From: Karen[SMTP:khillman@cadvision.com]

Sent: September 18, 2001 11:18 AM

To: procedure@crtc.gc.ca

Cc: regulatory.affairs@telus.com

Subject: Service Improvement Plan

Dear Sir or Madame:

I recently recieved the Notice to Customers regarding the proposed rate increase and Service Extensions. In reveiwing the notice it came to my attention that the entire cost for the proposed service extensions would fall entirely upon the customers of Telus, both new and existing. If I understand this correctly, Telus would not be sharing the costs for any of the service extensions. Telus would stand to profit from the extension of the service to new customers yet not share in any of the cost to do so. If I understand this notice correctly, Telus is proposing that, we the consumers pay for them to extend their service and so they can make more money as a result.

In most businesses, you need to spend money to make money. By approving this proposal you send the message that Telus is the exception. I am opposed to this action. I feel that if Telus is interested in extending it's services they should do so at their own cost. As a consumer I am tired of seeing Telus raise their rates on Residential Service with no service improvements. It has been clear for some time that we, the consumer, are paying a premium for Residential Service at Telus. Other telephone companies are able to offer the Residential Service at a much lower cost using Telus Land Lines. Why are we paying so much for the Telus Service and why should the CRTC continue to approve rate increases when no service enhancements are being offered?

I am not interesteed in paying anymore monthly costs. I am not interested in paying for Telus to extend their service. If Telus wants to extend their service to new communities they should do so, without the expectation that the rest of their customers base pay for it, on the foundation that it will bring them long term gains. Furthermore, Telus is suggesting the improvements for underserved communities. In my opinion this falls again as a responsibility of doing business.

I encourage you to review Telus Financial information for Return on Investment and Profit for the past few years and make a solid decision based upon whether or not Telus could incurr the costs proposed without a deficet. If this is the case, I am of the opinion that you deny the current proposal and set the precedent that Telus is not unlike any other Business. Spend money to make money. If they would be subject to a deficet by incurring all the costs from the Service Extension then perhaps a negotiation should begin, focusing on how much cost they could incurr before a deficet situation arises. Telus should be responsible for at least a portion of the associated costs if not in their entirety.

I encourage you to review the Rate Increases Telus has put upon it's consumer over the past ten years for Basic Residential Service alone and enhanced services separately. I encourage you to review what we, the consumer, have gained by way of residential service. Look also at the profits gained by Telus as a result of it's service enhancements over the past ten years. Who has gained? Who should pay? At this time, I feel you should consider the best interests of the consumer/customer base as a whole and consider whether or not the best interests of the majority are at the core of this proposal. Isn't it time Telus spent some money to make it? I feel I am probably not alone in this mindset.

Lastly, I feel the notice to customers as it is delivered is probably not seen by most consumers. A suggestion for the future - when such proposals are submitted perhaps a postage paid reply card to the CRTC with options "for or against" on the card as well as a website option to respond. How many of the Telus customers actually have the time to respond as I have here? How many of them missed this notice entirely? A reply card would at least give you an idea of how many consumers actually are aware. After all that is what this Notice is all about.

I thank you in advance for your time and for consideration of the position I have put forth.

Sincerely, Karen Hilman.