ARCHIVED - Letter

Ottawa, 23 December 2011

File No.: 8678-B2-201100594

Mr. Bill Abbott
Senior Counsel – Regulatory Law
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-Request for Extension

Dear Mr. Abbott:

I am writing in response to Bell Canada’s (the Company’s) letter of 5 December 2011 seeking reconsideration of the Company’s request to extend the deadline for Delivery A of its Mobility Accessibility Initiative by six months to 2 April 2012.

Background
Delivery A is the first part of the Company’s two-part deferral account initiative for improving accessibility of the Company’s mobile devices and services (the Mobility Accessibility Initiative). ¹  Delivery A provides for a plan and Delivery B, the second part, provides for the implementation of that plan.  The Commission approved the use of deferral account funds for Delivery A, ² and directed the Company to provide in five months’ time (3 October 2011) a detailed economic study along with the results of Delivery A when it files with the Commission its request for approval of Delivery B. ³ 

In a letter dated 3 October 2011, the Company made its first request to the Commission for a six-month extension for Delivery A that provided for a due date of 2 April 2012.  This request was denied in a letter dated 26 October 2011 that stated that the Company is to file Delivery A with the Commission no later than 29 December 2011.  The letter further stated that the Company is to provide at that time a detailed report as to how it intends to manage the key timeframes for Delivery B and maintain the deliverable dates as specified in the Company’s application for this initiative. 

The Company’s request for a further extension for Delivery A to 2 April 2012
In its letter of 5 December 2011, the Company apologized for the delay associated with Delivery A and provided details pertaining to the nature of the delay and justification for the requested extension.  The Company stated that it will be virtually impossible to file a useful Delivery A by 29 December 2011 and that the extension is necessary for a high-quality comprehensive Delivery A plan, produced in a manner that allows for adequate consultation with stakeholders.  The Company also supplied a list of stakeholders⁴ that have approved the request for extension, and an overview of the project timeline for the completion of Delivery A. ⁵  Further, the Company indicated that it has now selected as its consultant⁶ the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC).

Commission Staff’s Comments
Commission staff notes the current state of Delivery A and the lack of progress since Commission approval of this initiative in April 2011. The proposed due date of 2 April 2012 would essentially double Delivery A’s timeframe from the five months proposed by the Company in its original application. ⁷  In view of this, and the nature of the factors cited by the Company that contributed to the delay,⁸ staff is concerned that the Company did not address these matters earlier in the delivery cycle.  In a similar vein, staff is concerned that the Company did not proactively, formally advise the Commission of the delay or the resulting need for an extension.  Commission staff was only made aware of the delay and the first request for extension on 3 October 2011, the established due date for completion of Delivery A. 

Given the above, Commission staff considers steps must be in place to avoid any future delays in this initiative. Further delay would push the delivery of the entire Mobility Accessibility Initiative out well beyond the four-year period ending in 2011, that being the period within which the Commission stated (in Decision CRTC 2008-1) that deferral account funds set aside for this initiative should be fully utilized. This delay would also affect the timely ability of the Company’s customers with disabilities to benefit from the Mobility Accessibility Initiative.

It is therefore clear that mitigation of delay and timely delivery of the Mobility Accessibility Initiative require attention.  Given the current state of Delivery A, staff considers that the Company’s proposed 2 April 2012 deadline is a more realistic deadline date.  Therefore the Company is to file all elements of Delivery A for Commission approval no later than 2 April 2012.

Staff notes that the five elements of the initiative⁹ (Web Tools; Marketing, Channels and Distribution; Lifecycle Management; Procurement; Assessment of Unmet Accessibility Needs / Developing Solutions) approved by the Commission appear to be discrete in nature, without explicit interdependencies that would tie them all to a common delivery date.  In light of this, in addition to the submission of a comprehensive, finalized Delivery A plan in April 2012, the Company is to file with the Commission no later than 16 January 2012 a timetable setting out dates, falling before 2 April 2012, by which draft reports on each of these five elements will be submitted to the Commission.  

Other Reporting Requirements
With respect to the completion of Delivery B, the Company stated that there are a number of variables beyond its control which will affect the start date of Delivery B, including Commission approval processes.  The Company also stated that it would provide regular progress reports to the Commission.

With respect to delays that may result from Commission approval processes, Commission staff considers that in this instance effective engagement by the Company of the Disability Advisory Committee, whose members most likely would represent disability stakeholders in a Commission process, has the potential to increase the effectiveness of such a process.  With respect to regular progress reports, the Company is to provide these to the Commission on a bi-monthly basis (every two months) and include minutes of meetings held with the Disability Advisory Committee as approved by these stakeholders.

Lastly, it remains unclear as to how persons with cognitive disabilities are represented on the Disability Advisory Committee.  The Company is to provide this information to the Commission no later than 11 January 2011 and to include appropriate contact information to enable an update of the Commission’s distribution list for this initiative.

Conclusion

To summarize, the Company is to:

1. No later than 11 January 2012, provide the above-requested information pertaining to persons with cognitive disabilities;
2. No later than 16 January 2012, provide a timetable setting out dates by which draft reports on each of the five elements will be submitted;
3. No later than 2 April 2012, file Delivery A for Commission approval in accordance with the Commission’s letter of 29 April 2011; and
4. Provide on a bi-monthly basis (every two months) regular progress reports as described above.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY /

Paul Godin
A/Executive Director
Policy Development and Research

cc.  martine.vallee@crtc.gc.ca; mary-louise.hayward@crtc.gc.ca; Nanao.Kachi@crtc.gc.ca

Distribution List:

[1] The public record is available on the Commission’s website at:   http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2011/8678/b2_201100594.htm.

[2] In a Commission letter dated 29 April 2011.

[3] The Commission also directed the Company to provide, when it files with the Commission its request for approval of Delivery B, formal detailed reporting in the following areas of unmet accessibility needs:  universal/inclusive design; evaluation criteria/process; lifecycle support/management; and sustainability.

[4]  As set out in paragraph 6 of the Company’s 5 December 2011 letter, these stakeholders are: Alliance for Equality for Blind Canadians; Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD); Canadian Hard of Hearing Association (CHHA); Canadian Hearing Society (CHS); Canadian National Institute for the Blind; Centre québécois de la déficience auditive; Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec (COPHAN); Neil Squire Society; and Ontario Association of the Deaf (OAD).

[5]  The following timelines were set out in Appendix A to the Company’s 5 December 2011 letter:  Consumer Evaluation (Nov.-Dec. 2011); Evaluation Current Status (Nov.-Dec. 2011); Gap analysis (Jan. 2012);  Environmental Scan (Jan. 2012); Development of Training Programs (Jan.-Feb. 2012); Marketing Channels (Jan. 2012); Web-Based Tool (Dec. 2011-Feb. 2012); Lifecycle Management (late-Jan. to late-Feb. 2012); Prepare Draft documents (late-Feb. 2012); Final submission (late March 2012).

[6}  The role of the consultant is to provide the requisite knowledge and skill set in the field of accessibility to assist with various aspects of program development.

[7]  Accessibility Proposal for Mobile Telecommunications Devices and Services, dated 18 January 2011: “The Company estimates that it will require five (5) months after the proposal is approved by the Commission to develop Delivery A and approximately twelve (12) months to implement Delivery B.”

[8]  Factors cited included the Company’s lack of familiarity with a project of this nature, delays in negotiating the contract with the consultant, slowness of the preparations within Bell Mobility, the departure of a key individual, and slowdown in activities over the summer months. 

[9] As set out in Bell Canada’s Accessibility Proposal for Mobile Telecommunications Devices and Services, dated 18 January 2011.

Date modified:

2011-12-23