|
Order CRTC 2001-281
|
|
Ottawa, 5 April 2001
|
|
Access to directory file service and basic listing interchange file
service approved for CanopCo
|
|
Reference: 8622-C67-01/00
|
|
The CRTC approves an application by CanopCo Inc. to access directory
file service and basic listing interchange file service of local exchange
carriers. |
1. |
On 12 October 2000, CanopCo Inc. filed an application under part VII
of the Telecommunications Rules of Procedures, seeking amendments
to the tariffs of the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) and
independent telephone companies (Independents) to permit alternative
operator service providers (AOSPs) to subscribe to the companies'
directory file service (DFS). |
2. |
In the alternative, if it was not possible for all Independents to
provide DFS, CanopCo requested that access to the basic listing
interchange file (BLIF) be provided. |
|
The issue
|
3. |
CanopCo indicated that AOSPs, who are not carriers and who are not
trunk-side resellers, can only subscribe to directory information service
(DIS). CanopCo stated that DIS does not allow it to compete effectively
with the local exchange carriers (LECs) and therefore, it is currently
using U.S. sources of Canadian directory assistance information. This
solution is unsatisfactory since the U.S. sources do not have access to
the same level of directory updates that the LECs have with DFS. |
4. |
Citing White Directory – Application to review and vary Decision 95-3,
Telecom Decision CRTC 95-14,
dated 27 June 1995, and other rulings, CanopCo maintained that the
current restrictions on access to DFS discriminate unduly against CanopCo
and other AOSPs since this provides a preference to its competitors in
the operator service market who are LECs, interexchange carriers (IXCs)
or wireless service providers (WSPs). In CanopCo's view such restrictions
contravene section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act. |
5. |
As a condition of granting access to DFS, CanopCo proposed that the
following specific safeguards be imposed on AOSPs and that these
safeguards be set forth in the LECs' DFS tariff and/or associated licence
agreements: |
|
a) restrict access to DFS by AOSPs "for the sole purpose of
providing directory assistance services" in a manner similar to
the current restriction on independent telephone directory publishers;
|
|
b) include a term in both the tariff and licence agreement
permitting termination of service and of the licence if the restriction
is breached;
|
|
c) require AOSPs to be registered with the Commission, as was
required in the Commission's letter of 18 February 2000 in respect of
Zero-Dialed Emergency Call Routing Service;
|
|
d) require AOSPs to have entered into an agreement with ILECs to
ensure that the AOSPs will comply with the Commission's consumer
safeguards concerning operator services as set out in Order CRTC 95-316;
and
|
|
e) prohibit any sub-licensing of DFS information as in the existing
DFS licence agreement.
|
|
Interested parties' submissions
|
6. |
The former Stentor members, Télébec ltée and Québec-Téléphone
did not oppose allowing AOSPs access to their DFS provided that
safeguards are adopted. TELUS submitted that the Commission should
establish procedures to satisfy itself that the consumer safeguards are
being honored. |
7. |
Télébec indicated that in the event that the Commission agreed that
AOSPs should be allowed to have access to DFS, it would be willing to
negotiate the appropriate service attributes and to file a proposed DFS
tariff that would be accessible to AOSPs. |
8. |
The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay -Telephone Division
(Thunder Bay Telephone) indicated that CanopCo's application more or less
contemplates the existence of local competition in the serving areas of
the independent telephone companies. Given that the Commission has yet to
address this issue, Thunder Bay Telephone was of the view that CanopCo's
application is premature. |
9. |
With regard to CanopCo's suggestion that, if it is not possible for
all Independents to provide DFS, CanopCo and other AOSPs should be
permitted to have access to BLIF, the former Stentor companies and
Télébec indicated that it would be appropriate that alternative listing
services be considered only for companies that do not currently offer
DFS. TELUS, however, indicated that the competitive local exchange
carriers' (CLECs') subscriber listings are equally essential in order for
any competitor to provide an adequate directory assistance service.
Consequently, TELUS recommended that the Commission order all LECs to
make available their subscriber listings to AOSPs, subject to consumer
safeguards. |
|
CanopCo's reply
|
10. |
CanopCo stated that Thunder Bay Telephone's opposition appears to be
based on the assumption that its application is premised on the existence
of local competition in the territories of independent telephone
companies. CanopCo stated that its request for access to DFS is not
dependent on the existence of local competition. It is required in order
to offer its customers, in any region of Canada where it is permitted to
operate, the ability to obtain the correct telephone number of a
prospective called party residing in Thunder Bay Telephone's operating
territory. |
|
Conclusion
|
|
Consumer safeguards
|
11. |
The Commission notes that the safeguards proposed by CanopCo are
essentially the same as those currently imposed on independent telephone
directory publishers and LECs. In addition to the existing safeguards,
CanopCo proposed that AOSPs be required to register with the Commission.
The Commission is of the view that the safeguards that have already been
established are adequate and that it is not necessary to establish
additional ones for AOSPs at this time. |
12. |
In regard to TELUS' concerns regarding enforcement of the safeguards,
the Commission notes that TELUS has sufficient authority to enforce its
tariff. Accordingly, the Commission does not consider it necessary to
establish additional procedures. |
|
Access to DFS/BLIF
|
13. |
The Commission notes that, with the exception of Thunder Bay
Telephone, carriers did not oppose CanopCo's request. The Commission does
not consider Thunder Bay Telephone's argument linking DFS access to local
competition to be relevant. The Commission is of the view that DFS is
necessary for AOSPs to provide accurate information to their customers
that reside outside of any company's territory whether or not local
competition exists in that territory. |
14. |
The Commission has already established that it is in the public
interest to allow viable competition in the directory assistance
marketplace. This can only be achieved if all competitors are granted
access to comparable subscriber listings. Accordingly, the Commission
grants CanopCo's application seeking amendments to the tariffs of the
ILECs and Independents to permit AOSPs access to their DFS. |
15. |
CanopCo, in its application, has requested access to the BLIF of the
Independents who do not offer DFS. In this regard, the Commission is of
the view that to allow AOSPs access to the BLIF of the Independents which
do not provide DFS would be consistent with its recent ruling that
allowed independent directory publishers access to the BLIF of the ILECs
and CLECs (Order CRTC 2001-260, dated 28
March 2001) and would be in the public interest. |
16. |
TELUS recommended that the Commission order all ILECs and CLECs to
make their BLIF available to AOSPs, subject to consumer safeguards. The
Commission notes that this request is outside the scope of this
proceeding, but considers, on a preliminary basis, that such an order
would be in the public interest.
|
17. |
The Commission, therefore, orders: |
|
a) ILECs and Independents that currently offer DFS to issue, within
30 days, amendments to their DFS tariff, and to modify their license
agreement, to provide access to AOSPs for the sole purpose of providing
directory assistance;
|
|
b) Télébec to file, within 45 days, a proposed DFS tariff that
would be accessible to AOSPs for the sole purpose of providing
directory assistance;
|
|
c) Independents that do not offer DFS to file, within 45 days,
proposed tariffs to provide access to BLIF to AOSPs for the sole
purpose of providing directory assistance; and
|
|
d) all ILECs and CLECs to show cause, within 30 days, why they
should not provide access to BLIF to AOSPs for the sole purpose of
providing directory assistance.
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and
may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca |