ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2004-100
This page has been archived on the Web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 Order CRTC 2004-100 |
|
| Ottawa, 26 March 2004 | |
Bell Canada |
|
| Reference: Tariff Notice 6768 | |
Migration from Centrex services to other contracted access services |
|
|
1. |
The Commission received an application by Bell Canada, dated 15 September 2003, to revise the following General Tariff items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Bell Canada stated that the proposed revisions to its General Tariff would give its Centrex and Local Link customers the flexibility to migrate to other contracted access services offered by the company without incurring termination charges. |
|
3. |
In support of its application, Bell Canada stated that customers who currently subscribe to individual business lines under a minimum contract period (MCP) could migrate to any other access service under an MCP, including Centrex service, without paying termination charges. Bell Canada indicated that this proposal would extend similar options to Centrex service customers. For example, the specific wording of the proposed tariff item 670, Centrex III Service, states: |
|
|
|
4. |
Bell Canada stated that, currently, customers with Centrex services that are subject to an MCP can migrate to Local Link service or vice versa without incurring termination charges, provided that the charges under the new MCP are equal to or greater than those remaining under the old MCP. Bell Canada submitted that its customers would be better served if the aforementioned conditions were extended to the migration to any other access service provided by Bell Canada, rather than exclusively to Centrex and Local Link services. |
|
5. |
The Commission received comments in support of the application from Claude Dolembreux Consultants Inc. dated 7 October 2003, Pigis Telecom dated 7 October 2003, Richard Côté and Comtois & Carignan dated 14 October 2003 and Jacinthe Salvas dated 15 October 2003. The Commission received comments opposing the application from Futureway Communications Inc., doing business as FCI Broadband (FCI Broadband), dated 30 September 2003, Allstream Corp. (Allstream) dated 15 October 2003, and Vidéotron Télécom ltée (VTL) dated 15 October 2003 (collectively, the Competitors). |
|
6. |
Bell Canada filed reply comments dated 27 October 2003. |
|
7. |
The parties supporting the application agreed that the proposed tariff revisions would benefit customers. |
|
8. |
The Competitors argued that approving Bell Canada's proposal would have a negative impact on competition. VTL specifically submitted that if the proposed tariff modifications were approved, it would give customers less flexibility to change service provider. |
|
9. |
The Competitors submitted that if the proposed modifications were approved, Bell Canada should be ordered to include a clause in its tariff which would also allow customers to migrate to a competitor's services without having to pay termination charges on an existing Centrex or Local Link service contract. |
|
10. |
The Competitors further submitted that Bell Canada's proposal was unclear, stating that the timeframe of the new contract was not clearly defined. |
|
11. |
Bell Canada submitted that the current tariff was very restrictive to Centrex service customers who wished to migrate to other services. Bell Canada submitted that its proposed tariff revisions would make Centrex and Local Link services more customer-friendly, by providing conditions under which customers would no longer be penalized for retaining a service which they no longer found useful or for paying a termination charge to migrate to a service that better fulfilled their needs. |
|
12. |
Bell Canada stated that the main competition to Centrex service was Private Branch Exchange (PBX) service and that the PBX market was very competitive. Bell Canada submitted that the proposed tariff revisions would provide more flexibility to its customers and would have no impact on their ability to move to a competitor service. Bell Canada further submitted that the proposed changes to the Centrex and Local Link services tariffs would have minimal impact on the current competitive landscape and no impact on market share. |
|
13. |
Bell Canada submitted that the request that a clause be included to also allow customers to migrate to competitors' services without having to pay termination charges had no merit. Bell Canada stated that this request should be given no weight, as it was antithetical to normal business relationships given that, if approved, it did not require parties to fulfill their responsibilities in an agreement. |
|
14. |
Bell Canada argued that the proposed tariff revisions were clear insofar as they unambiguously described the conditions under which the new contract would come into play. Bell Canada stated that the wording in the proposed tariff was similar to the wording currently found within the Centrex service tariffs of TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) and was also very similar to the intent of the wording included in Allstream's Terms of Service. |
| Commission analysis and determination | |
|
15. |
The Commission notes that the main reason for a Centrex customer to switch to another access service is to replace it with one better suited to its financial or operational needs. |
|
16. |
The Commission finds the Competitors' proposal that, in the event that the Commission approves the application, Bell Canada should be directed to waive termination charges should a customer choose to go to a competitor's access service, to be without merit. The Commission notes that such a proposal would render the termination charge provisions meaningless. |
|
17. |
The Commission notes that the wording of the proposed tariff states that "termination charges do not apply, provided that the charges remaining on the MCP for the Centrex III (or Local Link) service that they are migrating from are less than those being committed under the new MCP for the other service", which means that the total charges remaining under the existing contract at termination are compared to the total charges committed to under the new MCP. The Commission finds that the proposed tariff is not ambiguous. |
|
18. |
The Commission considers that the main competition to Centrex service is PBX service which is generally not provided by the telephone company. The Commission considers that waiving termination charges when a customer commits to a new contract may not promote competition in the access service market, but will tend to aid competition in the PBX market, the main competition to Centrex service. |
|
19. |
The Commission further considers that the comments made in support of Bell Canada's application demonstrate that Bell Canada's proposal would benefit customers. |
|
20. |
The Commission finds that, on balance, this proposal will benefit customers and have a minimal impact on competition. The Commission moreover notes that it has approved equivalent tariff provisions for SaskTel and TCI. |
|
21. |
In light of the above, the Commission approves Bell Canada's application. The revisions take effect as of the date of this order. |
| 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: 2004-03-26
- Date modified: