ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 29 April 2011

File No.: 8678-B2-201100594
8678-C12-200615578
8665-C12-200807943

Mr. David Palmer
Director – Regulatory Affairs
Bell Canada
Floor 19, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 2C4

By email:  bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Re:  Deferral Account Proposal to Improve the Accessibility of Mobile Devices and Services

Dear Mr. Palmer:

This letter is in response to a Part VII application filed by Bell Canada (the Company) on
11 Jan 2011.  In that application, the Company filed a two-part proposal for improving accessibility to the Company’s mobile devices and services by persons with disabilities.  The Company requested that the Commission approve deferral account funding for its proposal, pursuant to Telecom Decisions CRTC 2006-9 and 2008-1.[1]  Specifically, the Company requested that the Commission approve on an expedited basis deferral account funding for Delivery A (planning) and approve in principle the approach for Delivery B (implementation).  The Company submitted that at the completion of Delivery A, it would file a more detailed economic study for Delivery B along with the results of Delivery A.  The public record, which closed on 15 March 2011, is available on the Commission’s website at:   http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2011/8678/b2_201100594.htm

Background

In Telecom Decision 2006-9, the Commission determined that funds remaining in the deferral accounts of the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) would be used to, amongst other things, improve accessibility to telecommunications services for people with disabilities.  Subsequently, in Telecom Decision 2008-1, the Commission approved the Company's proposal, on behalf of itself and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (collectively, the Bell companies), for their Ontario and Quebec operating territories to improve telecommunications services for persons with disabilities. 

The proposal

The Company submitted that its proposal was developed in consultation with the appropriate disability stakeholder organizations and included letters to that effect from the following disability organizations:  Canadian Council of the Blind, Neil Squire Society, The Canadian Hearing Society, Ontario Association of the Deaf, and Canadian National Institute of the Blind.  The Company’s proposal outlined five key initiatives[2] intended to meaningfully improve the accessibility of the Company’s products and services.  It also provided for accessibility expertise throughout both Delivery A and B by way of an Advisory Committee[3] representing disability stakeholders and a consulting firm skilled in accessibility and inclusive design.

The Company responded to Commission staff interrogatories on 22 Feb 2011.  The following organizations representing persons with disabilities provided comments to the Commission on 8 Mar 2011:  Centre Québécois de la Déficience Auditive, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Canadian Association of the Deaf, and ARCH Disability Law Centre.  The Company submitted reply comments on 15 Mar 2011.

At issue

I. Are the Company’s costs reasonable?
II. Does the proposal provide appropriate representation of persons with disabilities?
III. Are there further reporting requirements?

I.  Are the Company’s costs reasonable?

The Commission has reviewed the Company’s cost estimates associated with Delivery A and is satisfied that they are reasonable.  Accordingly, the Commission finds deferral account funding as requested by the Company for Delivery A to be appropriate. 

II.  Does the proposal provide appropriate representation of persons with disabilities?

The Commission notes that the Advisory Committee established by the Company does not include persons with cognitive disabilities.  The Commission considers that this lack of representation is inconsistent with the Company’s proposal[4] and also with CRTC Regulatory Policy 2009-430[5] (the Accessibility Policy).  For these reasons, the Commission considers it important that the needs of persons with cognitive disabilities are represented in the Company’s proposed initiatives and determines that the Company must address this and report back to the Commission on this issue.

III.  Are there further reporting requirements?

The Commission notes from the record that the Company has identified certain key areas of its proposal, given below, that will be better understood upon execution of Delivery A.  These are typically areas where the Company has expressed a need for further work or research, or areas that will become more clear only as Delivery A progresses, namely:

• Unmet accessibility needs that will come to light;
• Methodology for implementing universal/inclusive design;
• Evaluation criteria/process to establish objective and measurable success criteria;
• Lifecycle support/management issues and solutions; and
• Sustainability plan, once deferral account funds are depleted.

The Commission considers these areas to be important to the effective implementation of Delivery B.  Therefore, the Commission determines that further detailed reporting in these areas is required before it approves Delivery B.

Conclusion

In light of the above:

I. The Commission approves deferral account funding for Delivery A.  The Company, in accordance with its proposal, is to provide a detailed economic study along with the results of Delivery A when it files with the Commission its request for approval of Delivery B in five months’ time from the date of this letter (3 Oct 2011).

II. The Commission directs the Company:

a) To ensure that the needs of persons with cognitive disabilities are represented and reflected in the results of Delivery A and to report back to the Commission as to how this will be accomplished by 13 May 2011; and

b) To provide formal detailed reporting in the following areas when the Company files with the Commission its request for approval of Delivery B.

• Unmet accessibility needs;
• Universal/inclusive design;
• Evaluation criteria/process;
• Lifecycle support/management; and
• Sustainability.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY John Keogh for /

Robert A. Morin
Secretary General

Distribution List:

Canadian Association of the Deaf jroots@cad.ca; Ontario College of Art and Design, Treviranus, jtreviranus@faculty.ocad.ca;  ARCH archlib@lao.on.ca, petricoi@lao.on.ca;  Council of Canadians with Disabilities, laurie@ccdonline.ca; Council of Canadians with Disabilities, ccd@ccdonline.ca; Independent Living Canada, nationaldirector@ilc-vac.ca;  Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), cathy.moore@cnib.ca; Canadian Council of the Blind, mpotvin@ccbnational.net; Ottawa Deaf Centre, newfiedjh@yahoo.com; Ontario Association of the Deaf, dean@deafontario.ca; The Canadian Hearing Society, ckenopic@chs.ca; Canadian Association for Community Living, mbach@cacl.ca; Centre québécois de la déficience auditive, cqda@videotron.ca; Public Interest Law Centre, mybow@legalaid.mb.ca; Disability and Information Technologies (Dis-IT), ine@ccdonline.ca; d_stienstra@umanitoba.ca; Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians/L'Alliance pour l'égalité des aveugles canadiens, mworkman@blindcanadians.ca; Farah.mughal@rci.rogers.com; Neil Squire Society, garyb@neilsquire.ca;  Chris Stark, stark.chris@rogers.com; Clayton Zekelman, clayton@MNSi.Net; Ms. Denise Sayer, denise.sayer@paliareroland.com; Mr. David Lepofsky dlepofsky@sympatico.ca

[1] Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-9, Disposition of funds in the deferral accounts, and Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-1, Use of deferral account funds to improve access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities and to expand broadband services to rural and remote communities.

[2] Specifically: a) web tools to assist Bell Mobility personnel to recommend appropriate solutions and allow customers to make their own decisions about accessibility options; b) improved marketing of accessible technology and improved distribution through retail channels; c) improved lifecycle management; d) accessibility procurement protocols for mobile products and services; and e) assessment of unmet accessibility needs related to mobile products and services and identification of solutions.

[3] In a letter dated 23 March 2011, the Company provided a list of groups that have agreed to participate on the Advisory Committee:  Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians; Canadian Association of the Deaf; Canadian Hard of Hearing Association; Canadian Hearing Society; Canadian National Institute of the Blind; Centre Québécois de la Déficience Auditive; Media Access Canada; Neil Squire Society; and Ontario Association of the Deaf. 

[4] For example, Bell Canada (CRTC) 8Feb11-3002 D2006-9 b) and c) “The Advisory Committee will be composed of a maximum of eight organizations representing each of the following disability areas:  sight, hearing, mobility and cognition.”

[5] Paragraph 41 of the Accessibility Policy states:  “...The lack of availability of accessible handsets is particularly acute for persons who are blind or have moderate to severe mobility or cognitive impairments.” Paragraph 44 of the Accessibility Policy states: “Accordingly, the Commission requests that, by 21 October 2009, all WSPs offer and maintain in their inventories at least one type of wireless mobile handset that will provide access to wireless service by persons who are blind and/or have moderate-to-severe mobility or cognitive disabilities.”

Date modified:

2011-04-29