CRTC Says You Can Keep Your VoIP Number

On February 1, 2008, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decided that voice over IP phone (VoIP) providers should be required to allow the transfer of phone numbers to any provider. PIAC made submissions to the CRTC calling for “VoIP number portability” prior to the decision.
What this means for consumers is that their VoIP number may be changed to their home phone or cell phone number at no cost, regardless of who their VoIP carrier is and who their landline carrier is.
Also, if someone was assigned a VoIP number outside of their area code, which is known as a secondary number, they now may transfer that number to another VoIP phone with a different carrier at no cost. However, secondary VoIP numbers can only be transferred to another VoIP phone, not a home phone or cell phone.
“This is good for consumers,” said John Lawford, counsel for PIAC. “Now VoIP numbers, like cell phone numbers, can be taken with you when you change companies.”
PIAC intends to monitor the CRTC’s enforcement of its decision and encourages consumers who have difficulties transferring numbers to contact the CRTC.
 

Complaint about Telephone, Cellphone, or Internet Services?

If you have a problem with your telephone, cellphone, or Internet service and could not settle the problem with your telecommunications provider (TSP), you can complain to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications (CCTS). The CCTS will listen to your complaints fairly and settle them appropriately. Best of all, the CCTS is free for you.
In order for the CCTS to accept your complaint, the TSP you are complaining about must be a CCTS member. A current list of CCTS members can be found here
The CCTS accepts complaints about installation, disconnection, or other service problems as well as billing errors. The CCTS does not accept complaints about prices (for example the price of long-distance) or complaints about misleading advertisements.
If your complaint is justified, you may receive one or more of the following: an apology from the TSP, an end to specific activities, an order for compensation not exceeding $5000, or a refund or credit for amounts paid (these amounts are not limited to $5000).
If you wish to file a complaint, or have general inquires, you may contact the CCTS:
Website: http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/
Email: response@ccts-cprst.ca
Toll Free: 1-888-221-1687
Local: 613-244-9585
Fax: 1-877-782-2924
TTY: 711 (or 1-800-855-0511 (voice))
TTY users please note: TTY services are provided via Bell Relay Service. Ask the BRS Operator to contact CCTS toll-free 1-888-221-1687 so that you do not incur long-distance charges.
Mail:
P.O. Box 81088
Ottawa, ON K1P 1B1
Canada
The CCTS is an independent, not-for-profit organization, chaired by four independent directors and three industry directors. The CCTS is not funded by the government; rather, the CCTS is funded by its TSP members.
 

PIAC Criticizes Industry Canada’s Privacy Comments

On January 15, 2008, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) criticized Industry Canada’s comments regarding a report on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information and Ethics. Issues commented on by PIAC include data breach notification, children’s privacy, public safety consent, and enforcement.
PIAC argued that the current voluntary data breach notification requirements are not serving the public interest because companies are allowed to decide whether the scope of a data breach warrants notifying the public—an argument PIAC has been making since 2003. PIAC argued that organizations should be required to notify you via telephone or letter when a security breach results in the loss or theft of your private information. PIAC recommended that heavy fines be implemented for companies failing to notify you.
PIAC argued children’s privacy is not protected under PIPEDA because the Act lacks specific requirements. In order to improve the Act, PIAC recommends that the collecting and selling of children’s personal information to third parties (known as “secondary targeted marketing”) should be made illegal. Further recommendations for PIPEDA regarding children’s privacy are included in the submission to Industry Canada.
PIAC argued that s. 7 of PIPEDA is constitutionally suspect because it allows companies to gather information without a warrant for the purpose of national security. PIAC agreed with the House of Commons Committee, which stated that part of s. 7 of PIPEDA should be removed. PIAC also argued that other public safety exemptions in PIPEDA should be examined to ensure that the Act cannot be used to avoid a warrant requirement or otherwise circumvent the law on constitutional search and seizures.
Finally, PIAC argued that Canada’s Privacy Commissioner requires more authority in order to better enforce privacy laws. PIAC recommends that PIPEDA be amended to allow the Privacy Commissioner of Canada the ability to fine offending companies.
To read the entire comments, please follow this link:
 
 

PIAC Criticizes Industry Canada’s Privacy Comments
Download File: piac_submission_to_ic.pdf [size: 0.1 mb]

The Big Grab and How to Fight It

In 2002, the CRTC set the telephone rates, for the next 4 years, for almost all of Canada’s telephone companies for customers taking local service from those companies. Rates were set by a formula known as a price cap. Each year, you had to start with the old rates and decide how much they are going to change because of basically two factors- inflation and productivity. You take a percentage rate increase for inflation calculated by Statistics Canada then deduct a percentage rate productivity decrease (which is to ensure that the telephone company is efficient – namely that it finds new ways to be more profitable each year). For example, if inflation was 3% and the productivity factor was 1%, rates would go up by 2%
In 2002, the CRTC ruled that Bell Canada, TELUS, Aliant, MTS and SaskTel would be subject to a rate cap that would annually change their local telephone rates by the rate of inflation less 3.5%. The 3.5% figure was considered to be a productivity objective, meaning that the CRTC expected that each telephone company could arrange their operations to be 3.5% more profitable each of the next four years. The CRTC decided on the 3.5% based upon the testimony of all the experts that had testified at the hearing held late in 2001. In fact, each of the telephone companies had been able to exceed a 4.50 % productivity factor in the rate cap in effect in the period from 1998 to 2002. This meant that if inflation remained below 3.5% then local phone rates would go down for residential customers.
In 2002, the CRTC, however, decided that rates for local telephone service would not go down even if the productivity reduction was greater than the inflation addition to rates. The reason was that it was thought the rates would be too low to encourage new companies from offering local service to compete with the existing telephone companies. If residential telephone customers had too low rates, it might ruin the business plan of the new entrant competitors. Any amount that rates would have gone down by the CRTC’s own calculation formula was put in special accounts kept by the telephone companies. The Commission would decide later what to do with the money.
By 2006, some 1.6 billion dollars in missed rate reductions had been put in these special “deferral” accounts. The CRTC had let the telephone spend more than half the money collected on various projects the largest being discounts to telephone company competitors like Sprint, Primus etc. for access to the telephone company networks. The Commission then decided to hold a contest on how to spend the remaining 650 million dollars. The contest winners were (surprise!) the telephone companies themselves who got to spend 95% of the money on paying themselves to install broadband where it was uneconomic to do so (5% was to help them provide disabled access). The CRTC rejected giving back the money to the customers who had paid it so that competing telephone companies could look more attractive because their rates were lower. Honestly, they did that.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented consumer groups in the CRTC proceedings, where all these decisions were made. After the CRTC made the final decision to subsidize the telephone companies broadband operations with the lost rate reductions, we appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal on behalf of the National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO) and the Consumers Association of Canada (CAC). We were granted leave to appeal the 2006 CRTC decision that is expected to be heard in January of 2008. We want this money (now approximately $50 per customer) to go back to the local telephone customers who paid too much because the CRTC thought this would help competition (which, when you come to think of it is supposed to lower rates, not raise them). We also don’t think residential telephone customers should be exclusively taxed to pay for special projects in this fashion no matter how high-minded the project.
These appeals cost a lot of money. PIAC has already spent over $30,000 on the preliminary court work with more to come. What is worse is that the CRTC doesn’t have to pay costs even if it was wrong. We are fighting legal counsel hired from Canada’s top firms at top dollar. We need your help.

Consumers Finally Have Somewhere to Complain about Telephone, Internet and Cellphone Service

Attention: News/Telecommunications editors
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 20, 2007
(OTTAWA) – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre today welcomed the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) decision to create a Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc. (the Agency) that will provide many consumers with a “one-stop shop” to bring their complaints about cellphone, telephone and Internet services.
The CRTC’s decision requires all telecommunications service providers with more than $10 million in annual revenue to join the ombudsman scheme. Most Canadian consumers of most larger providers, such as Bell Canada, Rogers, TELUS and several other telephone, wireless and Internet providers will be required to be members of the dispute resolution scheme. The Telecommunications Ombudsman will take consumer complaints and will have the power to make monetary awards up to $5000 in appropriate cases. It will be free to consumers.
“It’s a great day for telecom consumers,” said John Lawford, counsel for PIAC, who argued for an effective and independent ombudsman on behalf of consumer groups Canadian Consumers Council and the National Anti-Poverty Organization. “Finally consumers can get real redress for phone, Internet and cellphone company mistakes that cost consumers millions of dollars a year.”
The agency is expected to be fully operational by the first quarter of 2008 and may be able to take complaints prior to that time. However, PIAC cautioned consumers that it may take some time for certain telecom service providers to wake up to the new reality and expressed concern for customers of smaller carriers. PIAC intends to keep consumers up-to-date with the progress of the Telecommunications Ombudsman via its website.
–   –   –   –
For more information:
John Lawford
Counsel
(613) 562-4002×25
 

Media Release: Union Gas Gobbles Up Ontario Storage Competitors

For Immediate Release
November 29, 2007
Recent announcements by Texas-based multinational corporation, Spectra Energy Inc., owner of Union Gas Limited, reveal that it intends to gobble up what little competition it currently faces from Ontario storage providers. The gas pools of Midway Petroleum Company located in Sarnia, Ontario as well as a controlling interest in storage gas pools to be developed in Goderich Township by Tipperary Gas Corporation will be picked up by Spectra through its subsidiary, Union Gas. Storage is needed to serve all natural gas customers, with gas being stored in the summer, and withdrawn for the increased heating needs of winter days.
The Vulnerable Energy Consumers Coalition (VECC), a coalition representing residential customers of limited means in Ontario slammed the Spectra moves.
“These developments make it clear that consumers are unlikely to see a competitive market for natural gas storage that will make energy markets more cost-effective for consumers” said Michael Janigan, general counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) that represents VECC in energy regulatory proceedings.
The acquisitions by Spectra highlight the importance of the petitions by Ontario consumer groups, including VECC, as well as the Consumers Council of Canada (CCC) and the Industrial Gas Users Association (IGUA), that are currently before the Ontario cabinet. The petitions seek to overturn the decisions in 2006 and 2007 of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that deregulated the Ontario natural gas storage market. The OEB decisions gave Union Gas the right to keep the difference between the costs of supplying gas storage (developed with customer rates), and the revenues obtained from renting out the storage to big customers, such as other distribution and gas services companies, outside of Union’s franchise area. Janigan noted the financial results of deregulation:
“The information on record with the OEB and Union’s Interim Report for the Third Quarter ending September 30, 2007, confirm that Union’s earnings from $103M of investment the OEB considers Union to have made in its unregulated storage business could be as much as $135M per annum. By any standard, such level of earnings are supernormal and unconscionable”
About 75% or over $100M per annum of this revenue would be credited to Union’s ratepayers if the Cabinet grants the relief VECC and others have requested in their Petitions.
“With the prospect of little competition in the Ontario gas storage industry through Spectra’s dealings, the OEB’s decision will result in a gift from Union Gas’ customers to their American shareholders that keeps on giving and growing, “ added Janigan.
The OEB’s deregulation decisions envisioned a fully competitive market by 2011.
While Ontario gas distributors, Union Gas and Enbridge Gas Distribution both own gas storage facilities; only Union owns natural gas storage that is available for use on a long-term basis in the province. The Midway and Tipperary storage developments are expected to add over 4 BCF of storage to the system.
For further information contact:
Michael Janigan
General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Ottawa, ON
613-562-4002×26
613 562-0007 fax
mjanigan@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
 

Media Release: Ontario Gas Customers Slam Billion Dollar Giveaway to Texas–Based Energy Corporation

Attention News/Business Editors
For Immediate Release
August 22, 2007
OTTAWA/TORONTO – The McGuinty government is being asked to overturn an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) Decision that means that Union Gas’s Texas-based owners, Spectra Energy (formerly Duke Energy) will get to pocket an estimated billion dollars over a ten year period that would otherwise gone to their customers. In documents filed today with the Ontario cabinet, the Vulnerable Energy Consumers Coalition (VECC), a coalition of seniors and tenant organizations representing low and fixed income customers, replied to Union Gas submissions that sought to justify the OEB decision to deregulate the natural gas storage market.
The effect of the Board-ordered deregulation is to give all the revenue earned on the storage sold to non-Union customers to Union’s American parent. Prior to this, Union customers were credited with most of the revenue from these storage sales because they had paid in their rates to develop the storage. This means, after a brief transition period, a loss of an estimated one hundred million dollars per year to Union’s customers which will be have to be made up in increased rates. All natural gas customers pay for storage in their rates that helps to meet winter heating demands. Part of the annual one hundred million dollars paid to Union’s owners will include an additional amount of $40 million dollars paid by Enbridge customers to Union for storage it traditionally rents from Union.
“The Ontario government must tell Union’s customers why it’s necessary to give a billion dollars of Ontario consumer money to Spectra when that money has been obtained by the use of storage facilities that the customers already built for Union with their rates”, Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre which represents VECC. “This money belongs to customers. Sending it to Texas won’t help build any new storage, and won’t save any energy in this province”, Janigan added.
Other major natural gas consumer groups have also appealed the controversial OEB decision. The Industrial Gas Users Association (IGUA) and the Consumers Council of Canada (CCC) have also filed petitions to the Ontario Cabinet challenging the decision that would deregulate all Union storage that is not now needed to serve its own customers and give the storage rental revenue to the company.
VECC has requested that the Government return the matter to the OEB for review with a view to changing its Decision so that Ontario customers will be protected.

PIAC: Local Telephone Customers Will Pay the Price for Deregulation

August 3, 2007
For immediate release
Attention: News/Business Editors
OTTAWA—Ordinary consumers will pay the price for today’s deregulation of Canada’s major urban local telephone markets by the CRTC, says the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. The Commission today released decisions deregulating local exchange services for most local telephone exchanges in Ontario and Quebec, many in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and larger urban areas in Alberta and B.C. Today’s series of decisions result from the intervention of Industry Minister Maxime Bernier earlier this year to overrule the CRTC and let Canada’s big telephone companies, including Bell Canada, TELUS, MTS Allstream and Sasktel, escape regulation earlier than previously determined. Industry Minister Bernier has promised that hastening local telephone service deregulation will lead to lower telephone rates for consumers.
PIAC doesn’t think so. “ Telephone services are going the way of banking services- any discounts will be for big customers and the competition will not be strong enough to produce real benefits for ordinary consumers” said Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa. “And there will be no CRTC oversight to ensure quality of service does not go down at the same time.”
John Lawford, PIAC legal counsel noted: “If you are a high volume customer who threatens to move your business to another carrier such as a cable company you might negotiate a better rate. But average consumers will have to eventually foot the bill for those individual discounts and will carry the full weight of telephone companies’ drives to increase profit. It could get expensive.”
PIAC participated in all CRTC and government processes associated with telephone deregulation on behalf of ordinary and vulnerable residential consumers.
For more information:
Michael Janigan
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
1204 – 1 Nicholas Street
Ottawa, ON
K1S 2P1
Tel: 613-562-4002×26
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlawford@piac.ca
 

Consumer Groups Petition Cabinet to Reverse Payphone Price Hike

Ottawa – July 31, 2007 – The National Anti-Poverty Organization, Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Union des consommateurs jointly petitioned the federal cabinet yesterday to overturn the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) decision to double local payphone rates to 50 cents a call from 25 cents a call for Bell Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream and Sasktel.
The petition [pdf file: 0.29mb] calls for Cabinet to rescind the payphone rate hike and refer the matter back to the CRTC with directions. The petition requests that upon re-examination of payphone rates, the CRTC “consider the effect of pay telephone rate increases upon all pay telephone users and in particular, low-income Canadians.”
The petition cites a national survey of 1127 Canadians performed in July 2007 for PIAC, with a margin of error ±3.2%, 19 times our of 20, which shows that 75% of respondents agree “50 cents is too much for a local payphone call.”
The CRTC allowed the 100% price increase as part of a larger decision on local telephone rates in which the phone companies refused to reveal publicly the costs and revenues from their payphone services. “The CRTC seems to have focused completely on the phone companies view of payphones as just another market,” noted John Lawford, counsel for PIAC. “It’s not. Payphones are a lifeline for Canadians and especially low-income Canadians who don’t have a home phone. They are the least able to afford an increase and here the CRTC has let phone companies double their rates overnight. It was ill-considered and we are asking the government to step in and say that is unfair.”
The CRTC justified its decision to raise rates because of fear phone companies would remove “unprofitable” payphones. “The CRTC agrees with phone companies which consider it justified to ask for more money from poorer Canadians than anyone else to pay for payphones,” notes Charles Tanguay of Union des consommateurs, “but they did not even require the companies to maintain the payphones they do have in exchange.
The CRTC is effectively placing the entire cost of payphones – an important part of the entire telephone and a social service –upon the backs of payphone users alone, notes Michael Janigan, General Counsel for PIAC and counsel for NAPO. “As we note in the petition, payphones are part of the entire telephone network, so some support for their costs should come from general residential and business rates.”
The National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO), is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization that represents the interests of low-income people in Canada
PIAC is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
Union des consommateurs is a non-profit organization. Its mission is to promote and defend consumer rights, with particular emphasis on the interests of low-income households.
For more information:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25 (office)
(613) 447-8125 (mobile)
(613) 562-0007 (fax)
jlawford@piac.ca
Charles Tanguay
Dir.-adjoint – Responsable des communications
UNION DES CONSOMMATEURS
6226, rue Saint-Hubert
Montréal (Qué.)
H2S 2M2
Tél.: 514 521-6820 poste 257
Cel.: 514 743-0419
Télécopieur: 514 521-0736
Tanguay@consommateur.qc.ca
skype: chucktanguay
http://consommateur.qc.ca/union
If you would like to complain directly to the CRTC about this rate increase:
Send a letter to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 or to the nearest CRTC office; or
Fax a letter to (819) 994-0218; or
Use the CRTC’s complaints and inquiries on-line form or
Call the CRTC’s toll free telephone number at 1-877-249-2782*.
*You may be asked to put your complaint in writing to ensure that the CRTC has all the information it needs to pursue your complaint.
A copy of the petition is online at:
 

Download File: piac_payphone_cabinet_petition.pdf [size: 0.29 mb]

A copy of the Report by Union des consommateurs: Payphone Use Among Low Income Canadians is here:
 

Payphone Use Among Low Income Canadians
Download File: ucreportpayphfinal.pdf [size: 0.13 mb]

PIAC: Don’t hold your breath waiting for lower phone bills

For immediate release
Attention: News/Business Editors
PIAC: Don’t hold your breath waiting for lower phone bills
(PIAC 25/07)—OTTAWA—Today the CRTC followed Industry Minister Maxime Bernier’s orders by deregulating 14 out 88 exchanges local telephone exchanges in New Brunswick and 49 of 147 in Nova Scotia even though sufficient competition to protect consumers does not, in the Commission’s view, exist in these market.
Minister Bernier has promised that his action will lead to reduce telephone rates for consumers.
“It’s doubtful that there is enough competition to protect ordinary residential phone customers,” said Michael Janigan, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa. In fact, Bell Aliant has already started to raise prices on some bundles of services that include local phone service.
“While some high end users may get some discounts, don’t hold your breath waiting for your telephone bill to go down”, Janigan added. “The big telephone companies have always had the ability to lower their rates and never did so. Why should they do it now?”
PIAC participated in all CRTC and government processes associated with telephone deregulation on behalf of ordinary and vulnerable residential consumers.