded that it would be in the public interest to approve an exemption from the ADACC charge for TCI's customers with special needs. The Commission directed TCI to file proposed tariff revisions reflecting ASIC's application, as modified by TCI's reply comments. |
|
3. |
In addition, in Decision 2003-61, the Commission noted that all other companies that offer ADACC to their customers include an exemption for customers with special needs, except for Bell Canada and Thunder Bay Telephone that offer to their customers ADACC at the same rate of $0.35 per call, but without a similar exemption. Consequently, in Decision 2003-61, the Commission directed Bell Canada and Thunder Bay Telephone to show cause as to why they should not be required to implement an exemption from the ADACC charge for their customers with special needs under terms similar to those specified by the Commission in that decision for TCI. |
|
4. |
By letter dated 19 September 2003, Commission staff noted that Thunder Bay Telephone was not required to conform to the directives set out in Decision 2003-61 in light of the fact that the Commission had approved the company's application to remove the ADACC service and the related $0.35 rate from its General Tariff item 7, in Telecom Order CRTC 99-1152, 14 December 1999. |
|
5. |
Bell Canada filed its response on 10 October 2003. The Commission received no comments with respect to Bell Canada's response. |
Bell Canada's response |
|
|
6. |
Bell Canada indicated that it would support a proposal for an exemption from the ADACC charge for its customers with special needs who are unable to use the directory due to an impairment certified by a physician, a clergyman or a qualified organization's representative and are so registered with Bell Canada (the eligible customers). |
|
7. |
Bell Canada also indicated that it has conducted an assessment of the costs of establishing an ADACC exemption for the eligible customers and it has determined that the current ADACC rate of $0.35 per request would remain compensatory. |
|
8. |
Finally, Bell Canada stated that it was prepared to submit the appropriate revisions to item 85.2 of its General Tariff and noted that it would require a 120-day implementation timeline to accommodate necessary system changes. |
Commission analysis and determination |
|
|
9. |
The Commission notes that Bell Canada accepted the preliminary view expressed by the Commission in Decision 2003-61 that it would be in the public interest to approve an exemption from the ADACC charge for Bell Canada's customers with special needs. |
|
10. |
The Commission considers that Bell Canada's proposal with respect to the eligible customers would be consistent with the Commission's view expressed in Decision 2003-61. Moreover, the Commission considers that under Bell Canada's proposal, more customers could benefit from the proposed exemption than were envisaged by the Commission in Decision 2003-61 because of Bell Canada's inclusion of disadvantaged customers, like the functionally illiterate, that are included in the existing definition of eligible customers set out in General Tariff item 85.2(b)(4). |
|
11. |
The Commission notes that, according to Bell Canada, with inclusion of the proposed exemption, ADACC would remain compensatory at $0.35 per request. Accordingly, there is no issue with respect to cost recovery. |
|
12. |
Finally, the Commission finds acceptable Bell Canada's proposal for a 120-day implementation period. |
|
13. |
Accordingly, the Commission directs Bell Canada to issue tariff revisions reflecting the above, within 10 days of the date of this decision. |
| 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: 2004-02-05
- Date modified: