GATINEAU – The nearly four days of testimony in the mandate review of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services’ (CCTS), could mostly be described as civil, maybe even sedate, but on Friday, CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais sparred with Bell Canada over aspects of the company’s employee compensation formula as it relates to customer service and complaints to the CCTS.
Robert Malcolmson, Bell’s senior VP of regulatory affairs, explained that meeting objectives from six strategic imperatives helps determine executive and employee compensation and that customer satisfaction is one of them. Blais wondered to what degree that element plays in employee pay.
“Tell me what portion without getting to a specific number. Is it predominant? Part of many factors? Or is it greater than 50%? Because you left me with the impression that it may be more than in the 15%, 20% range,” he asked.
“I don’t think that that is what we’re here today to discuss. We’re here today to discuss the mandate of the CCTS, its role.” – Rob Malcolmson, Bell
“Well I left you with the impression that the six strategic imperatives are what is used to evaluate people’s performance and people’s compensation. I’m not going to have a discussion in a public forum about compensation arrangements at our company. I don’t think that that is what we’re here today to discuss. We’re here today to discuss the mandate of the CCTS, its role,” responded the Bell executive.
Blais then wondered if Bell would provide that information in a confidential undertaking and questioned whether Bell felt the CRTC was able handle such data on a confidential basis. Malcolmson responded that he wanted time to consider the question and would get back to him. This raised the ire of the commission chair.
“I find that particularly surprising and shocking that a regulated company refuses to answer a question on metrics of how customer service is important to them and how it is represented in the metric for performance of their executives and employees when that’s the very essence of why we’ve provided this measure, this hearing. And you, yourself, say excellence in customer service is fundamental. I’m trying to understand what you mean by that,” said Blais.
Bell ultimately agreed to provide the information requested.
Before the short, contentious exchange, one of the major points raised by Bell related to the awareness of the CCTS as a complaints body. Earlier in the hearing, some suggested that more needed to be done such as TV public service announcements to boost its visibility, while others, largely, the big carriers said CCTS awareness is where it should be.
Bell argued that any additional promotion activities for the CCTS are unwarranted. “Existing awareness approaches are well designed to reach customers who may have a complaint but are unaware of the CCTS,” said Malcolmson in his opening remarks. “Whether it is when the customer is talking to a service provider’s representative about a problem, reviewing a bill or searching the CRTC’s website, information about the CCTS is provided.”
TV spots, for example, will only lead to confusion for consumers and result in inefficient complaint resolution. “So if a customer, in response to a public service announcement, contacts the CCTS before their service provider, the CCTS will simply redirect the consumer to the service provider,” he added. “This could lead to frustration for the customer and additional administrative burden for the CCTS.”
This doesn’t mean the CCTS couldn’t improve its current awareness activities. Bell suggested that the complaints body should focus its efforts in the online world by enhancing the mobile aspect of its website and work on search engine optimization.
During the reply phase on Friday, the CCTS picked up on the awareness issue. President and CEO Howard Maker noted that while all participating service providers (PSPs) are supposed to provide information about and links to the CCTS, survey data and documents collected by the CRTC demonstrate that this is lacking among PSPs.
“The fact that so few providers fully comply raises questions about compliance more broadly.” – Howard Maker, CCTS
“This is a component of the plan that is not only relatively easy to implement but that can be test-checked. The fact that so few providers fully comply raises questions about compliance more broadly, to say nothing of the impact of this non-compliance on public awareness and consumer rights of recourse,” said Maker.
But more importantly, providers appear to be lacking in their requirement to tell customers who have lodged a complaint that they can turn to the CCTS for help in resolving their issue. While carriers say they tell their customers about the CCTS, there is actually no evidence to prove this and in fact, CCTS data shows otherwise.
“We believe strongly that full compliance with all aspects of the plan would increase public awareness of CCTS. We have certainly observed a direct correlation between the timing of a bill message containing information about CCTS and an increase in call volumes. It is our view that before the effectiveness of the plan can be properly determined, its provisions must be fully implemented by all PSPs,” said Maker.
The CCTS maintained in its reply that the CRTC must get more involved in ensuring that all market participants join the complaints body. Josée Thibault, assistant CCTC commissioner, suggested a commission-led process that required telecom and TV providers to register would work.
“The registration process could be initiated by the Commission, in the decision in this proceeding. The associated procedures would outline the eligibility criteria and timelines for TSP and TVSP registration in CCTS. The Commission would provide CCTS with the registration list and we would then project-manage the signup process,” she said.
The CRTC expects to issue a decision on this within about four months.
