|
Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-69
|
|
Ottawa, 30 October 2006 |
|
Quebecor Media Inc. vs. Bell Canada – Dispute regarding winback rule
|
|
Reference: 8622-Q15-200608028 |
|
In this Decision, the Commission finds
that Bell Canada's customer appreciation card sent to its former
customers does not violate the Commission's winback rule. |
|
The application
|
1. |
On 16 June 2006, Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI)
filed an application pursuant to Part VII of the CRTC Telecommunications
Rules of Procedure, requesting that the Commission direct Bell Canada
to immediately stop sending the customer appreciation cards that QMI
submitted were in violation of the local exchange service (LES) winback
restrictions imposed on incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs),
as these restrictions were applied in Quebecor Media Inc. Part
VII application – Alleged violations of winback rule by Bell Canada,
Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-17, 6 April
2006 (Decision 2006-17). |
2. |
QMI provided a copy of the customer
appreciation cards that Bell Canada sent to its former LES customers in
Ontario and Quebec, in either English or French. |
3. |
The cards had the following caption on
their cover: "it just won't be the same without you." |
4. |
The inside of the cards stated the
following: |
|
I'm writing to say that we are sorry to see you go. Even though you
are no longer using Bell for your Residential Phone service, we
haven't forgotten about you. You were a valued member of our Bell
Family and we truly appreciate having been of service.
|
|
Unfortunately, industry regulations prevent us from contacting you
in an effort to win back your Residential Phone service for a
period of three months. We are counting down the days until we can
talk to you again. These rules do not prevent you from contacting us
if you are interested in more information about your local service.
|
5. |
QMI noted that the cards did not indicate
a contact telephone number. QMI submitted that Bell Canada, in
sending out this customer appreciation card (new card) without a contact
telephone number, was attempting to evade the Commission's ruling
made in Decision 2006-17 on a previous
customer appreciation card (old card). QMI alleged that the purpose
of this new card was the same as that of the old card; both cards
invited former Bell Canada LES customers to contact Bell Canada and
both qualified as an attempt by Bell Canada to win back former LES
customers. QMI requested that, given the flagrant nature of Bell Canada's
breach of the LES winback restrictions, the Commission deal with this
matter on an expedited basis. |
|
Process
|
6. |
The Commission received Bell Canada's
comments on 21 June 2006, and QMI's reply comments on 29 June 2006. |
7. |
On 17 July 2006, Bell Canada filed a
supplemental submission, and on 3 August 2006 QMI filed a submission in
response to Bell Canada's 17 July filing. |
|
The LES winback restrictions
|
8. |
The Commission initially established the
LES winback restrictions in a letter entitled Commission Decision
Regarding CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee Dispute on Competitive
Winback Guidelines, dated 16 April 1998. Pursuant to this letter, an
ILEC was not to attempt to win back a customer with respect to primary
exchange service (PES) for a period of three months after that
customer's service had been completely transferred to another
telecommunications service provider. |
9. |
The Commission subsequently interpreted and
expanded the LES winback restrictions in a number of decisions to
address specific issues and circumstances. The most recent iteration
is set out as follows in Forbearance from the regulation of retail
local exchange services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15,
6 April 2006: |
|
…an ILEC is not to attempt to win back a business customer with
respect to primary exchange service or local [voice over Internet
Protocol] VoIP service, and in the case of a residential customer of
local exchange service (i.e. PES or local VoIP service), with respect
to any service, for a period commencing at the time of the local
service request and terminating three months after that customer's
primary local exchange service or local VoIP service has been
completely transferred to another local service provider, with one
exception: ILECs should be allowed to win back customers who call to
advise them that they intend to change local service provider.
|
10. |
The above statement will be referred to in
this Decision as the winback rule. |
|
Positions of parties
|
11. |
Bell Canada submitted that the Commission
should dismiss QMI's application because: (a) QMI fundamentally
misunderstood how the winback rule applies to ILEC customer appreciation
cards; (b) the new cards do not attempt to win back former customers;
and (c) the application is out of step with government policy requiring
less, and the least intrusive forms of, regulation. Bell Canada further
submitted that the first paragraph of text in the new card was a message
thanking former customers for their patronage, and the second paragraph
of text was factual, in that it explained to former customers the
winback rule that is in place and the effect of the rule on former
customers. |
12. |
In reply, QMI submitted that an examination
of Bell Canada's new card, in light of Decision 2006-17,
revealed that it was clearly intended for solicitation and differed
in no material respect from the old card that the Commission had found
to be in violation of the winback rule. QMI alleged that in sending
out these customer appreciation cards to its former LES customers,
Bell Canada was contravening the Commission's finding in Decision 2006-17. |
13. |
In its supplemental submission, Bell Canada
included a newspaper article in which the author described his
experience when switching service from Bell Canada to QMI's Vidéotron
Ltd. division (Vidéotron). Bell Canada noted that the author had
received an information package from QMI that, among other things,
warned the customer that any attempt by the former service provider to
contact the customer would be forbidden. Bell Canada argued that the
fact that Vidéotron was informing its new local service customers about
the operation of the Commission's winback rule was new information of
which it was not aware when it filed its comments on 21 June 2006. Bell
Canada argued that the information being communicated by QMI to its new
customers illustrated how egregious QMI's position would be if upheld –
QMI would be permitted to tell former Bell Canada customers about the
rule, but Bell Canada would not. Bell Canada further argued that its
right to communicate this information was all the more important when
considered in light of the inaccuracy of Vidéotron's message.
Bell Canada contended that its customer appreciation cards, in addition
to generally informing its former LES customers of the Commission's
winback rule, corrected the incorrect information regarding the winback
rule provided by QMI. |
14. |
QMI submitted that Bell Canada's
supplemental submission was irrelevant, frivolous and out of process,
and should be struck from the record of the proceeding. QMI submitted
that neither the information it provided to its local telephony
customers nor the newspaper article referenced by Bell Canada were
relevant to QMI's request that Bell Canada refrain from violating the
Commission's winback rule. |
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
15. |
QMI argued that Bell Canada's new cards were
in violation of the winback rule as set out in Decision 2006-17.
In that Decision, the Commission found that the combination of the
old card and a follow-up survey constituted an attempt by Bell Canada
to win back former LES customers in violation of the winback rule.
The Commission noted that the old card invited the customer to contact
Bell Canada and provided a toll-free telephone number for doing so.
In addition, the card was followed up in each case by an automated
survey call, in which the former customer was again invited to call
Bell Canada and a telephone number was provided. |
16. |
In Decision 2006-17,
the Commission noted that the winback rule does not prohibit all contact
with former customers. Further, the Commission stated that the facts
and circumstances of the particular activity in question must be examined
in each case to determine whether the activity constitutes an attempt
by the ILEC to win back former LES customers in violation of the winback
rule. |
17. |
The Commission notes that Bell Canada's new
card thanks former customers for their business, provides former
customers with information concerning the winback rule, and explains why
Bell Canada is not calling them right now. The card does not contain a
specific direct invitation to the former customer to call Bell Canada,
nor does it contain any offer or inducement to former customers. In
light of the foregoing, the Commission is not persuaded that the new
card, in and of itself, is an attempt to win back the former customer,
in violation of the winback rule. |
18. |
Accordingly, the Commission denies
QMI's application. In addition, the Commission considers it in the
public interest to allow Bell Canada's supplemental submission and
therefore denies QMI's request that Bell Canada's supplemental
submission be struck from the record of this proceeding. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This document is available in alternative
format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF
format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|