Telus taken to court over charges for unlisted numbers despite Ottawa sanction

Telcos should not be permitted to charge subscribers for unlisted telephone numbers despite the fact the CRTC and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada have endorsed the practice, a Vancouver lawyer maintains. Mathew Englander is taking his case to the Federal Court of Canada after failing to convince the commissioner that the practice violates Canadian privacy legislation. Englander initially filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, claiming that Telus Communications Inc. was violating his confidentiality by printing his name and phone number in the directory unless he paid to have them withheld. He made six allegations involving: non-compliance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents (PIPED) Act; the collection of inappropriate data; lack of consent; disclosure of personal information for other purposes than originally intended; improper protection of data; and the lack of control over information when it is transmitted by outside groups. The last section referred to the canada411.com site, which is a Bell Canada subsidiary, not a Telus operation. In addition, Telus and other phone companies sell lists to selected organizations. The purchasers are not allowed to create their own directories from the information. Englander claims the PIPED Act prohibits a company from releasing client data and charging a fee to withhold disclosure.Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski assessed the application and dismissed it in August. "I have concluded that all aspects of the complaint are not well-founded," he wrote succinctly. Englander has decided to challenge the ruling in federal court, filing an application for leave to appeal on Oct. 9. He is refusing to comment on the case while it is before the court. Englander’s filing with the court asks Telus to stop charging for unlisted numbers and seeks to have the telco reverse its policy within 30 days. He also wants to be reimbursed for the money already paid and to have his legal costs covered. Telus charges subscribers an initial fee of $9.50 to be unlisted and a further $2 each month. There is no charge to be returned to the published listings. The question of privacy versus public knowledge has long been a contentious issue for the telecom sector. Nearly five years ago, the CRTC made recommendations on how telcos should handle information, particularly when it is handed over to independent publishers (NL, Jan. 13/97). A year later, the commission followed up with Order 1998-109. It standardized unlisted fees which until then had ranged from the $1.55 levied by Manitoba Telecom Services to the $5.75 charged by Maritime Tel & Tel. "Taking into account the increasing privacy concerns, as well as factors such as the revenue impact of reduced rates for unlisted number service and the contribution that readily available subscriber listing information makes to the usefulness of the network, the commission considers it appropriate that the telephone companies provide an unlisted number service at a rate that does not exceed $2 per month for residence subscribers," the 1998 ruling stated.The CRTC seemed to anticipate the service charge aspect. "The commission notes that the underlying costs can vary from company to company, and that the tariffs of the various telephone companies are structured somewhat differently," the decision said. "Service charges have traditionally been below cost, and in recent years the telephone companies have been filing proposals to bring the charges closer to costs." When the CRTC was deliberating on the order, it received feedback from the Privacy Commissioner’s office on confidentiality issues. The commission took those recommendations into consideration when devising its policy, Radwanski says. For its part, Telus says charging such levies makes good business sense. "Directories aren’t effective if nobody wants to be in them and therefore phone service really isn’t that effective if you can’t find a phone number," media relations manager Doug Strachan tells Network Letter. Englander had told the Privacy Commissioner that the telco was distributing subscriber information and making it widely available without securing proper agreement from clients. Radwanski disagreed with that argument."Customers are verbally asked how they would like their personal information to appear in Telus’ White Pages directory," the commissioner noted. "It is implied that tele-phone numbers are published in publicly available telephone directories and if a customer chooses not to have a non-published telephone number they indirectly consent to having their telephone number published in publicly available directories." Strachan was uncertain as to how long the process on the leave to appeal will take.

Telus taken to court over charges for unlisted numbers despite Ottawa sanction

News | October 22, 2001

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us