The Rural Voice, 1993-06, Page 56GREY
County Federation of Agriculture NEWSLETTER
44610th St., Hanover, Ontario N4N 1P9
519-364-3050
The Rural Voice is provided to all Grey
County Farmers by the GCFA.
Bell Canada proposes rate increases
The Grey and Bruce Federations of
Agriculture attended the CRTC
hearings in Hull, Quebec, on Monday,
May 17, 1993 to make our case for
larger calling areas.
Let me explain why we believe that
rural Ontario should benefit from pro-
gress in the telecommunications indus-
try, as well as from a basic change of
policy by the regulator, the CRTC.
Historically, Ma Bell has operated
as a monopoly, with a mandate to
provide reasonable phone service not
only to densely populated areas, where
it is profitable, but also to the more
thinly populated areas, where much
higher rates would have to be charged
to break even.
Because of this monopoly, Bell's
finances and everything affecting rates
and calling areas are, and were, tightly
regulated. This was achieved by the
"Canadian Radio -Telecommunications
Commission" (CRTC). This commis-
sion is set up under federal legislation
and reports to the Minister of
Communications in Ottawa.
Over the years this monopoly
position was eroded when Bell
customers were given permission to
buy their phones from sources other
than Bell Canada. Over the last year or
so, the CRTC has changed this Bell
monopoly by permitting competition in
the lucrative long distance field. (You
see the Unitel ads on TV.) However,
Bell's legislated mandate to provide
the basic service has not changed.
Because the basic rates were
subsidized by profits from long
distance charges, they could be be kept
artificially low.
In order to maintain the basic
GCFA
Directors' Meeting
Thursday, June 24, 1993
OMAF Boardroom, Markdale
8:00 p.m.
Members are welcome to attend
52 THE RURAL VOICE
service and remain profitable, Bell
Canada has applied to the CRTC for
the rate and area changes presently
being discussed. As proposed by Bell
Canada, basic rates will be increased
by an average of 66 per cent across the
board. Reading the fine print, how-
ever, shows that increases for rural
customer, or customers outside the
urban centres of Toronto, Montreal
and Ottawa -Hull, will be much larger
than the 66 per cern, while these urban
subscribers will have their basic rates
go up by a much smaller percentage.
In addition, subscribers in these three
urban centres will have their toll-free
calling area greatly increased, while
subscribers outside these three centres
will not receive this benefit.
To put this proposal into perspec-
tive, in Grey and Bruce Counties, the
local phone exchanges give us toll-free
calling from anywhere near 7500
subscribers to about 30,000 subscribers
in cities like Owen Sound.
Under the new Bell Canada propo-
sal, subscribers in an area roughly from
Bowmanville to Burlington and from
Hillsburgh to Port Perry will be able to
call without incurring long distance
charges. As a result a Bell customer
within this area will be able to call in
excess of three million subscribers toll
free.
We do not believe that this is fair.
If rural subscribers are to contribute a
larger part of the proposed increase, we
believe that we should also be getting a
larger calling area, not the three million
urbanites will be getting, but at least
something along a Bell Canada
proposal which was turned down last
December by the CRTC. This
proposal was called the "Neighbour-
hood Calling Plan", or NCP for short.
Intervenors at these hearings proposed
toll-free calling areas of 40 miles from
any exchange. This appears to us to be
a most reasonable proposal, and we
will do our best to convince the CRTC
to take another look at the merits of the
"Neighbourhood Calling Plan" with
the 40 -mile rule of thumb.
On April 15, 1993, the executives of
the two federations met with Bell
Canada officials to explain our
positions. We had a good exchange of
ideas and it appears that Bell Canada
might be willing to give us some
improvement m toll-free calling area if
the CRTC approves.
I would like to make it clear that we
have no complaint generally about the
service Bell Canada has been
providing. We also believe that Bell
Canada must be given rates which
enable it to remain profitable and
permit it to provide the services we
want and need. (If only farmers could
make as compelling a case for better
prices as Bell Canada).
Farmers and rural residents are
caught in the crossfire between Bell
Canada and its long distance
competitors, but cannot partake in the
benefits which are proposed for urban
Bell customers. In fact the urban
phone subscribers win on three counts:
1. Lower basic increases.
2. Much larger local calling area.
3. Availability of long distance
competition, which will not be
available in rural areas in the
foreseeable future.
The change in policy by the CRTC,
removing the monopoly in long
distance service from Bell Canada,
must not only benefit urban
subscribers. We are also residents of
Ontario and demand that we be
considered on the same level.
When you read this article, the
hearings in Hull on the proposed
changes by Ma Bell will be over. If
our most reasonable request should be
turned down, we may have to try and
get the attention of our MP, the Hon.
Perrin Beatty, Minister of
Communications, who is the boss of
the CRTC, and convince him of the
merits of our case. The hearing ability
of politicians is at its most acute just
before an election.0
Karl Braeker
OFA Regional Director
Grey South