Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Distribution List
Ottawa, 20 May 2016
Our reference: 8663-B2-201514050
Distribution List (See Attachment)
RE: Bell Canada - Application requesting that the Commission replace Carrier obligations to impose certain conditions of service on Non-Carriers with direct regulatory requirements applicable to Non-Carriers
In an application dated 21 December 2015, Bell Canada requested that the Commission remove the current obligations imposed on Canadian carriers to impose certain conditions of service on non-carriers (underlying carrier obligations) and, instead, impose these requirements directly on non-carriers (also known as resellers) using its jurisdiction under section 24.1 of the Telecommunications Act. In an attachment to its application, Bell Canada listed some of the obligations that Canadian carriers are obligated to impose on non-carriers.
By letter dated 19 January 2016, Commission staff advised interested persons that the underlying carrier obligations related to 9-1-1 service and to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc. which Bell Canada had included in its attachment, were not to be within the scope of the proceeding initiated by the Bell Canada application as those were the subject of separate proceedings.
In their interventions, Québecor Média, on behalf of its affiliate Vidéotron (Québecor Média), and TELUS Communications Company (TCC), identified some additional underlying carrier obligations, to those identified by Bell Canada. Commission staff has set out in Appendix 1 of the present letter the underlying carrier obligations that have been identified by Bell Canada, Québecor Média and TCC and which are considered to be within the scope of this proceeding.
Commission staff has also identified some additional underlying carrier obligations to those identified by the parties to this proceeding. The underlying carrier obligations identified by Commission staff are set out in Appendix 2 and are to be part of the record of the Bell Canada application.
Commission staff invites comments on the following:
- Whether the underlying carrier obligations identified in Appendix 2 should be imposed directly on non-carriers pursuant to section 24.1 of the Act;
- If the underlying carrier obligations identified in Appendices 1 and 2 were to be imposed directly on non-carriers, whether some or all of the underlying carrier obligations identified in Appendices 1 and 2
- should be modified in some manner, for example, similar to that set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-12, such that Canadian carriers are i) to include in their tariffs, service contracts or other arrangements with non-carriers, the requirement that the latter, abide by these obligations and ii) to reportFootnote 1 , in a timely manner, non-compliance by non-carriers with these obligations; or
- should be removed such that there is no requirement for the underlying carrier to include the obligations in tariffs, service contracts or other arrangements with non-carriers, or to report non-compliance.
- Whether parties are aware of any other underlying carrier obligations that have not been identified but which should also be considered on the record of this proceeding, and how these obligations would be addressed as set out in questions 1) and 2) above.
Interested parties are advised that issues considered in the following proceeding are not within the scope of the proceeding initiated by the Bell Canada application referenced above:
- Proceeding initiated by Application of certain consumer safeguards for payphones directly to competitive payphone service providers, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2016-103, 17 March 2016.
In view of the foregoing, any interested party may file comments on any of the matters set out above, by 6 June 2016, serving a copy on all other parties. Bell Canada may file a reply by 13 June 2016, serving a copy on all parties.
Original signed by
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
c.c: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, 819-953-5255, firstname.lastname@example.org
Philippe Gauvin, Bell Canada, email@example.com
- Pauline Jessome, Allstream Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
- William Saniford, Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., email@example.com
- Dennis Béland, Québecor Média, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Howard Slawner, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., email@example.com
- Stephen, Schmidt, TCC, firstname.lastname@example.org
- John Lawford, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, email@example.com
- Distribution list to Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation 2015-239
- Participants to the proceeding leading to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-12
- Facilities Based Providers
- Non Facilities based Providers
|List of underlying carrier obligations identified by Bell Canada, Québecor Média and TCC within the scope of the proceeding||Category|
|8 April 1999 letterFootnote 2 approving CISC consensus report CTRE006b (for resellers of local exchange service)
See paragraph 291 of Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet Protocol, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28, 12 May 2005, as amended by Telecom Decision 2005-1, (Telecom Decision 2005-28) (for local VoIP service providers, fixed and nomadic, providing telecommunications services)
See paragraphs 21 and 23 of Accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services, Broadcasting and Telecom Decision CRTC 2009-430, 21 July 2009 (all for VoIP service providers and resellers of local exchange services)
|Accessibility - Teletypewriter Relay ServiceFootnote 3 (TTY Relay) and Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay)|
|See paragraphs 22 and 24 of Extending the availability of alternative formats to consumers who are blind, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-13, 8 March 2002||Accessibility - Alternative formats|
|See paragraph 21 of Follow-up to Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-430– Requirements for telecommunications service providers to communicate certain information in alternative formats, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-132, 4 March 2010||Accessibility -Alternative formats|
|See paragraph 10 of 1 February 2000 letter approving CISC consensus report CTRE015a (see Conclusions/Recommendations on “consumer safeguards”Footnote 4 )
See paragraphs 49 and 51 of Confidentiality provisions of Canadian carriers, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-33, 30 May 2003, as amended, see paragraph 1 Telecom Decision 2003-33-1, 11 July 2003.
See paragraphs 22 and 23 of Follow-up to Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-33 - Confidentiality provisions of Canadian carriers, Telecom Decision 2004-27, 22 April 2004.
See paragraphs 29 and 31 of Part VII application to revise Article 11 of the Terms of Service, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-15, 17 March 2005.
See paragraph 306 of Telecom Decision 2005-28
See paragraph 78 of Use of E9-1-1 information for the purpose of providing an enhanced community notification service, Telecom Decision 2007-13, 298 February 2007Footnote 5 .
See paragraph 21 of Regulatory measures associated with confidentiality provisions and privacy services, Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-723, 25 November 2009.
|See paragraphs 308 and 309 of Telecom Decision 2005-28||Privacy|
|See paragraphs 548 and 550 of Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules framework and the National Do Not Call List, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-48 (National Do Not Call List), 3 July 2007.||Privacy|
|See paragraph 104 of Review of the Internet traffic management practices of Internet service providers, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-657, 21 October 2009 (Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-657).||Privacy|
|See Conclusions/Recommendations CTRE006bFootnote 6 approved in 8 April 1999 letter.||Customer Transfers - local number porting|
|See paragraph 38 of Implementation of wireless number portability, Telecom Decision 2005-72, 20 December 2005.||Customer Transfers - local number porting|
|See CISC Consensus report on the Industry Process Maps for Customer Migration Involving Resale BPRE006a approved in 16 May 2000 letter.||Customer transfers|
|See paragraph 28 of The customer transfer process and related competitive issues, Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-191, 18 March 2011.||Customer transfers|
|See paragraphs 50 and 66 of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-657 (Disclosure requirements set out in Section III of the decision).||Internet Traffic Management Practices|
|See paragraph 395 of The Wireless Code, Telecom Regulatory Policy 2013-271, 3 June 2013.||Wireless Code|
|See paragraph 41 of Prohibition of 30-day cancellation policies, Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy 2014-576, 6 November 2014.||Service cancellation|
|List of underlying carriers obligations identified by Commission staff– to be considered within the scope of the proceeding||Category|
|See Competition in the Provision of Public Long Distance Voice Telephone Services and Related Resale and Sharing Issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 92-12, 12 June 1992 (Telecom Decision 92-12) –
||Registration - Resellers of long distance voice services|
|See paragraph 204 of Telecom Decision 2005-28||Registration - Resellers local VoIP service providers|
|See paragraph 214 of Telecom Decision 2005-28||Customer Transfers - local number porting|
|See Local Pay Telephone Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 98-8, 30 June 1998 – II GENERAL CONCLUSIONS, D. Enforcement Mechanism and III ISSUES, C. Mechanism to Ensure Enforceability of Safeguards
||Accessibility - Mandated Safeguards (listed under III ISSUES, B. Consumer Safeguards, xi) Mandated Safeguards of Telecom Decision 98-8)|
|See paragraph 15 of Alternative formats for a person who is blind, Order CRTC 2001-690, 31 August 2001||Accessibility -Alternative formats: Affiliate that resells the carrier's service to an end-user|
|See paragraph 72 of Small incumbent local exchange carriers' show cause - Follow-up to Telecom Decision 2006-14, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-109, 21 November 2007 (Telecom Decision 2007-109)||Accessibility - TTY RelayFootnote 7 and IP Replay|
|See paragraphs 75, 76 and 77 of Telecom Decision 2007-109||Privacy|
|See paragraphs 10 and 11 of Modifications to forbearance framework for mobile wireless data services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-445, 30 June 2010||Internet Traffic Management Practices|
- Footnote 1
In Application of the 9-1-1 regulatory obligations directly to non-carriers offering and providing telecommunications services, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2016-12, 14 January 2016, the Commission determined that it was in the public interest that underlying carriers continue to be subject to the underlying carrier 9-1-1 requirement, however, the Commission modified the underlying carrier 9-1-1 requirement to, among other things, change the role of underlying carriers from a primary to a supportive role with respect to the enforcement of compliance by non-carriers with the
- Footnote 2
Local Competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 8 May 1997, (Telecom Decision 97-8) paragraph 279 -The Commission notes that resellers providing local exchange services will meet certain of the service requirements that the Commission imposes on LECs, such as 9-1-1 and MRS, by virtue of the underlying LECs' obligations.
- Footnote 3
In previous decisions, the Commission has referred to TTY Relay as "message relay service" or "MRS.
- Footnote 4
“Consumer safeguards” mean:
- authorization and dispute procedures (see CTRE002a) (The procedures were first incorporated into Schedule H of the Master Agreement for Interconnection between LECs by 8 December 1998 Letter Decision) (CTRE002a is contained in the SEP2RPTB.DOC report which includes reports CTRE01a to CTRE016a)
- privacy/protection of customer information (paragraphs 289 and 288 of Telecom Decision 97-8
- information provided to consumers prior to service installation and upon request (paragraphs 292 and 293 of Telecom Decision 97-8
- Footnote 5
This underlying carrier obligation was not part of the proceeding that resulted in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-12.
- Footnote 6
See Footnote 2.
- Footnote 7
See Footnote 3.
- Date modified: