GATINEAU – CRTC submissions are sometimes entertaining when issues are significant, potentially polarizing and wildly debated.
However, and as we indicated previously, this new proceeding into the establishment of an Internet Code of Conduct is mostly incremental in its scope, since a lot of issues have been dealt with in prior proceedings (and in other codes).
Maybe that’s why Bell, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services, provincial governments, unions and consumer groups have not bothered at this stage.
No reply phase is complete without an incumbent taking a swipe at the Competition Bureau, though. In this case Telus said in its submission “the Bureau’s proposal is contradictory: mandating a standardized pre-sale quoting system is inconsistent with relying on market forces to the maximum extent possible. As noted in their interventions, several ISPs including Rogers, Vidéotron and Telus are either developing or have already deployed pre-sale quoting systems to provide customers with detailed information to facilitate decision-making. Telus is currently in the process of implementing a quoting system for customers and anticipates, by the time the system is fully implemented, to have spent a total of # # on this project. Mandating a pre-sale CIS would destroy significant investments made by ISPs to develop these systems.”
(# # of course is the redacted version)
Further, said Telus, “the Competition Bureau is currently in the middle of conducting a market study on consumer habits in purchasing Internet services, with the goal of better understanding the competitive dynamics within the Canadian broadband sector. It is premature for the Bureau to draw conclusions and provide advice on consumer behaviour in the Internet market before completing its research.”
Others are still fighting a rearguard battle. Let’s be clear here. The Commission will impose a Mandatory Internet Code. It did not go this far and taking this heat to back down.
SaskTel, however, disputes its need. “Regulation constrains the options which may be offered to customers. Customers are not simply a mindless mass who all prefer the same product, pricing and service features.
“…Codes, and other regulations which reduce the options available, will increase the number of customers whose service does not meet their needs in an optimal manner. The less regulation impeding the development of market options, the better. For these reasons, SaskTel does not believe an Internet Code is required. We acknowledge that some providers appear to be generating complaints, but we note that, in the context of a Canadian market of nearly 13,000,000 residential accesses, 5,800 complaints is actually not that significant,” the Crown Corporation continues, referencing the total number of complaints filed by Canadians about their ISPs.
SaskTel’s issue is with being singled out as a ‘Big’ ISP and is therefore captured by the Commission in its two-tier implementation of the proposed Code. SaskTel is the ‘Big’ ISP in its home province.
The consensus is fairly strong acknowledging while the Commission is tiptoeing towards a Code it must also realize that it could hurt the smaller ISPs by imposing measures which prove too costly.
Xplornet says it well in its reply. “Having reviewed the evidence filed by parties to-date, Xplornet notes that there is a large degree of consensus concerning a number of issues. In particular, Xplornet notes that many parties agree that, if an Internet Code is adopted, then:
1) All Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) should be subject to the Code, and not only the large, facilities-based ISPs as proposed in TNC 2018-422;
2) The Internet Code should not apply to small businesses;
3) Early cancellation fees (“ECFs”) associated with Internet access services should not be subject to caps, as proposed in TNC 2018-422;
4) The notification requirements for data overage charges established in TRP 2016–4961 remain appropriate; and
5) The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (“CCTS”) should administer the Code.
Canadian Association of the Deaf-Association des Sourds du Canada (CAD-ASC), Deaf Wireless Canada Consultative Committee-Comité pour les Services Sans fil des Sourds du Canada (DWCC-CSSSC), Canadian National Society of the Deaf, collectively presented a reply which corrected and opposed some of what was said in the first phase to help the Commission do a proper assessment of their situation.
The group also conducted a survey which will be submitted on March 7, 2019. It’s reply also made suggestions in the first phase to improve accessibility. To be in compliance with Bill C-81 Accessible Canada Act “the Commission must establish an Accessibility Office that employs fluent DDBHH staffs work on the regulatory perspectives on all internet-related accessibility mandates including the Internet Code and must be more responsible and responsive with DDBHH Canadians.”
In the reply phase, they go even further: “CCTS really needs to consider hiring fluent ASL and LSQ Deaf, Deaf-Blind or Hard of hearing front line customer service agents to help field these complaints and manage these feedback.”
Next steps: The Commission may request information. Responses to questions from the Commission must be filed by March 21st.
Final submissions with the Commission on any matter within the scope of this proceeding are due April 8th.
When we asked a Bell spokesperson why the company didn’t submit anything in this reply phase, we were told it will have more to say come April in a final submission.
