ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8665-C12-200814021
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOttawa, 13 November 2008 File No.: 8665-C12-200814021 Dave Palmer Kenneth G. Englehart Subject: Scope of Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-14 Dear Mr. Palmer and Mr. Englehart By letters, dated 24 October 2008, Bell Canada and Bell Aliant (the Companies) and 3 November 2008, Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), requested that the Commission expand the scope of Public Notice 2008-14 [1] . In particular, the Companies proposed that the scope of Public Notice 2008-14 be expanded to allow interested parties to comment on the continuing relevance of Part IV, subsection 4(d) of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules [2] . This rule, initially instituted by the Commission in Telecom Decision 1994-10[3] , sets out identification requirements where the use of Automatic Dialing-Announcing Devices (ADADs) is allowed and states:
Rogers proposed that the scope of Public Notice 2008-14 be expanded to allow interested parties to comment on the inclusion under the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules of text messages (i.e. Short Message Service or SMS) and Multi-Media Messaging Services - MMS (e.g. video and picture). Rogers also indicated its support of the expansion of the scope of Public Notice 2008-14, as proposed by the Companies. By letter dated 30 October 2008 , the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) on behalf of the Consumers' Association of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization stated that they had no objection to the Companies' request but noted that there were potentially many additional follow-up matters which may arise in the running of the National Do Not Call List (DNCL). PIAC also noted that they expected that the Commission will commence further public follow-up proceedings once adequate time had elapsed for evaluation of the National DNCL. By letter dated 3 November 2008, PIAC stated that it supported Rogers ' request to expand the scope of Public Notice 2008-14 to consider SMS, MMS and other types of text and multimedia messages delivered via telephone number. In the context of implementing the National DNCL and the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, the Commission identified three issues, set out in Public Notice 2008-14, that in its view, needed to be addressed at this time. Commission staff notes that the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, including the ADAD Rules, were thoroughly reviewed in Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-48. Commission staff further notes that the National DNCL and the new Unsolicited Telecommunications Framework were recently launched on 30 September 2008. The Commission and the telemarketing industry are currently in the process of transitioning to the new regime. Commission staff also notes that An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act , S.C. 2005, c. 50, which gave the Commission the power to implement a National DNCL, requires that a parliamentary committee be established to undertake a review of the administration and operation of the new provisions three years after the coming into force of the Act (i.e., June 30, 2009 ). Furthermore, Commission staff is of the view that expanding the scope of Public Notice 2008-14 in the manner contemplated by the Companies and Rogers would hamper the Commission's ability to adequately consider the three issues which the Commission identified in Public Notice 2008-14 as issues which needed to be addressed at this time. Commission staff considers that a more comprehensive review of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules will likely be required in the future once the Commission has had more experience with the operation of the framework established in Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-48. In light of the above, Commission staff is of the view that such a review would be premature at this time. Commission staff is therefore of the view that it would be inappropriate to expand the scope of Public Notice 2008-14 at this time. Sincerely, John Traversy, c.c.: parties to Public Notices 2007-15 and 2008-14 [1] Call for comments on potential modifications to some Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2008-14, 20 October 2008 .
[2] The most recent version of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules is found in the Appendix to Delegation of the Commission's investigative powers with regard to Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules complaints , Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-6-1, 20 October 2008 .
[3] Use of telephone company facilities for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications , Telecom Decision CRTC 94-10, 13 June 1994 .
|
- Date modified: