|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 2007-69
|
|
|
Ottawa, 1 March 2007
|
|
|
Bell Canada and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
|
|
|
Reference: Bell Canada Tariff Notice 7006
Bell Aliant Tariff Notice 64
|
|
|
Destandardization and withdrawal of List of Rate Centres and Dial Central-Office Numbers service
|
|
1.
|
The Commission received applications by Bell Canada and by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (collectively, the Companies), both dated 20 December 2006, proposing changes to item 26 - Sale of Tariffs and Exchange Information of their respective General Tariffs. The Companies proposed to destandardize and, subsequently, to withdraw the List of Rate Centres and Dial Central-Office Numbers service. The Companies requested an effective date of 8 January 2007 for the destandardization of the service, and an effective date of 26 March 2007 for the withdrawal of the service.
|
|
2.
|
The Companies submitted that it was no longer necessary to provide this service, noting that a substitute service was available, at no charge, from the Canadian Numbering Administrator (CNA) website.
|
|
|
Background
|
|
3.
|
In paragraph 16 of New procedures for disposition of applications dealing with the destandardization and/or withdrawal of tariffed services, Telecom Circular CRTC 2005-7, 30 May 2005 (Circular 2005-7), the Commission indicated that in order for it to properly assess a proposal for the destandardization and/or withdrawal of a tariffed service, the applicant must file an application containing the following information:
|
|
|
a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn;
|
|
|
b) proposed date for destandardization;
|
|
|
c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service;
|
|
|
d) type of destandardization;
|
|
|
e) rationale for the application;
|
|
|
f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it is reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and ongoing costs to the customer);
|
|
|
|
|
|
h) relevant information concerning existing customers such as the numbers of customers affected;
|
|
|
i) a copy of the notice to affected customers; and
|
|
|
j) any other information the applicant believes is relevant.
|
|
4.
|
The Commission indicated in Circular 2005-7 that the applicant had to provide notice to each customer affected by its application to destandardize and/or withdraw a particular service and that the notices should be sent to affected customers on the date the application was filed. In the notice, the applicant had to include items a) to g) set out in paragraph 3 above, as well as clear and detailed information as to how an affected customer could participate in the Commission's process, including the date when comments must be received by the Commission. Further, the Commission noted in Circular 2005-7 that interested parties should be allowed 45 calendar days to comment on an applicant's destandardization and/or withdrawal application.
|
|
|
The Companies' applications
|
|
5.
|
The Companies submitted that their applications were in accordance with Circular 2005-7 as follows:
|
|
|
a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn:
|
|
|
The Companies proposed to destandardize, and ultimately withdraw the List of Rate Centres and Dial Central-Office Numbers service.
|
|
|
b) proposed date for destandardization:
|
|
|
As there had been no new customers for many years, the Companies proposed to destandardize the service effective 8 January 2007.
|
|
|
c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service:
|
|
|
The Companies proposed to withdraw the service on 26 March 2007.
|
|
|
d) type of destandardization:
|
|
|
The Companies indicated that the service would no longer be offered to new customers.
|
|
|
e) rationale for the application:
|
|
|
The Companies noted that the List of Rate Centres and Dial Central-Office Numbers service was originally established to make the numbering plan area/central office code (NPA/NXX) and Rate Centre information available for the various incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). The Companies further noted that the information provided in this service was now available publicly via the Internet, at no charge, from the CNA. As such, the Companies were of the view that there was no need for either of them to act as an intermediary to provide this information. They submitted that, moreover, much of the reported information was more relevant to the activities of the competitive local exchange carriers and wireless service providers than it was to ILEC activity. The Companies were of the view that the original rationale for providing this service was no longer applicable. The Companies submitted that the rationale for destandardizing and withdrawing this service was consistent with the logic employed by Bell Canada and the Commission in discontinuing the sale of tariffs, in favour of the free web-based provision of that information.1
|
|
|
f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it is reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and ongoing costs to the customer):
|
|
|
The Companies indicated, as noted above, that the information provided via this service was available, free of charge, on the CNA website and could be downloaded as a file suitable for input into various computer applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 23 November 2006, the Companies sent a letter to every customer of this service to notify them of their intention to apply for the withdrawal of General Tariff item 26.1.(3). In that letter, the Companies provided the CNA website address where the information could be accessed free of charge. They also requested that customers respond by 4 December 2006 confirming their ongoing interest in receiving the report. The Companies mailed a subsequent letter to the customers of this service, coincident with the filing of the application to destandardize and withdraw the service, advising them of the application to the Commission and informing them that they could provide comments to the Commission with regards to the proposal to withdraw this service. The Companies submitted that given the minimal levels of complexity of the alternate source of information and the requested effective date for the withdrawal of the service, customers would have abundant lead time to migrate to the new information source.
|
|
|
h) relevant information concerning existing customers such as the numbers of customers affected:
|
|
|
The Companies provided information regarding existing customers, including the number of customers, in confidence.
|
|
|
i) a copy of the notice to affected customers:
|
|
|
Copies of the 23 November and 20 December 2006 letters notifying their customers were submitted as part of the Companies' applications.
|
|
|
j) any other information the applicant believes is relevant:
|
|
|
No additional information was filed.
|
|
6.
|
The Commission has received no comments on these applications.
|
|
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
|
7.
|
With respect to the availability of a substitute, the Commission considers that the substitute service is reasonable as new and existing customers can access the same information easily and free of charge on the CNA website.
|
|
8.
|
The Commission finds that the Companies' transition plan is reasonable as the substitute source for the data is easy to use and could be integrated into the customers' operations with minimal complexity. The Commission also finds that the Companies are requesting abundant lead time for existing customers to migrate to the new information source. Further, the Companies have notified the existing customers twice.
|
|
9.
|
The Commission finds that the Companies have fulfilled the customer notification and evidentiary requirements of Circular 2005-7 and considers the Companies' applications to destandardize and withdraw the List of Rate Centres and Dial Central-Office Numbers service to be reasonable.
|
|
10.
|
The Commission notes that destandardization will not impact the service for current customers as they will continue to receive the service until it is withdrawn.
|
|
11.
|
In light of the above, the Commission approves the Companies' applications to destandardize the List of Rate Centres and Dial Central-Office Numbers service, effective the date of this Order and the Commission approves the Companies' applications to withdraw the List of Rate Centres and Dial Central-Office Numbers service, effective 26 March 2007.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca
|
|
|
_____________
Footnote:
1 Bell Canada's replacement for tariff subscription service approved for Internet delivery, Order CRTC 2000‑552, 16 June 2000.
|
Date Modified: 2007-03-01