GATINEAU – With bill shock, data overages and problematic trial periods still issues, consumer groups told the CRTC, as it kicked off its review of the Wireless Code of Conduct on Monday, that the code needs tightening.
Speaking on behalf of a number of organizations, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) reminded commissioners the Canadian wireless market is concentrated among a few providers and even with the provisions of the wireless code, it’s still too difficult for consumers to switch providers if they wish.
“Because we have three providers with well over 90% in almost all markets, a few with four but very small percentages, so who are you going to switch to? I think the public comments say that they’re all the same. Why bother switching? Why not just call up and threaten to leave and then stay where you are,” said John Lawford, executive director of PIAC.
With this type of market dynamic prevalent in the wireless sector, PIAC argued that changes to wireless code need to made. It pointed to bill shock related to voice roaming, inadequate trial periods, data overages on shared plans, exclusion of pre-paid services from the code and others as needing to be addressed in the wireless code.
The very low churn rate – it has actually decreased since the code came into effect in 2013 – is symptomatic of a lack of competition in the market, said PIAC. (Wireless companies would say it’s symptomatic of happy customers…)
“In our comments we identified four factors that were pushing down churn. They were higher value phones, family share plans, improved customer service and bring your own device discounts. Some of those are good some of those are bad but the net effect of them is it’s more expensive to switch providers and there’s less impetus to switch providers,” said Ben Segel-Brown, PIAC’s articling student.
Throughout the day, the Commission explored a number of issues and device unlocking fees came under major scrutiny. For the consumer associations, the standard $50 fee is too high and represents a barrier for consumers wanting to switch. The group argued that unlocking should be done for free once the device is paid off and at a much lower rate when the customer still owes money on the device. It was likened to just another type of cancellation fee.
CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais asked Telus Corp. why not include the unlocking charge in the cancellation fee. Kevin Banderk, VP of marketing at Telus Mobility, noted that this would be unfair the majority of customers who won’t unlock their devices.
“This is an attractive service and one of the single best tools to combat roaming bill shock.” – Kevin Banderk, Telus
“We would then be putting that obligation on all of our customers and including that in that fee. We would manage either but I would say from a customer fairness approach it doesn’t make sense to put something obligatory into that that customer may not be benefiting from,” he argued.
Telus also argued in its appearance that an effective wireless code has been frustrated by what it describes as intrusive provincial legislation. For example, the company’s Easy Roam feature – it limits the maximum charges when roaming in other countries – could be a national offer if it weren’t for consumer protection legislation Manitoba and Quebec.
“This is an attractive service and one of the single best tools to combat roaming bill shock. It would be better still if this were the default roaming service available to customers,” said Stephen Schmidt, VP of telecom policy and chief regulatory legal counsel at Telus. “This means that it is impractical for Telus to offer Easy Roam as the default roaming service for all of its customers. But for this provincial legislation, bill shock associated with roaming charges could be further reduced.”
The company wants the Commission to declare that the wireless code is the sole instrument governing wireless services in Canada.
The statement sparked some criticism from Blais. He said Telus’ problem is with provincial legislatures and besides the CRTC can’t render provincial law “inoperative”. Schmidt responded the company isn’t asking for that.
“We’re asking you to take steps that would evenly implement the code nationally and better support a paramountcy argument if and when it comes to that,” he said.
Eastlink also appeared on the first day, noting that the code has worked well, enabled competition and protected consumers. The company said the code has made it easier for consumers to switch providers and helped them better understand the terms and conditions of their wireless agreements.
The regional wireless operator highlighted the ways it relies on the code to make it simpler and easier for consumers to purchase and understand services.
Denise Heckbert, manager of regulatory affairs for wireless at Eastlink, noted that its easyTab device subsidy approach – device cost is separated on the bill from the cost of service – is now being copied by some of its competitors. Its Worry-Free Data service, a tool for share plan, is another feature that has helped increase the number of share accounts in its subscriber base.
“You cannot use information you do not know exists.” – Sean Grassie, University of Ottawa
These are just two examples of “what Eastlink has been doing to be additionally customer friendly to keep customers not just through rates but also in services and features that provide better value, better certainty for customers, and a better experience of using our wireless services,” she said.
University of Ottawa researchers Mary Cavanagh, Marina Pavlović, Lora Hamilton, and Sean Grassie wrapped up the day with a damning report on how wireless providers provide little information on the code, on the trial periods available to them and little visibility of the contracts customers are signing. The researchers did some limited secret shopping and focus groups to determine what wireless retailers were saying and what consumers know.
“In our study, contract terms and critical information summary were relevant information sources applicable in all twelve visits. None of the providers discussed a critical information summary,” said Grassie. “Only one out of twelve providers briefly showed the shoppers a copy of the contract; however they did not allow them to look at it closely or keep a copy. Our work illustrates a distinct informational gatekeeping role currently being played by front line wireless service providers’ customer service representatives… You cannot use information you do not know exists.”
The wireless code hearing continues tomorrow with Bell Mobility, Quebecor Media and Rogers Communications among the witnesses.
