DECISION

I consider that the request of the Association for a
of hotel rates and charges is reasonable and I would direct
Cospany to undertake ouch a study in which I an confide
Apseciation will fumish the Company with whaterer 4
it requires, In directing the undertaking of sh¢
would not bind the Cozpeny to oll the ennet2 “etiona which arose out of
the 5ell Cannda study on rates to hotets which waa ordered in the
Commission's gudgzent of Septecter G47 1949. The Company should be free
to evaluste any peculiar or Spgotul conditions, both with reapect to its
own cituition and that of hotels which at serves, and to relate thea
to guchm considerations particular the fact that hotelea do not, in

general, have prec y the sure kind of characteristics as otber
businesses.

e
ne .
*3 and asgiatonce
otudy, however, I

The Cozpany chould be direeted

t report to the Conaittee on
esulta of ite studies wi

Shin a period of four months.

(3) The District of Conuitian and the Cit

y of Port Coquitian

These intervenors ayk the Commission ta inquire into the
existence of certnin alleged inequilitics end to "satioty itaelf as to
their true nature." They expresa the hope that the Corcainaion will
rezove the allesed inequity und request, in the alternative, that "47 any
Tate differential ts to be continucd, that it be based upon a revealed .
Stardurd and that the British Coluszbin Telephone Company should be
required to deconstrate the validity of this standard fron time to time."
They also outzit that “inereuved profits und revenue arising out of the
price differential, if that differential 19 to be continued, should be
dexonstrably applied to the necessary capital equipment and technology
Recegsary to the elinination of that differential

The so-culled "price differentigl" relat

e3 to the fact that
the Port Coquitlan exchange of the

Company is in rate group 9A, whereas
Coquitian 4s part of the Varcouver exchenge area und is in rate group 9,

The current Ronthly exchiunge rates for rate Group 9A are higher than
those for rate group 9, by the following uxounta: $1.00 per month for
business service, und 90 cents per month for residence service.

The revoony for the higher rates in rute
Set out in the Judgzent of the Bourd of
Canada, duted Auguot 7, 1962, in the
approval of rates for extended-arca t
between the Vancouver exchange and certain other exchanges in the area
Surrounding Vancouver, B.C, A copy of that application was served upon
the Corporations of the District of Coquitlam and the City of Port
Coquitlas. In addition, a plebiscite of oll its subscribers in the
areas uffected was conducted by the Company in October, 1961, to
ascertain their views, and the results of that plebiscite showed that

Port Coquitlan exchange
€ extended-area service plan and the higher retea

€roup 9A are fully
Transport Commissioners for .
applicution of the Company for .
elephone service (toll-free calling)

substantial tujority of the subseriberg in the
areca were in favour of th
whick forsed part of it.

: DECrsroy

a In ito Judyzent of Nuguet 7, 1962,
that the provioion of ¢

the Board pointed out
sktindedeures aervics ip eoscctially o matter .
which lies within the elocretionary Powero of the Cocnsny, tho

Board's powers deing Limited to the ratter of the tolla which the
Company desires to irpose for what is essentially a Tearrangexent
. : of telephone exchange boundaries,

Ta connection with the surcharge
over the Vancouver rates, the Board hud this to Bay;

Lg

hese surcharges are part of the plen acceptable .
to the majority. It is quite evident that to

provide Vancouver extended-nrea service to these
. exchanges, involves the Conpany in additional

expense because of the éreater distances involved,

& well as the loss of the toll revenue for

Present long-distance comminication to and froa

Vancouver. The value of service to these °
. Custorers who will pay these surcharges, however,
a 38 greatly enh,

vuotly increased range
of calling which will be made available to these
Smaller exchange areas,"

The Board concluded by finding "
. . dtecrininatory in the proposed ¢
* Yates plus the ourcharges .,,"

nothing unreasonable or unjustly
harges 1.e., the charging of Vancouver

. . The Commission has no power
_ toll-free calling, but only to deal wi
Company's decision to fumish such oc

+ the continuation of Surcharges over t!

rate group 9A results in unreasonable or unjustly dizcrizinatory
charges. The additional expense involved, the loss of toll revenue
from what would otheewise be long distance comunication, and the value
. . Of aervice to oubseriters in the Port Coquitian exchange area, are

« factore which remain essentially the ouce oo they were at the tine of .
issuance of the Board'a

to direct the Conpany to furntah
th the rates resulting froa the
tvice. I am not persuaded that
he Vancouver exchange rates for

AUTHUPESED THCHEASES IN RATES AND CHARGES:

As sta above, I would authorize Tate increases effective
September 1, 1971, ti nxare eatizated to produce additional revenues
of nbout £9,400,000 for the 21 year 1972, The totnl increaces of
$27,089,000 applied for represented an overall inereaoe of 8.088,
whereus if increases of about $9,400, re authorized they would
amount to 4.45% in total

A summary of the proposed revenue increases

Exhibit "Bev 6-1", shows the following
of the burden of increaaes sought: