ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-575

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

 Telecom Order

 Ottawa, 29 April 1997
 Telecom Order CRTC 97-575
 On 17 December 1996, Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (Stentor), on behalf of and with the concurrence of Bell Canada (Bell), filed an ex parte application for approval of the "Welcome Back Rebate Promotion" market trial promotional campaign.
 File No.: Tariff Notice 397
1.  Under Telecom Order CRTC 97-75 (Order 97-75) dated 16 January 1997, the Commission granted the proposed tariff revisions interim approval effective 17 January 1997. Under the approved tariff the market trial enrollment period was from 17 January 1997 to 17 February 1997.
2.  Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), by letter dated 4 March 1997, submitted that on 18 February 1997 it discovered that Bell had distributed information regarding the market trial through direct mail advertising which cited enrollment dates that did not correspond to those approved by the Commission in Order 97-75.
3.  Call-Net submitted that Bell was continuing to enroll competitors' customers in the market trial contrary to sections 24 and 25 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) and Order 97-75. Call-Net requested that Bell should be directed to cease enrolling customers in the market trial, disqualify customers from the market trial who were enrolled after 17 February 1997, return those customers enrolled after 17 February 1997 to their previous Primary Interexchange Carrier (PIC) and provide these customers with a Commission approved letter explaining why these customers were returned.
4.  Stentor submitted, by letter dated 17 March 1997, a response on behalf of Bell stating that an advertising error had been made by Bell in the production of the direct mail piece which resulted in information being distributed in Quebec with enrollment dates that did not correspond to the enrollment dates approved by the Commission in Order 97-5. Stentor denied that Bell is continuing to enroll competitors' customers in the market trial and submitted that Bell direct marketing representatives had been instructed not to enroll customers on the basis of the market trial after 17 February 1997. Stentor submitted that a review of the records from the promotion indicated that, despite their instructions, there were eight customers who were enrolled after the 17 February 1997 deadline, but indicated that this was an administrative error.
5.  Stentor submitted that reverting the affected customers to their previous PIC would result in considerable customer confusion and unnecessary inconvenience. Stentor submitted that Call-Net's allegations regarding continued enrollment in the market trial and the remedy sought are without merit and should be disregarded by the Commission.
6.  Stentor requested that, pursuant to section 25(4)(a) of the Act, the Commission ratify the rates charged by Bell to the eight customers who were enrolled as a result of an administrative error.
7.  The Commission is of the view that given that the number of customers enrolled after 17 February 1997 was not significant and that the market trial promotion was of limited duration, it is unnecessary to disqualify these customers from the market trial promotion and return them to their previous PIC with a letter of explanation approved by the Commission. Accordingly, Call-Net's request is denied.
8.  The Commission notes that section 25(4)(a) of the Act specifies that the Commission may ratify the charging of a rate otherwise than in accordance with a tariff approved by the Commission if the Commission is satisfied that the rate was charged because of an error or other circumstance that warrants ratification. The Commission is of the view that, based on the circumstances underlying the provisioning of the market trial promotion to the eight customers identified by Stentor, it is appropriate to ratify the rates charged to these customers.
9.  In light of the foregoing, the Commission orders that:
 (a) The proposed tariff revisions are approved on a final basis; and
 (b) The rates for the eight customers registered after the enrollment period are ratified.
 Allan J. Darling
Secretary General
 This document is available in alternative format upon request.

Date modified: