GATINEAU – Rogers Communications told the CRTC on Wednesday that the Commissions for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) should become “a destination of last resort” for consumer complaints.
The country’s largest wireless provider argued during day 2 on the hearing into the CCTS (click here for day one's coverage) the industry should take a page out of the banking sector’s playbook and adopt a model similar to that of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI). Kim Walker, Rogers’ Ombudsperson, said during her opening remarks that the OBSI is the final recourse for customers after they’ve exhausted all available options with a financial institution and that there are “verifiable criteria” needed before it can accept a complaint.
“The customer is required to present a ‘deadlock’ letter from the financial institution demonstrating that the complaint has been reviewed, but resolution was not reached. This ensures transparency and accountability on the part of financial institutions and OBSI,” she said. “What this could do for our industry is provide clients with a sense of trust and good faith in the ability of the service provider to resolve issues while still maintaining an avenue of recourse, if it is necessary.”
Walker added that this type of approach would also prevent both the CCTS and Rogers from doing extra work because customers wouldn’t first go to the CCTS, only have to be referred back to Rogers. The result is lost consumer faith in the company’s ability to adequately address their concerns.
“We would like to improve the process so that we have an internal opportunity to resolve the issue first in all cases. This could be accomplished through the OSBI model, and could improve customer satisfaction and lessen the workload on the CCTS,” she argued.
In essence, Rogers is asking for additional time to settle consumer complaints before the CCTS gets involved. SaskTel agreed in its mid-afternoon testimony Wednesday that providers should get additional opportunities to address customer concerns. In its appearance, the company suggested yet another approach that could facilitate quicker customer complaint resolutions.
Rather than having the CCTS immediately open a file for a particular complaint, telecom providers should be given an additional opportunity to settle the dispute. The regional carrier argued that a five business day referral period would be long enough. “If the consumer and service provider resolve the issue during the five-day period, the matter would be resolved before the complaint is accepted and before a file is even opened. There would be no need to hire extra staff or to make major system changes,” said Bill Beckman, senior director of regulatory affairs at SaskTel.
He added that the CCTS, telecom providers and customers would benefit from this grace period. “The service provider will be incented to reach a resolution in order to avoid the fee, and also to avoid further dual reporting to the consumer and the CCTS. The five-day period will reduce the CCTS’ work load for the initiation of a potential claim. And consumers will benefit from faster resolution of their issues,” argued Beckman.
Rogers also used its appearance to speak out against the CCTS’s ability to interpret codes and policies. The company noted while it has no issues when the complaints body looks into minor matters, it becomes a problem when it starts interpreting major carrier operational practices.
“For these types of issues which are deeply related to the operations of the company, we think there must be a better way.” – David Watt, Rogers
Under questioning, David Watt, senior VP of regulatory, pointed to two cases where the company ended up on the short end of a Part 1 process. One involved service termination and suspension while the other related to corporate device plans. Both, he said, have significant implications for the industry. Describing the information and billing systems issues at play as “very complicated” and “very complex,” Watt said this type of matter would be better served in a working group where a full understanding of the challenges from both sides could be explored.
“That really doesn’t necessarily come clear from a written exchange in a formal Part 1 process and in our view certainly doesn’t come through when the CCTS makes an interpretation unilaterally,” argued Watt, “for these types of issues which are deeply related to the operations of the company, we think there must be a better way.”
The Canadian Network Operators Consortium (CNOC), which represents small, independent companies, said in its testimony that the current method of requiring participation – once a complaint has been lodged – is an efficient approach since more than half of TSPs didn’t receive a complaint in the 2013-2014 period, and only 85 in the first half of this year. The organization did, however, raise concerns about the CCTS funding model, noting that the way it works now encourages providers to settle unfounded complaints early so as to avoid higher fees later on. It argued that complaints-based fees should be eliminated altogether.
Rather, a part of the CCTS funding should be provided by the carriers who had complaints lodged against them in the previous year. This, said CNOC, rewards providers for lowering complaints while also “avoiding perverse economic incentives to make payments for complaints that are not well founded.”
Accessibility issues were also discussed during the second day of the hearing. Media Access Canada argued in its appearance that the CRTC should be the sole solution provider for complaints by those with disabilities. The CNIB and the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians noted, on the other hand, that the CCTS’s mandate should be expanded to include accessibility matters.
The hearing continues Thursday with appearances by Quebecor, Shaw Communications and Teksavvy.
