GATINEAU – Although the CRTC proceeding on lower-cost data-only plans or skinny wireless was not supposed to be targeted towards a means-tested subset of low-income households, the deaf, deaf-blind or hard of hearing Canadians (DDBHH), seem to have scored a victory.
In its final reply, Bell Mobility (BCE) indicated that they would extend an existing promotion for people with disability. “In order to ensure that new lower-cost data-only plans accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities, we would extend our 2 GB data add-on to our customers with disabilities in conjunction with our proposed plans. This means that persons with disabilities would receive 2.5 GB of data by subscribing to our proposed plans,” says BCE’s reply to the Commission on the various interventions made in response to the skinny wireless data plans.
The Deaf Wireless Canada Committee (DWCC) had intervened in the previous phase of this CRTC proceeding to lay out their needs and expectations of DDBHH Canadians. Because they use sign language to communicate with each other and to keep abreast of current events they require a larger amount of bandwidth than ordinary Canadians who can communicate using voice. That in and of itself translates into heavy, if not a total, reliance on data plans. 2.5 GB would mean approximately 7.5 hours of FaceTime/Video Calls.
“The DWCC recognizes and appreciates Bell’s proposed 2 GB add-on would benefit a relatively small number of DDBHH Canadians who will mostly use data plans for texting and emails,” the committee replied to Cartt.ca. “However, DWCC’s proposed ‘$70 for 20 GB’ is indeed a low-cost data plan alternative that would benefit far more DDBHH Canadians than Bell’s proposed 2 GB add on. With the later comment in mind, DWCC would not deem Bell’s proposed 2 GB add on to be “good news.”
Their response stems from surveys the DWCC has done over the years to have a better sense of the needs and expectations of DDBHH Canadians, which were in its intervention.
Rogers and Telus reply to the DWCC were that this process was not the place for such a discussion.
The rest of the replies by the big three to the complaints of intervenors were mostly about dismissing arguments that had arisen in the intervention phase. We may have been surprised by the tone of the Competition Bureau used in its intervention, but Bell’s reply was crisp. “Taken together, this should lead the Commission to question whether the Bureau’s submission can be relied upon or indeed given any weight.”
Also, while going through the moves and responding politely to comments and participating fully in CRTC proceedings, it appears the national carriers do not believe it’s the Commission’s role to dabble in these rate-setting waters: “Of course, a segment of low-income Canadians do struggle to afford certain goods and services, which may include telecommunications services. But federal and provincial governments—not the Commission—are in the best position to address income issues by means of tax policy and other initiatives,” reads the Telus response.
Or as Bell also said: “We recognize that many consumers would prefer to make even more extensive use of cellular networks and that some may still find $1 a day difficult to afford. Indeed, in every industry prices will constrain the quantity of goods and services consumers purchase, and some consumers will struggle to afford what they do purchase. That is a broader public policy challenge that should not be solved through sector-specific regulation.”
Overall there is a sense of Deja vu in proceedings like this, somewhat like Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf, where all players push through the well-worn, familiar motions – repeating the same arguments and objections and taking the same knocks on the head time and time again – until the next proceeding.
