|
|
Telecom Order CRTC 2005-322
|
|
|
Ottawa, 16 September 2005
|
|
|
Bell Canada
|
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notice 6885
|
|
|
2-1-1 Service
|
|
1.
|
The Commission received an application by Bell Canada, dated 29 July 2005, proposing the introduction of General Tariff item 6002, 2-1-1 Service, as contemplated by the Commission in Allocation of three-digit dialing for public information and referral services, Decision CRTC 2001-475, 9 August 2001 (Decision 2001-475).
|
|
|
Process
|
|
2.
|
On 9 August 2005, Inform Canada Federation (InformCanada), the organization coordinating the 211 Ontario project, filed comments. Bell Canada did not file reply comments
|
|
3.
|
The Commission granted interim approval to Bell Canada's application in Telecom Order CRTC 2005-295, 11 August 2005.
|
|
|
The application
|
|
4.
|
Bell Canada stated that 2-1-1 service would allow callers to dial 2-1-1 for access to community information and referral (I&R) services provided by agencies endorsed by governments within the geographic area to be served. Bell Canada stated that government-endorsed I&R agencies could use the 2-1-1 service to enable callers to make inquiries regarding non-emergency services for social, health and government services in their community.
|
|
5.
|
Bell Canada stated that 2-1-1 service would provide area code/exchange routing of customer-dialed 2-1-1 calls to an I&R agency within the local calling area of the exchange in which the call originated at no cost to the I&R agency. Bell Canada stated that where 2-1-1 routing required a long distance call to reach an I&R agency, the agency would be required to use the long distance services of a telecommunications service provider (TSP) to complete the call to the agency location and long distance charges would be billed to the agency at negotiated rates. Bell Canada stated that I&R agencies would retain their 10-digit telephone numbers so that people outside of the 2-1-1 dialing area could still contact them.
|
|
6.
|
Bell Canada stated that I&R agencies would be required to provide notification at least six months in advance of the requested effective date.
|
|
7.
|
Bell Canada noted that in Decision 2001-475, the Commission had directed the carriers to bear the cost of implementing basic 2-1-1 routing on an incremental basis. Bell Canada stated that consequently it had not prepared an economic evaluation.
|
|
|
InformCanada's comments
|
|
8.
|
InformCanada stated that it had provided comments to Bell Canada, including a clarification that 2-1-1 service delivery was to be community-based and not delivered by government or the private sector, prior to the company filing this application.
|
|
9.
|
InformCanada supported the six-month notice period for switch translation and submitted that it was a reasonable notice period.
|
|
|
Commission's analysis and determination
|
|
10.
|
In the proceeding leading to Decision 2001-475, United Way of Canada, InformCanada, United Way of Greater Toronto and Community Information Toronto (United Way et al.) proposed that each telecommunications carrier bear the costs of implementing 2-1-1 service. United Way et al. also proposed that there be no charges to the end user for dialing 2-1-1 as a local call, and if 2-1-1 dialing was a long distance call, the charges would be negotiated with the carrier and paid by the I&R services provider. In Decision 2001-475, the Commission noted that there was broad support from parties for United Way et al.'s proposal the implementation costs of 2-1-1 be assumed by the carriers, and directed the carriers to bear these costs.
|
|
11.
|
The Commission finds that Bell Canada's proposal is consistent with Decision 2001-475.
|
|
12.
|
In light of the above, the Commission approves Bell Canada's application on a final basis.
|
|
|
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: www.crtc.gc.ca
|
Date Modified: 2005-09-16