|
Telecom Order CRTC 2006-195
|
|
Ottawa, 26 July 2006 |
|
Bell Canada
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notice 6940 |
|
Residence Service Connection charge waiver
|
|
Background
|
1. |
The Commission received an ex parte
application by Bell Canada, dated 12 April 2006, proposing revisions
to General Tariff item 100, Work Function Structure, related to
service charges applicable for residence individual line service. Also
included in the application were proposed minor housekeeping changes. |
2. |
In Telecom Order CRTC 2006-95,
25 April 2006, the Commission denied Bell Canada's request for the
ex parte treatment of its application. The company was directed
to file its application on the public record, within two business
days of the date of that Order. |
3. |
Bell Canada filed its application on the
public record on 27 April 2006. |
|
The application
|
4. |
Bell Canada proposed to waive the
Residence Service Connection charge for its single-line residence
customers who, as a result of a workload constraint on the part of
Bell Canada, experienced a missed installation appointment that
required a technician's visit with regard to a new service connection
or a move of an existing service connection. Bell Canada indicated
that the purpose of its proposed tariff change was to provide
compensation to customers for the inconvenience caused by a missed
installation appointment. |
5. |
Bell Canada proposed, however, not to
waive the Residence Service Connection charge if the missed
appointment was caused by a labour disruption or a strike involving
the company's employees, agents or contractors; an act of war or
terrorism, or a catastrophe including, but not limited to, fire,
flood, lightning or ice storm. |
6. |
Bell Canada stated that missed
appointments generated customer complaints and, in many cases,
customers requested some form of compensation for the inconvenience.
Bell Canada submitted that the implementation of the proposed
Residence Service Connection charge waiver would likely result in a
decrease in contact time and costs in the company's call centres
receiving complaints, and an increase in customer satisfaction. |
|
Process
|
7. |
The Commission received comments from
Quebecor Media Inc. (QMI), dated 19 May 2006 and reply comments from
Bell Canada, dated 30 May 2006. |
|
QMI's comments
|
8. |
QMI stated that it was concerned that
Bell Canada's service charge waiver proposal was inherently prone to
abuse. QMI questioned whether a sales person could interpret an
inability to schedule an appointment on the date requested by a
customer as a "missed appointment." QMI also questioned whether more
contrived abuses, e.g. involving the scheduling then cancellation of
fictitious appointments, would be possible. QMI stated that Bell
Canada had not proposed safeguards to ensure that such abuses would
not occur. |
9. |
QMI recommended that Bell Canada's
application be rejected. QMI also recommended that, should the
Commission approve Bell Canada's proposal, approval should be
accompanied by an obligation on the part of Bell Canada to provide
quarterly reports on the public record of the percentage of customers
benefiting from the service charge waiver. |
|
Bell Canada's reply comments
|
10. |
Bell Canada stated that its service
representatives issued orders and provided due dates to customers
using an automated calendar, and they were not able to overwrite the
calendar to give a customer a fictitious due date that the company
would know in advance it could not meet. Bell Canada indicated that,
in cases where a customer requested a special due date that could not
be handled by the automated calendar, the situation would be escalated
to a manager who would make special arrangements with the work force
Control Centre, when possible. |
11. |
Bell Canada indicated that the intent of
its application was to establish a process to provide a form of
compensation to customers who experienced a missed appointment due to
uncontrollable factors such as unexpected labour-intensive jobs that
result in a technician being delayed or an unplanned shortage of
technicians on specific days for reasons such as unexpected sick
leave. The company noted that the service charge credit would be
applied to the customer's order by a special group of service
representatives who would be advised by the control centre of the
missed appointment. |
12. |
With regard to safeguards that would
preclude any abuses, Bell Canada argued that its operational processes
would provide effective controls and ensure that the proposed service
charge waiver would only apply as intended. |
13. |
Bell Canada noted that it already provides
to the Commission, on a monthly basis, quality of service reports
for Installation Appointments Met, as per Final standards for quality
of service indicators for use in telephone company regulation and
other related matters, Decision CRTC 2000-24,
20 January 2000, and that the creation of further quality of service
reports was not required. Bell Canada argued that, consequently,
there was no need for the Commission to impose an additional requirement
on the company to submit quarterly reports on missed appointments
resulting in the service charge waiver as QMI suggested. |
|
Commission's analysis and determination
|
14. |
The Commission notes that Bell Canada's
Residence Service Connection charge applies for work done in
receiving, recording and processing information to comply with a
customer's request for the installation of each primary exchange
service at a given premises, or for the restoration of each line
suspended for violation of regulations without termination of service.
It also includes work in Bell Canada's wire-centre building, and
elsewhere, to connect or to restore the service. |
15. |
The Commission notes that Bell Canada's
proposal passes the Commission's imputation test, as set out in
Review of price floor safeguards for retail tariffed services and
related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-27,
29 April 2005. The Commission also notes that Bell Canada's proposal
complies with the pricing constraints set out in Regulatory framework
for second price cap period, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34,
30 May 2002, as amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-34-1,
15 July 2002. |
16. |
Futher, the Commission is satisfied by
Bell Canada's assurance that operational processes will provide
effective controls and ensure that the proposed service charge waiver
is applied as intended, and therefore not be prone to the kind of
abuse suggested by QMI. Further, as the Installation Appointments Met
indicator is defined as the total number of appointments booked and
the number met, and expressed as a percentage of those met relative to
the total booked, the additional reports that QMI suggested Bell
Canada should file would be redundant. |
17. |
Finally, the Commission considers that
Bell Canada's proposal to waive the Residence Service Connection
charge would provide fair compensation for customers where a scheduled
appointment was missed by the company. |
18. |
In light of the above, the Commission
approves Bell Canada's application effective the date of this
Order. |
19. |
Bell Canada is to issue revised tariff
pages within 10 days of the date of this Order. |
|
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
|