Competitive pay-telephone service provider’s dispute with Bell is left to the courts: CRTC

The CRTC will not force BCE Inc. and Rogers Communications Inc. to compensate Ontario’s last competitive pay-telephone service provider (CPTSP) for toll-free call charges and said any disputes over unpaid invoices is best left in the hands of the courts. “The commission notes that it has forborne from the regulation of pay telephone access line services and has adequately addressed in various decisions the policy concerns related to toll-free compensation. Therefore, disputes related to compensation for unpaid invoices and related matters are more appropriately dealt with by the judicial system,” the commission wrote in its decision released Thursday. The decision is a response to SDI Telecom’s complaint filed with the CRTC in August 2021. It requested that the commission order Bell and other telecom carriers such as Rogers to pay for providing toll-free services using regular business lines. SDI argued that the incumbent is trying to push out the competition. SDI claims that in 2015 Bell converted most of SDI lines from pay telephone access lines (PAL) to business lines, and never told SDI that it can’t use business lines for his pay telephones. SDI noted in its initial complaint that a 2019 CRTC decision stipulates that SDI “is entitled to receive, from Bell compensation of $0.25 per toll-free call made over Bell Canada-provided business lines to support retail pay telephone service. SDI is also entitled to receive, from Bell Canada and Rogers, the associated reports for toll-free calls originating from payphones owned by SDI and made over business lines.” As of Nov. 30, 2021 Rogers is allegedly indebted to SDI for $84,123.81 in unpaid invoices and Bell allegedly owes $236,681.92, according to SDI Telecom general manager Richard Seni’s Dec. 6 intervention in the proceeding. SDI also filed the unpaid invoices in confidence with the CRTC. Bell successfully got that evidence struck from the record. In Thursday’s decision the CRTC ruled in Bell’s favour, noting that the CRTC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure prohibits applicants from filing supplementary documents related to their application after the application has been posted on the commission’s website. The CRTC cited its 2019 decision, among others, as confirmation that it has adequately addressed the policy concerns related to toll-free compensation and that regulation of PAL services is not needed. “Moreover, in… the commission encouraged CPTSPs and access line providers to negotiate mutually acceptable business arrangements. Therefore, to the extent that the parties cannot agree on the determination of the legitimacy of certain calls and whether SDI should be compensated for them as a result, the commission considers that these matters and any related issues are better dealt with by the judicial system,” it wrote. The matter is also before the courts. SDI took Bell to a small claims court in July 2021, claiming Bell owed SDI $83,643.71 in payments (although SDI acknowledged it is aware that Small Claims Court cannot rule over $35.000). SDI also requested that the commission implement “a flat rate compensation for toll free calls using SDI pay telephone from any type of line (SIM card, VOIP, Landline) from any telecom carrier.” “There is a lack of evidence provided to support the company’s request, and such information would be more appropriate within the scope of a formal notice of consultation regarding the commission’s pay telephone regulatory framework. Given that the relevant circumstances that existed when the commission issued its previous decisions have not changed, a notice of consultation to examine the pay telephone regulatory framework is not warranted,” the commission wrote in its decision. The commission also determined that SDI did not provide adequate evidence to justify its undue disadvantage claims against Bell. SDI had argued that Bell was mandated in a 2019 CRTC decision to compensate AFX Communications $0.25 per call for lines other than pay telephone access lines, yet the incumbent refused to pay SDI for similar matters. “The compensation payment between AFX and Bell Canada, as presented in SDI’s application, is a unique, distinct, and specific commercial relationship that has no bearing on Bell Canada and SDI’s own commercial dispute. Therefore, it cannot be considered as evidence of discrimination or disadvantage,” the commission wrote. Given that the commission forbore from PAL services, it denied SDI’s request for an order against Bell’s disconnection of SDI’s remaining PALs. The commission again noted that it encouraged CPTSPs and access line providers to negotiate amongst themselves and intervention by the commission would be inappropriate. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca.

Competitive pay-telephone service provider’s dispute with Bell is left to the courts: CRTC

News | October 13, 2022

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

Competitive pay-telephone service provider’s dispute with Bell is left to the courts: CRTC

News | October 13, 2022

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telecoms testing their networks for the future of quantum connectivity

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us