BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE CONSUMERS'

ASSOCIATION OF CANADA AND CANADA WITHOUT POVERTY
("THE CONSUMER GROUPS")

(APPLICANTS)

PURSUANT TO PART VII OF THE CRTC

TELECOMMUNICATIONS RULES OF PROCEDURE AND
SECTIONS 24, 25, 27(1), 55, 56 and 72 OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT DIRECTED TO

BELL CANADA
(RESPONDENT)

CONCERNING TOUCH-TONE CHARGES FOR ROTARY DIAL

CUSTOMERS, BREACHES OF TELECOM DECISION CRTC 2006-
15 (AS AMENDED), AND THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE TARIFFS
FOR LOCAL SERVICE RATE INCREASES WHERE THERE IS NO
LOCAL FORBEARANCE

23 DECEMBER 2009

John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
One Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7

(613) 562-4002 x.25

jlawford@piac.ca
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

Table of Contents

Nature of the Application ............................................................................................................................... 2 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 3 
Facts ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 
Law and Argument ......................................................................................................................................... 6 
Grandfathered Rotary Dial Service ............................................................................................................ 6 
Condition of Forbearance and Rate Cap ..................................................................................................... 8 
Unauthorized Rate Increase ........................................................................................................................ 9 
Other Services “Cramming” ..................................................................................................................... 10 
CCTS “Remedies” are Inappropriate and Insufficient.............................................................................. 10 
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 12 
Orders and Remedies .................................................................................................................................... 12 
Appendix A – Affidavit of Allen Trafford ................................................................................................... 16 

1
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

Nature of the Application

1. The Consumers' Association of Canada and the Canada Without

Poverty by their counsel the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (“PIAC”)
("The Consumer Groups") file this Application under Part VII of the
CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure regarding the addition
of “Touch-Tone” service charges to rotary dial customers of Bell
Canada (“Bell”) that, in our view, violate the rate cap on stand-alone
local telephone service set out in Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15,1 in
forborne exchanges and constitute an unjustified rate increase in
exchanges still regulated under the most recent price cap.

2. The Consumer Groups request that the Commission:

a. Declare that the aforementioned Bell Touch-Tone

service charges are an unauthorized rate increase for
all customers so charged;
b. Order Bell to reimburse or credit affected customers
all monies collected under this charge, with interest;
c. Order Bell to provide to return all affected customer
individual line services to “grandfathered” rotary dial
“stand alone” PES unless the customer contacts Bell
to request to stay on Touch-Tone service, at no cost
(and for those wishing to move to Touch-Tone
service, without cost for the relevant period in issue in
this application);
d. Order Bell to provide all affected customers with a
written notice (text provided by the Commission)
which includes an explanation of:

1
As amended by the Governor in Council's Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, P.C.
2007-532, 4 April 2007.

2
Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

i. Rotary dial service and Touch-Tone service as

defined in Bell’s tariff, with an explanation of
the exception to the requirement that individual
line services be Touch-Tone provisioned and
billed unless the service was subscribed to
prior to 08 March 1993, in which case it can
remain in service until moved to a different
premises; and
ii. “stand-alone” PES (local service) as defined by
Decision 2006-15 and an explanation of the
rate cap on stand-alone PES services;
e. Disa llowed all “crammed” charges for services
provisioned without explicit consumer consent; with
an order to return customers to the service they
enjoyed prior to the alleged “DMS Cleanup” and an
order for reimbursement or credit as in para. b above.
f. Order Bell to pay the Consumer Groups’ costs of
making this Part VII application.

Introduction

3. The Consumer Groups submit that Bell is, and has been since at least
September 28, 2009, charging a “Touch-Tone service” fee of $2.80 to
residential local service customers if those customers previously were
identified as rotary dial service customers. That is, Bell customers who
were “grandfathered” rotary dial customers now are charged a
supplemental fee of $2.80 per month, which was not charged to these
customers previously and which for them represents no change
service.

3
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

4. The Consumer Groups submit that, in forborne areas, such a charge is

unauthorized and should be reversed and other remedies granted, as it
is a clear violation of Telecom Decision 2006-15. The Consumer
Groups submit that, in regulated areas, such a charge is an
unauthorized local rate increase for which Bell has failed to file the
required tariffs.

Facts

5. Bell has recently added a “Touch-Tone” charge for local service

customers who are “grandfathered” rotary dial service customers.2
This charge was applied by Bell and not at the request of affected
customers.

6. This charge is applied to customers in forborne exchanges3 and

appears to be applied also in regulated exchanges.

7. Bell appears to have provided only one month’s notice of the proposed
charge to affected customers. This is the text of the notice:4

“Due to an error on our part you have been receiving Touch Tone
TM Service at no cost. Effective immediately, a $2.80/mo charge
will appear on your billing, you will not be charged retroactively. We
apologized [sic] for the inconvenience."

2
See Affidavit of Allen Trafford, at Appendix A.
3
As determined by the Commission in various forbearance decisions since Telecom Decision 2006-
15, as amended.
4
Please see Affidavit of Allen Trafford, Exhibit C, which is an e-mail from a Bell supervisor
asserting that this notice was provided, presumably on the October 2009 invoice, to which we do not have
access.

4
Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

8. Bell therefore has justified the charge in the above notice as a type of
“oversight” on Bell’s part and alleges that it must charge $2.80 a month
for Touch-Tone service on a going-forward basis.

9. The charge is billed to local service customers as line item element of

their local service bills. Please see Appendix A, Affidavit of Allen
Trafford, Exhibit B for an example bill with the charge applied.

10. Bell therefore charges this additional amount for “Touch-Tone” service
even though rotary dial customers who were entitled to continue to
rotary dial service still do so and receive no real benefit from the
addition of Touch-Tone service to their line.

11. Bell has added this charge to customers who are “stand alone” PES
customers as defined in Telecom Decision 2006-15 in forborne
exchanges.

12. The Consumer Groups were made aware of the added Touch-Tone
charges due to the following situation.

13. In November, 2009, Marian Trafford, aged 79 and a resident of

Toronto, received her monthly telephone services statement from Bell
for the billing period of October 28 to November 27, 2009. This
statement indicated that she was now being charged for Touch-Tone
service, without her consent.

14. Mrs. Trafford is a long-standing customer of Bell’s and her service on

the line in question predates March 8, 1993, the cutoff date for
grandfathered rotary dial service under Item 2150 of the Bell Canada
General Tariff.

5
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

15. Mrs. Trafford does not subscribe to any other Bell service such as
internet service or satellite television service. Furthermore, she does
not subscribe to any other Bell telephone services aside from her
basic, stand alone rotary dial phone service.

16. Mrs. Trafford contacted Bell in an effort to have the charge removed
and was not successful. Mrs. Trafford’s son, very knowledgeable about
telecom policy, placed a call to Bell on her behalf. According to Mr.
Trafford’s affidavit, it took 49 minutes to convince a Bell supervisor to
remove the Touch-Tone charges from her account. While speaking to
the Bell supervisor, this supervisor read from an internal Bell “Infozone”
memorandum. Mr. Trafford was told that this memorandum advised of
a “DMS cleanup” project where Bell had identified 20,000 customers
who were provisioned for various services but were not billed for those
services. Mr. Trafford’s understanding was that some of these
customers were to be billed for Touch-Tone services, and some for
other services, as he explained in his affidavit.

Law and Argument

Grandfathered Rotary Dial Service

17. The Telecommunications Act provides as follows:

24. The offering and provision of any telecommunications service

by a Canadian c arrier are subject to any conditions imposed by the
Commission or included in a tariff approved by the Commission.

25. (1) No Canadian carrier shall provide a telecommunications

service except in accordance with a tariff filed with and approved by
the Commission that specifies the rate or the maximum or minimum
rate, or both, to be charged for the service.5

5
Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, ss. 24 and 25.

6
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

18. The Bell General Tariff outlines the rates and regulations that Bell is
required to observe when providing service to customers covered by
Tariff Item 2150(5) of the Bell General Tariff which states that:

Individual line services must be equipped for Touch-Tone dialing at

rates specified below. As an exception, residence individual line
services installed before 08 March 1993, not equipped for Touch-
Tone dialing, can remain in service until they are moved to a
different premises.6 [Emphasis added].

19. The Consumer Groups refer to this service for customers who have
been continuously on rotary dial service at the same service address
as “grandfathered rotary dial service”.

20. Bell also provides terms of service for its wire line service to customers
covered by the tariff. These terms of service address the remedies
available to customers who have been overbilled by Bell for their
services. The appropriate sections are included below:

19.1 In the case of a recurring charge that should not have be en

billed or that was overbille d, a cu stomer must be cr edited with t he
excess back to the dat e of the err or, subject to appl icable limitation
periods pr ovided by law. However, a customer who does not
dispute the charge within one year of the date of an itemized
statement which shows that char ge correctly, loses the right to
have the excess credited for the period prior to that statement.

19.3 A customer who is credited with any amount that should not
have been billed or t hat was ov erbilled must also be credited with
interest on that amount at the rate payable for interest on deposit s
that applied during the period in question.7

6
Bell Canada General Tariff 6716, Part II – Exchange Service, Item 2150. Online:
http://www.bce.ca/en/aboutbce/regulatoryinformation/tarrifs/index.php/ItemView.asp?Tariff=GT%20%20
%20&Part=%20%20%202%20%20%20%20%20%20&Item=%202150%20%20%20%20%20
7
Bell Canada General Tariff 6716, Part I – General, Item 10 – Terms of Service, Article 19:
Liability for Charges that Should Not Have Been Billed and Those That Were Overbilled. Online:
http://www.bce.ca/en/aboutbce/regulatoryinformation/tarrifs/index.php/ItemView.asp?Tariff=GT%20%20
%20&Part=%20%20%201%20%20%20%20%20%20&Item=%20%20%2010%20%20%20%20%20

7
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

Condition of Forbearance and Rate Cap

21. The Consumer Groups contend that, in forborne areas, such a charge
is a violation of the stand-alone local service rate cap established in
Telecom Decision 2006-15, at paras. 449-456. Para. 454 describes
the stand-alone PES rate cap:

454. In light of the foregoing concerns, the Commission finds it

appropriate to maintain its powers and duties under subsection
27(1) of the Act to the extent necessary to impose a price ceiling on
stand-alone residential PES. The Commission notes that this price
ceiling will apply to the most recent approved rates at time of
forbearance for stand-alone PES including touch-tone and primary
directory listing, as well as for connection charges. […] The
Commission considers that these charges have a direct impact on
the affordability of residential PES service. As such, the
Commission considers that, at the time of forbearance, the
applicant ILEC will be required to modify its tariffs such that these
charges and the limits on them will apply to stand-alone PES in a
forborne market. [Emphasis added.]

22. The Commission noted that it was creating the stand-alone rate cap as
an exercise of its jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Telecommunications
Act to set conditions on the offering of telecommunications services
because of the vulnerability of certain customers and the unlikelihood
that market forces would ensure affordable basic service, even in
forborne areas (see Decision 2006-15, paras. 354-361 and 374-387).

23. The Consumer Groups submit that in relation to Bell’s grandfathered

rotary dial service customers, such an increase of $2.80 is a clear
increase above the last calculated rate cap as defined in Decision

8
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

2006-15. Therefore, Bell has exceeded the rate cap for stand-alone
residential PES for these customers.

24. The stand-alone PES rate cap was specifically introduced by the
Commission as an instance of its subs. 27(1) (“just and reasonable
rates”) power, which the Commission retained in Decision 2006-15
(see para. 442-456, esp. at paras. 449 to 456).

25. Since many of the customers on grandfathered rotary dial service are
elderly like Mrs. Trafford and may be on fixed incomes, Bell’s unilateral
addition of charges despite their status as stand alone service
customers appears high-handed, ill-considered and particularly harsh
to such consumers.

Unauthorized Rate Increase

26. For customers who live in exchanges still regulated under the most
recent price cap, the Bell charge, if applied there, also represents a
price increase to local rates.

27. As noted above, the e-mail from a Bell supervisor confirms the
existence of a “recent review of the DMS system”. On the premise that
such DMS billing system includes customers in exchanges not yet
forborne from regulation, it is possible some number of grandfathered
rotary dial customers covered by Telecom Decision 2007-7, Price cap
framework for large incumbent local exchange carriers (30 April 2007)
(the “Third Price Caps Decision”) have been overbilled in a similar
fashion.

28. If so, Bell has not filed such a tariff application for an increase to local
rates for grandfathered rotary dial service in regulated exchanges. Bell

9
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

therefore has imposed an unauthorized local service rate increase in

violation of s. 25 and the Third Price Caps Decision.

Other Services “Cramming”

29. Although the Consumer Groups do not have bills from consumers who
may have experienced additional charges added to their bills as a
result of the referenced “DMS Cleanup”, it is our concern that among
some of the alleged 20,000 accounts were additional charges added
that customers have not requested.

30. Although it is difficult to speculate about such additional charges, it is

possible that some affect customers who are on stand alone service
and should have rates kept at the previous price cap while others could
be in regulated exchanges and such increases also could constitute
unauthorized price increases in excess of the price cap.

31. In addition, the Consumer Groups submit that provisioning services

based solely on the records of Bell, without any proof of ordering of
these services by consumers,8 should be prohibited by the
Commission as an instance of “cramming” charges and disallowed with
an order to return customers to the service they enjoyed prior to the
alleged “DMS Cleanup” and an order for reimbursement or credit as
with relation to the Touch-Tone charges above.

CCTS “Remedies” are Inappropriate and Insufficient

32. The Consumer Groups submit that the Commission should adjudicate
this Application and not force customers to complain directly to their

8
The Commission should order Bell to provide, in relation to the “DMS Cleanup” in issue, the list
of products and the number of affected customers in confidence.

10
Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

carrier and then to the Commissioner for Complaints for

Telecommunications Services.

33. Firstly, this Application raises a number of matters that are purely
alleged violations of the price cap, whether viewed as an increase to
the stand alone rate for affected customers or as an unauthorized rate
increase.

34. As in Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-33, TELUS Communications

Company – Network access charge (17 April 2008) the Commission
has jurisdiction to order a reimbursement or credit for charges that are
unauthorized.

35. In addition, the CCTS process requires customers to complain

individually. Since it could be expected that not all customers will
complain to CCTS, there is an incentive to Bell to apply the charge
globally and then deal with individual complaints through CCTS as they
arise.

36. CCTS also has limited “jurisdiction” as its defined scope of permissible
complaints excludes “prices”. Further, although CCTS has a systemic
inquiry power, it has not yet been used and is subject to the effective
veto of industry board members.

37. Nor does the blocking service address the unjust discrimination against
any of these customers, as they not only now face a fee for long
distance “access” but also receive the privilege of not actually being
able to use that access.

11
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

Conclusions

38. In summary, the Consumer Groups submit that Bell, by imposing its
Touch-Tone service fee of $2.80 monthly to grandfathered rotary dial
service customers, has in forborne exchanges, breached the condition
of forbearance set out in Decision 2006-15 in relation to stand-alone
customers and set a rate for local service that is not just and
reasonable. The Consumer Groups submit that in regulated
exchanges, if this charge has been applied there, Bell has violated the
Third Price Caps decision and has failed to file tariffs under s. 25 of the
Act.

Orders and Remedies

39. The Consumer Groups contend that Bell has, in forborne exchanges,
violated the Commission’s order in Decision 2006-15 with regard to the
rate cap for stand-alone local service of stand-alone local service users
by imposing the Touch-Tone fee at issue in this application.

40. The Consumer Groups contend that Bell, if it has applied charges in
regulated exchanges, has imposed an unauthorized local service rate
increase in violation of s. 25 and the Third Price Caps Decision.

41. The Consumer Groups note that the Commission has the powers of a
superior court in relation to the enforcement of its decisions under s.
55(c) of the Telecommunications Act.

42. Using this power in past cases of regulatory violations, the

Commission has required companies to undergo independent audits9,

9
Telecom Decision CRTC 95-18 (inaccurate reporting).

12
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

to file reports with the CRTC10, to revise procedures11, and to

compensate affected customers.12

43. The Consumer Groups request that the Commission declare that Bell
has, by unilaterally imposing this Touch-Tone service charge, violated
Decision 2006-15 in relation to stand-alone customers in forborne
exchanges, has violated s. 25 and the Third Price Caps Decision in
regulated exchanges, if the charge also is applied there.

44. The Consumer Groups further submit that all monies collected from
subscribers under this long distance access fee should be reimbursed
or credited to affected customers, with interest. Such an order is in
accord with Tariff Items 19.1 and 19.3 of Bell’s general tariff and is
required to remove the financial incentive for Bell in seeking to
creatively ignore the stand-alone requirements of Decision 2006-15;
and possibly in failing to file local service rate increase tariff
applications as required by s. 25 and the Third Price Caps Decision.

45. Such reimbursement or credit has a clear precedent in Telecom

Decision CRTC 2008-33, TELUS Communications Company –
Network access charge (17 April 2008), where a similar unauthorized
charge was ordered reimbursed or credited.

46. The compensation order should be without prejudice to the rights of

subscribers to the exercise of any civil remedies that may be available
to them.13

10
Telecom Decision CRTC 88-4 (services charged at less than tariffed rates), Letter Decision CRTC
94-9 (services charged at less than tariffed rates), Telecom Decision CRTC 95-8 (bundling and rebating
contrary to tariffs).
11
Letter Decision CRTC 94-9.
12
Telecom Decision CRTC 88-5 (improper disconnection).
13
See s. 72, Telecommunications Act.

13
Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

47. The Consumer Groups also submit that as a remedy, the Commission
should require Bell to return all affected customers to rotary dial
service, unless the customer (not Bell) requests, in writing, to stay on
Touch-Tone service. If any customer does so choose to remain on
Touch-Tone service, the Commission should order that the
reimbursement for those months during which they had Touch-Tone
service without requesting it nonetheless be credited, as for customers
remaining on rotary dial service.

48. The Consumer Groups further submit that as a remedy, the

Commission should require Bell to notify all customers in writing who
have been unjustly charged for Touch-Tone. Such notice should
explain rotary dial service and Touch-Tone service as defined in Bell’s
tariff, with an explanation of the exception to the requirement that
individual line services be Touch-Tone provisioned and billed unless
the service was subscribed to prior to 08 March 1993, in which case it
can remain in service until moved to a different premises.

49. In addition, the notice, for customers in forborne exchanges, should

explain “stand-alone” PES (local service) as defined by Decision 2006-
15 and an explanation of the rate cap on stand-alone PES services.
The Commission should provide or approve the wording of these
notices. Such notice should also include a copy of any order the
CRTC makes in relation to this application.

50. Additionally, the Consumer Groups are concerned that Bell may have
“crammed” charges on customer bills by commencing billing on
provisioned services that consumers have not ordered. The
Commission should require Bell to file information on the services and
customers affected by the “DMS Cleanup” and if any charges were
added that were not explicitly requested by the customer, to disallow
them, to require Bell to return the customer to the original service and

14
Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

to order credit or reimbursement for all stand alone or rate capped

customers in the manner proposed above for added Touch-Tone
charges.

51. Finally, the Consumer Groups note that the CRTC also has the power
to order “by whom and to whom any costs are to be paid and by whom
they are to be taxed….” (subs. 56(2) Telecommunications Act).

52. The Consumer Groups submit that Bell should be required to pay their
reasonable costs of making this application.

15
Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

Appendix A – Affidavit of Allen Trafford

[see following pages]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 Part VII Application by the Consumer Groups regarding Bell Canada’s Touch Tone Charge to Rotary Dial
Customers
December 23, 2009

NOTICE

This application is made on behalf of The Consumers' Associatio n of Canada and

Canada Without Poverty, c/o John Lawford, Counsel, Public Interest A dvocacy Ce ntre,
One Nicholas Street, Suite 1204, Ott awa, Ontario K1N 7B7, on behalf of the Consumer
Groups.

TAKE NOTI CE that pursuant to section 59, and, as applicable section 57(2)(c) of the
CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure , the respondent is required to mai l or
deliver or transmit by e lectronic mail his answer to this application t o the Secretary
General of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Central
Building, 1 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau (Québec) J8X 4B1, and to serve a copy of
the answer on the applicant by 22 January 2010.

Service of the copy of the answer on the applicant may be effected by personal delivery,
by electronic mail, or by ordinary mail. In the case of service by personal delivery, it may
be effected at the address set out above.

If the respo ndent does not file or serve his an swer within the time limit prescribed , the
application may be disposed of without further notice to him.

*** End of Document ***

29