Decision CRTC 2001-375
Ottawa, 29 June 2001
File No. 8660-C12-05/00
To: Decision 2001-217 Distribution List
Subject: Commission decision regarding show cause, application
to review and vary and application to stay, for indicators 1.5 and
2.5 in Decision CRTC 2001-217 - CRTC creates new quality of
service indicators for telephone companies
In Decision CRTC 2001-217, CRTC creates new quality of service
indicators for telephone companies, dated 9 April 2001, the Commission
directed:
Bell Canada, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel
Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc., NewTel
Communications Inc., Northern Telephone Limited, Northwestel Inc.
and Télébec ltée that consider they are not able to establish
procedures for measuring total hold time duration, to show cause
within 30 days of this decision, why they should not report on the
new Indicator 1.5 - Access to Business Office - On Hold Duration;
and
the telcos that believe the performance standard for Indicator
2.5 - Access to Repair Bureau of "90% or more" calls
answered within 20 seconds may not be appropriate to show cause,
within 30 days of the decision, why they should not report on this
basis.
On 9 May 2001, Bell Canada filed (a) its response, (b) an
application pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act to
review and vary the Commission's determinations in Decision 2001-217
on Indicators 1.5 and 2.5, and (c) an application to stay the
implementation of the Commission's directive to put into effect
Indicator 1.5 under a 90/20 standard and the implementation of the
proposed standard for Indicator 2.5, until the Commission has issued
its determinations with respect to its application to review and vary.
Bell Canada copied all parties to Decision 2001-217 with its
application.
Aliant Telecom Inc. (formerly Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel
& Tel Limited, NBTel Inc., NewTel Communications Inc.), TELUS
Corporation, MTS Communications Inc. Northern Telephone Limited,
Northwestel Inc., Thunder Bay Telephone, and Télébec ltée filed
submissions on the two "show cause" processes. They
generally expressed support for Bell Canada's application to review
and vary and, with the exception of TELUS Corporation and Northwestel
Inc., its requests for stays. No consumer groups filed submissions.
None of the companies represented by Bell Canada and
Québec-Téléphone submitted that they were unable to report on new
Indicator 1.5 - Access to Business Office - On Hold Duration, in their
monthly quality of service reports.
Bell Canada submitted, regarding new Indicators 1.5 and 2.5, the
following:
there was an error of law because the Commission made
determinations on the performance standards of 90% or more that were
outside the scope of the proceeding;
the determinations requiring 90% or more for the two indicators
were made in the absence of reasons supporting the conclusion, which
amounts to a breach of the rules of natural justice;
the performance standard of "90% or more" in Indicator
1.5, as well as in Indicator 2.5, was not appropriate;
Bell Canada submitted that a performance standard of 80% of calls
answered within 20 seconds was appropriate for both Indicators 1.5
and 2.5.
Indicator 1.5
The Commission finds that there was no error of law related to new
Indicator 1.5 leading to the Commission's decision in Decision
2001-217. In Decision CRTC 2000-24, Final standards for quality
of service indicators for use in telephone company regulation and
other related matters, dated 20 January 2000, the Commission clearly
indicated that it would consider the entire provision of new Indicator
1.5, including the performance standard and the parties, including the
telephone companies, addressed the appropriate performance standard.
In the context of its determination on the performance standard for
Indicator 1.5, the Commission was not required to give reasons and
hence, there was no error of law.
In the proceeding leading to Decision 2001-217, there was little
evidence submitted by the parties on the appropriateness of a
performance standard of 90% or more in new Indicator 1.5. The
Commission made a decision based on the record of the proceeding. The
Commission has now received evidence on the cost implications of
establishing the performance standard of 90% or more in new Indicator
1.5. The Commission finds that there is substantial doubt as to the
correctness of the Commission’s decision requiring the performance
standard of 90% or more in new indicator 1.5 and varies its decision
to require a performance standard of 80% or more for this indicator.
In making this determination, the Commission notes the following:
a performance standard of 90% or more would be a costly use of
resources;
any increased administrative costs for the telephone companies
need to be weighed against the benefit to the consumer;
from a consumer’s perspective, if the current standards are
acceptable, any possible future rate increase to pay for higher
standards would not be beneficial; and
none of the consumers groups filed submissions against the
telephone companies’ position regarding the appropriateness of the
80% standard.
Indicator 2.5
In the context of its determination on the performance standard for
Indicator 2.5, the Commission is of the view that it was not required
to give reasons.
As Indicator 2.5 was outside the scope of the proceeding leading to
Decision 2001-217, the Commission, through a show cause process,
provided an opportunity for comment on the appropriateness of the
proposed 90/20 performance standard. There was therefore no error in
law related to indicator 2.5.
The Commission notes Bell Canada made the same submission on the
appropriateness of the performance standard of 80% or more for
Indicator 1.5 and 2.5, that the other telcos generally supported Bell
Canada and that no other interested party filed submissions on
Indicator 2.5. The Commission finds that, for the reasons that a
performance standard of 80% or more is appropriate for Indicator 1.5,
the same performance standard of 80% or more is appropriate for new
Indicator 2.5.
The Commission notes that, in light of its determination on the
appropriate performance standard, there is no need for the Commission
to rule on the application to stay Decision 2001-217.
Yours sincerely,
Ursula Menke,
Secretary General
Date Modified: 2001-06-29
|