Bell and affiliates want right to share customer information among themselves

Bell Canada and its affiliates will likely face opposition in its bid to eliminate regulations that prevent it from sharing customer information with other members of the BCE Inc corporate family. The restrictions represent one of the remaining shackles of monopoly regulation, and the CRTC must now decide whether the incumbent telco’s dominant position in the local telephone market still warrants artificial separations between its monopoly and competitive operations. The telco has filed a Part VII application to the commission asking for the modification of the provisions that require written notice before information about subscribers may be shared. At present, telecom firms are bound by confidentiality clauses set down in 1986 (CRTC Decision 86-7), which forbid sharing of subscriber data to third parties without express written permission from the clients. The original decision was released at a time when telephony was still a monopoly. Bell competitors will undoubtedly argue that a de facto monopoly still exists in the local phone market. For its part, Bell maintains that times have changed. "This provision now has the undesirable effect of restricting the sharing of confidential customer information among business units of the same communications enterprise that happen to be housed in separate legal entities under common control," the submission, which was filed last month, states. The Part VII was filed on behalf of Bell Canada, Bell Mobility, Bell Nexxia, Island Telecom Inc, Maritime Tel & Tel Ltd, MT&T Mobility Inc, MTS Communications Inc, NBTel Inc, NewTel Communications Inc and NewTel Mobility Ltd. All are controlled by BCE , except MTS, in which BCE has a 20 per cent interest. What particularly galls the phone companies is that Rogers Cable Inc and Rogers AT&T Wireless are able to swap information on subscribers. The cableco has instituted a VIP Partners program that allows customers to take advantage of special deals for cable television service, wireless phone use, Internet connectivity, movie rentals, and magazine subscriptions. Bell reports difficulties when its clients expect similar service. "It creates a lot of problems for us and for our customers in doing what we think are perfectly legitimate business activities," David Elder, senior counsel, regulatory told Network Letter. "These activities are exactly what our customers are wanting us to do." Visitors to a Bell World boutique seeking to purchase a Sympatico connection or a wireless phone are required to fill out a lengthy consent form or give data already in Bell Canada’s files. "Consumers tend to view corporate communications groups, which typically share branding, advertising and retail points of presence, as single entities," the firms argue in their submission. "Consumers expect information to be shared within these corporate groups, and indeed are surprised—and in some cases, annoyed—where this is not the case." The application gets fairly broad when it defines affiliation. "An organization is affiliated with the company if it is controlled by the company, it controls the company or it is controlled by the same corporation that controls the company," the filing says. "If the company and another organization are affiliated with the same organization at the same time, they are deemed to be affiliated with each other." This raises the prospect of BCE casting a wide net when it comes to marketing its products. The conglomerate has been funneling content as it brings together telephony, broadcast, print and other ventures. Elder denies Bell customers would be solicited to watch CTV programs or subscribe to the Globe and Mail. "That’s not our plan currently and that’s not the way our privacy policy works now," he states, adding, "But it would include other Bell branded companies like Bell ActiMedia, who provides the Sympatico service, or Bell ExpressVu." The companies realize that some clients will be worried about their privacy. Elder concedes that some public interest groups are demanding more than implicit consent to the release of data. Internet sites and e-commerce find that proper privacy and trust mark programs are essential. Even retail stores are having customers question why so much information is required when purchasing goods in person. In the application, the firms spend several pages extolling the virtues of the federal government’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the PIPED act) passed earlier this year. In addition, the telcos have had their own Code of Fair Information Practices in place since 1992. The companies have revised the code over the years to reflect other directives such as the Canadian Standards Association code and the PIPED act. The telcos say they are in the process of training workers on the machinations of the privacy code. Internal audits will occur to insure employees are complying with the rules. The companies pledge to review the code every five years so they remain relevant in the face of changing technology and regulation. This should be more than enough to satisfy the CRTC, the telcos argue. "The companies would note that the stated objective in the Telecommunications Act is ‘to contribute to the protection of the privacy of persons’. In privacy matters, the commission’s role should be complementary to that of the Commissioner and the detailed requirements of Parliament," the application claims. The firms say the CRTC should concern itself with matters like caller ID and non-published numbers rather than the handling of customer data.

Bell and affiliates want right to share customer information among themselves

News | 12/20/2000 5:00 am EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us