TWO YEARS AGO, on December 21, 2016, the CRTC acknowledged the increasing importance of Internet services to Canadians in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2016-496, in which the Commission defined fixed and mobile wireless broadband Internet access services as basic telecommunications services.
The Commission also established several new expectations for ISPs to address consumer complaints related to bill shock and contract clarity.
As a result, all ISPs that provide retail fixed broadband Internet services to individual and small business customers now must ensure their contracts and related documents clearly explain, in plain language (i) the services included in the contract (ii) any limits on the use of those services that could trigger overage charges (iii) the minimum monthly charge for services included in the contract, (iv) where customers can find information on rates for overage charges, and (v) whether or not there is a maximum data overage charge that might be incurred in a monthly billing cycle, and if so, the amount of that maximum charge.
ISPs are also expected to provide (i) account management tools that enable customers to monitor their data usage and (ii) plain-language information on the data usage associated with common online activities. The above-noted information and tools should be accessible to customers with disabilities.
The Commission further considered that if consumers were notified of alternative plan options which may better suit their needs when they incur data overage charges, they would be empowered to better manage their bills and to avoid bill shock. The Regulator directed all ISPs which offer retail fixed broadband Internet services to notify their residential and small business customers who have incurred overage charges of where they can find information about (i) the account management tools the ISP offers (ii) the data usage associated with common online activities, and (iii) alternative plans that may better suit the customer’s needs.
The CRTC has confirmed the large ISPs are currently in compliance with all directives laid out by the Commission in that decision, providing various examples, links, and documents as evidence.
Also, the Commission acknowledges the hearing held this past October examining the retail sales practices of Canada’s large telecommunications carriers, and that submissions on possible consumer protection measures, including codes of conduct, form part of that previous proceeding.
Furthermore, the Commission notes its Wireless Code already applies to all contracts between individuals and small businesses for retail mobile wireless voice and data services. These services include mobile data services used to access the Internet via smartphones, laptops, smart watches, etc., as well as mobile Internet services used to access the Internet via sticks, hubs, keys, Wi-Fi devices, and other mobile wireless devices.
For this reason, the new proposed Internet Code would not apply to such mobile wireless Internet access services.
The Commission notes that due to the similarly fixed nature of many television services, the Television Service Provider Code already addresses those issues.
For these reasons, the Commission considers that certain provisions in both the Wireless Code and the Television Service Provider Code may be relevant to consider when addressing consumer concerns about Internet services.
The Commission believes a new Internet Code should be implemented as soon as reasonably possible, to benefit consumers.
Finally, the Commission offered a Proposed Internet Code at the outset of the proceeding to facilitate the discussion. The issues the Commission will focus on in this proceeding are: clarity of language, contracts, critical information summary (CIS), changes to contracts, equipment issues, contract cancellation and extension, security deposits and disconnection.
So, the outcome of this process will formulate a portion of codes dealing with services which are now interweaving – and that incremental approach, the Commission may feel, does not require a large process with public hearing and the works because so much work has already been done and re-done.
Not everybody agrees with this approach, but the Commission is master of its own process. The deadline for interventions was the 20th of December and 146 interventions were filed.
“Regulation is clunky. Through no fault of the regulator, regulation reacts slowly to changing circumstances. Regulators must become aware of changes, consult on the new situation, respect due process, and only then attempt to introduce solutions. Unfortunately, regulatory solutions can’t address all market needs and they always lag behind concerns.” – SaskTel
The preliminary view of those submissions is that the code should apply at the beginning only to the major ISPs, (Bell, Cogeco, Eastlink, Northwestel, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw, Telus, Videotron and Xplornet) – who account for 87% of the market and 73% of the complaints to the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-TV Services.
Most, including the CCTS, do not agree with a code which would apply only to major ISPs. But the Competition Bureau agrees in its submission “should the CRTC find that certain service providers generate a disproportionately large number of complaints relative to their market share, it may be justified to limit the regulatory burden to those service providers.”
The Bureau also proposes to minimize the costs consumers must pay when they want to change providers. “In the context of internet services, switching costs include both monetary costs, such as cancellation fees, and non-monetary costs, such as the time and mental burden involved with searching for a new provider and comparing what are often complex service offerings,” says the Bureau. To that effect it proposes a Standardized Quote that would facilitate consumer burden of comparing different providers’ offer. But that Standardized Quote would have to be implemented to all or most providers not just large ones. Such a quote has been implemented successfully in Denmark.
The major providers agree that there should be a code, but it has to be minimally intrusive and most of them disagree that it should be applied to small business. As Telus said in its submission, “while the Wireless Code applies to small businesses, the Television Service Provider Code does not. The provision of HSIA to small businesses is much more individualized and particularized than the provision of wireless access to small businesses. While small business sales of wireless service more closely reflect the mass market nature of consumer sales, the opposite is true for small business sales of HSIA.”
For its part, Quebecor highlights the fact that the proposed code does not seem to consider the fact that there is or could be a subsidy of devices in the Internet market in Canada. The Internet code should have a provision like the relevant section of the Wireless Code.
On the other hand, “SaskTel does not agree that an Internet Code is required, and certainly not one applied to a broad array of service providers,” reads its submission.
SaskTel doubles down: “Regulation is clunky. Through no fault of the regulator, regulation reacts slowly to changing circumstances. Regulators must become aware of changes, consult on the new situation, respect due process, and only then attempt to introduce solutions. Unfortunately, regulatory solutions can’t address all market needs and they always lag behind concerns. On the other hand, when a competitive market becomes aware of changing circumstances, competitors will develop an array of approaches to the situation, more quickly than a regulator can.”
The Crown Corporation continues: “If the Commission determines that an Internet Code is required, the empirical evidence demonstrates that the code should not apply to all providers. The latest CCTS report shows SaskTel’s complaints increasing by just 16.1%, compared to almost 60% for the industry. That 16.1% represents an increase of 5 complaints to reach a total of 36 complaints. An increase of 5 complaints does not warrant inclusion in yet more national regulation. Of the 36 SaskTel complaints in question, only 13 unique complaints were categorized as relating to internet access services. As SaskTel has over 275,000 subscribers to various forms of retail internet service, this is hardly a fly in need of the proposed regulatory sledgehammer. It certainly falls far short of the Competition Bureau’s assessment of when regulation is necessary.”
L’Union des Consommateurs – a Quebec-based Consumer group and frequent participant of CRTC hearings despite short timelines and the fact the CRTC has decided to maintain a narrow scope in this process – produced an intervention that proposes a few interesting ideas. The three codes (wireless, TV and Internet) should be merged and this process could have looked into it. The group argues having three codes could be confusing at times and most customers are using the three services from the same, or multiple companies. Maybe later…
The consumer group is also sorry that the CRTC has not take the opportunity of this process to look at imposing Administrative Money Penalties in case of non-compliance. Traffic management and advertised speeds are also areas where they suggest the Commission should look into.
As they have done for the Wireless Code and the TV Code, the Government of Québec strongly criticizes, yet again, federal encroachment in an area that it says falls under provincial jurisdiction. It is incumbent to the Quebec Legislature to determine what is to be done to protect consumers and their contractual relations, says the province in its submission. Of course, telecom is recognized as a federal jurisdiction.
And now a few comments from various Joan and Joe Canadians…
Cathy from Glencoe says: “Oh, and REALLY I NEED to be a ms, mrs or mr to complete this form?????? come on, those stopped being required 20 years ago.”
Timothy from Ottawa and others would like email address portability. That is a strong disincentive to switching and therefore, an obstacle to competition.
Nathan from Lethbridge says: “JUST DO IT!” while Kenny from Vancouver says that “Internet should be an essential, affordable, service. Defining affordable may be difficult.”
But the Oscar goes to Kevin. We saw that the Wireless Code increased robberies in Bell Stores but did you know that high Cable rates promotes drinking. Also, I can not afford internet and Cable, it would be nice to be able to watch sports again without having to go to a bar/restaurant.”
Replies to interventions are expected by January 28.
The Commission may request information, in the form of interrogatories, from any party. Responses to must be filed by March 21st.
