Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8740-T69-200616633

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.

Letter

Ottawa, 2  February 2007

Our Ref.: 8740-T69-200616633  

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Terry Connolly
Director, Telecom Policy and Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
21-10020-100 Street NW
Edmonton , Alberta
T5J 0N5

Terry.connolly@telus.com

Dear Mr. Connolly:

RE: Tariff Notice 439 - Mini Voice Messaging service

Further to the above-mentioned application filed by TELUS Communications Company on 15 December 2006 requesting the destandardization and withdrawal of section 2.20.03(i) from its General Tariff, Mini Voice Messaging, attached is an information request.   Please reply by 9 February 2007 .

Sincerely,

"Original signed by S. Bédard"

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications

c.c.:   Joëlle Bernier, CRTC 819-994-0551, joelle.bernier@crtc.gc.ca

Attach.

ATTACHMENT

1.   In Tariff Notice 439 (TN 439), TELUS Communications Company (TCC) proposed to destandardize and withdraw the Mini Voice Messaging service.   TCC submitted that Mini Voice Messaging is not longer a competitive or attractive service, and pointed out that the service has limited functionalities compared with other messaging services offered by TCC and its competitors.   The Commission received comments from existing subscribers to the Mini Voice Messaging service opposing its withdrawal.   Some of these customers proposed having TCC continue offering the service but no longer offering it to new customers.

a.  State TCC's plans for existing customers who signed contracts when they subscribed to the Mini Voice Messaging service and whose contracts would still be in effect on TCC's proposed service withdrawal date.

b.  Taking into account the current number of subscribers to the Mini Voice Messaging service, please comment on grandfathering this service rather than withdrawing completely.   Please justify your response in detail.

2.   In TN 439, TCC stated the following "[Translation] Given that this is a discretionary local service and that several similar services are offered at competitive prices by the Company, by its competitors and by voice messaging devices widely available at electronics stores or departm ent stores, TCC believes that destandardizing and with drawing the service, as proposed, would have a minimal negative impact on the service's customers." TCC also indicated that a certain number of customers currently subscribe to this service.

a.  If a TCC customer wanted to get the same service at the same rate from another provider, could the customer do so without incurring additional costs?   If yes, who would be the main competitive provider offering this service in TCC territory?

b.   Is the alternative competitive service available to all existing customers of TCC's Mini Voice Messaging service?

c.   For customers who would instead decide to buy a device in an electronics store of department store, could they receive their messages even when their line is busy, as the Mini Voice Messaging service currently allows ?

Date Modified: 2007-02-02
Date modified: