In the late 80’s, the days of brick phones, the general attitude of regulators was that wireless didn’t need any regulation. By 2010, a cellphone could fit in your pocket and had become almost a necessity to stay connected with society. It also came with a laundry list of complaints consumers had about the service they were provided.
Consumers, however, found that their complaints went mostly unheard.  For nearly 30 years, there was no regulation and no system in place to hear and deal with problems outside of the wireless providers themselves.  PIAC first addressed this problem within the wireless industry by suggesting an Ombudsman to deal with telecommunications.  Once instituted it became clear that both provincially and nationally, the majority of telecommunication complaints were actually wireless complaints.
PIAC began chipping away at the unfair practices themselves.  Issues such as bill shock and phone unlocking were common themes in consumer complaints. The first big issue that PIAC tackled was a practice referred to as ’30 Day Notice’.  The 30 Day Notice charge was a practice by some wireless companies to, upon termination of a contract, charge for an additional month’s services if they were not given a full 30 days of notice prior to the customer changing to a new cell phone provider, effectively double billing them in the last month.
When the Wireless Code arrived on June 3^rd of 2013 it featured many of the requests put forward by PIAC.  Some of those rules included a $50 (data overage) and $100 (domestic and international roaming) cap, the right for consumers to refuse contract changes, the right to cancel at any time with clear cancellation fees that were limited, the right to unlock your phone 90 days after purchase and clear, understandable language in contracts.
The Wireless Code has given Canadians protection when entering into the wireless market that they haven’t seen in its over 30 years of existence. Four years later, the Code has been widely considered a great success for Consumers, eliminating many questionable practices by wireless companies and also ensuring flexibility and clarity when picking a wireless plan or phone.
In this review of the Wireless Code, PIAC has been seeking to expand the Code to offer further protections for consumers. For example, issues such as ‘family plans’ and the overage charges attached to those plans. If you subscribe to a family plan, there is some uncertainty regarding how much you will be charged for going over the limit, how the limit is calculated, and who gets notice of the overage. As noted in the original Wireless Code, there is a $50 overage charge cap, however in the case of some family plans companies could charge as much as $50 per person on the plan, resulting in hundreds of dollars in possible fees or more. Obviously, with these plans often having children or teenagers using them, it can become problematic to keep them reined in on their data usage.
Another issue present at the proceeding was the unlocking of phones. Many phones are still not unlocked, even after the completion of a wireless contract (ie. when you’ve already paid for the phone). Consumers must pay hefty fees to unlock phones, over $38 million last year.
“We’d like to see the Wireless Code ‘futureproofed’,” said Alysia Lau, counsel for PIAC. “We want to keep it updated, and ensure that it’s something consumers can turn to for protection when they go shopping for a wireless plan or phone.”
At the hearing, it was pretty much unanimous that the Wireless Code had been a success. Advocates and companies alike were looking to see it stay, but we at PIAC always want it to be better and we want it to be up-to-date for the issues that consumers face today. We were happy to participate in this review, and we look forward to seeing the growth of the Wireless Code as a steadfast line of protection for all Canadians.

Articling at PIAC: Description for Social Justice Articling Positions Funded by the Law Foundation of Ontario

Description for Social Justice Articling Positions Funded by the Law Foundation of Ontario

Name and Location of Organization:
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
1204-ONE Nicholas Street, Ottawa, ON, K1N 7B7
For Articling Year:  2018-2019
Deadline for Application: May 23, 2017
Interviews the weeks of: May 29 and June 5, 2017
Offers will be made: June 19, 2017
Description of Organization and Areas of Law:
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) was federally incorporated in 1976 as a non-profit corporation in 1976 and has charitable status for tax purposes. The organization’s purpose is to provide representation, research and advocacy on behalf of those elements of the public interest that would otherwise be unable to be adequately heard before courts, tribunals, and decision-makers. PIAC has tried to focus its mandate on issues arising from the delivery of important public services including telecommunications, broadcasting, competition law, energy, financial services, and transportation. PIAC seeks to represent and advocate on behalf of ordinary consumers, in particular vulnerable consumers, concerning the rates, policies, rules and regulations associated with the delivery of these services with a view to ensuring principles of access and affordability and fair treatment for the constituencies it tries to serve.
PIAC’s work takes a variety of forms. First, the lawyers of PIAC represent organizations whose membership serves our target constituencies before boards and tribunals where the industries delivering such services are regulated, These organizations include the Canada Without Poverty (formerly NAPO), the Vulnerable Energy Consumers Coalition, the Consumers Association of Canada, the Ontario Council of Senior Citizens Organizations, National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, Option consommateurs, Union des consommateurs, and Rural Dignity of Canada among others. PIAC’s most significant commitments for such representation occur before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission and the Ontario Energy Board where PIAC lawyers will be full participants in administrative proceedings including the presentation of evidence, cross-examination of witnesses and the making of submissions.
Because the delivery of the public services touches upon consideration of other important legal and policy matters, PIAC has also developed expertise and is frequently involved in funded and unfunded work (approximately 20% of PIAC’s work is unfunded) representing its constituencies in competition law and practice, Foundation of Ontario electronic commerce, privacy, multilateral agreements, and general issues of consumer protection.
PIAC carries out its work outside the hearing room in numerous ways. Its extensive studies and reports associated with the above are published and distributed to policy makers and the general public through its web site. PIAC staff participate in discussions with government officials, other industry stakeholders, other public interest communities, as well as groups representing its own constituencies to attempt to secure rights, rules, policies or consensus that will advance the interests of the communities that PIAC serves. PIAC frequently attends before parliamentary and legislative committees to pursue these same goals in legislation. Finally, PIAC’s staff are active in attempting to present in the media, a coherent defense of those communities’ position when the delivery of important public services are in issue.
Description of Responsibilities:
(a) Research and writing on legal and policy issues to support studies and reports of the Centre;
(b) Research and writing to support regulatory interventions in tribunals;
(c) Assistance and attendance with PIAC counsel for tribunal work, meetings with
government officials and presentation before parliamentary committees;
(d) Participation in discussions of advocacy strategy and position with Counsel and Centre clients
Salary/benefits: $51,000 for the articling term, Medical and Dental plus paid vacation
Application includes:

• Resume
• Cover letter
• Undergrad transcripts
• Law transcripts
• Letters of reference

Applications should be addressed to**:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Ottawa, ON, K1N 7B7
Fax No. 613 562-0007
Email to: dbrady@piac.ca
** Please note: We no longer accept faxed applications.
Students will be interviewed between the week of May 29-June 2 and the week of June 5-9, 2017 with a view to extending an offer on June 19, 2017.
Please note: A copy of your application will reside with the Organization providing the articling position, and another will stay with the Law Foundation for the purposes of statistical analysis and feedback on the program. This position has been made available through The Law Foundation of Ontario Public Interest Articling Fellowships program.

Public interest and consumer groups applaud CRTC’s internet access decision, look forward to more work on affordability

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), as part of the Affordable Access Coalition (AAC[1]) applauds the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) decision today in its important “Review of basic telecommunications” proceeding.

In the review the AAC argued that broadband access is without a doubt a “basic” and essential telecommunications service, and that the “basic” broadband speed all Canadians should be able to access is the speed that most Canadians already have access to, and the speed a household needs to meaningfully participate in society. Because the Coalition’s evidence indicated that not all Canadians have access to that basic speed, either because broadband is not available where they live, or because it is unaffordable to low-income Canadians, the Coalition proposed two subsidies to support broadband availability and affordability.

In today’s decision the CRTC declared that 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload is a “basic” telecommunications service which all Canadians should be able to access – a significant step forward from the current 5 Mbps / 1 Mbps. This should be universally accessible, via a fixed connection, by 90 percent of Canadians by 2021, and the remaining 10 percent within ten to fifteen years. To support that the CRTC will implement a fund where market forces and government funding had been insufficient to get Canadians the speeds they need. Additionally the CRTC put in measures to ensure consumers can access an unlimited internet plan, and benefit from various consumer protection and quality of service measures. The CRTC also made recommendation the Government of Canada regarding telecommunications affordability, recognizing the compelling evidence it heard from many low-income Canadians.

“The CRTC seized an important opportunity to make sure all Canadians, regardless of where they live can have access to the same standard of internet service that most Canadians already have”, said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel at PIAC. “Although we believe more work is needed to address affordability, we are hopeful the CRTC’s submissions on affordability to the federal government, and its commitment to monitoring affordability, will eventually result in more support for low-income Canadians.”

“There is no question that broadband is an essential and indeed vital service that all Canadians should have access to so that they are able to participate in Canadian society and the digital economy,” said Geoff White, Counsel to the Coalition. “Although there are many details to be determined, this is one the CRTC’s most important, transformational decisions, and one that will have lasting, positive effects for all Canadians.”

For more information please contact:

[1] The Affordable Access Coalition comprises of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Canada (ACORN Canada); the Consumers’ Association of Canada; the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia; the National Pensioners Federation; and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

New Airline Passenger Rights Almost Ready for Takeoff

Travel season is here. Winter means many Canadians are taking to the skies to visit relatives and friends or just to escape the cold. For anyone who’s ran into trouble while traveling, you may have had a difficult time pinpointing where or to whom you can bring your problem. Canada currently lacks a concise and clear list of rights for airline passengers and a solid system of redress for consumer complaints.
Canadian airline passenger have benefited from a form of air travel ombudsman before. An Office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner was created in July 2000 following the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. In its first annual report reviewing the July 2000 to June 2001 period, the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner received 2,912 individual complaints, compared to the mere 169 complaints received by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) the previous year in 1999. The Commissioner estimated that he still only received less than 2% of the total number of complaints which airline carriers received. The position was only established as a temporary measure and was subsequently removed, and the complaints process was rolled into the functions of the CTA.
On an even more basic level, everyday problems will net you varying responses from one airline to the next. Canada has lacked a single set of rules to govern Airline Passenger Rights, instead, the rules meant to protect consumers are buried within individual provisions in the Canada Transportation Act and Air Transportation Regulations, and other provisions are decided by the airlines themselves. Without a singular set of rules, it can be difficult for consumers to know their rights, let alone have them enforced.
In April 2016, Transport Minister Marc Gameau launched a public consultation with Canadians, stakeholders, provinces and territories, and Indigenous groups to hear their views and discuss ideas to develop a long-term agenda for transportation in Canada.
PIAC has been advocating for clarity for consumers using the travel industry well before the official consultation. PIAC was asked by the Transportation Act Review Secretariat to provide an analysis of air carrier rules from the consumer perspective in 2015. PIAC released its report, Consumer Protection for Airline Passengers in August of 2015. In the report, PIAC looked at consumer protections from around the world and recommended two elements: An Airline Code and an ombudsman for airline complaints. PIAC believes that these two methods together would ensure consumers knew their rights and, if an issue were to fall outside of listed rights, an ombudsman could deal with those complaints.
Just over a year later, we’re beginning to see the promise of substantial change that benefits consumers. The Minister announced an “Air Travellers Passenger Rights Regime”, which will be a series of rules for both carriers and passengers that will govern situations when, as an example, luggage is lost for a passenger is unable to board an aircraft. This is one half of what PIAC pitched in its report.
“Taken together, a future Airline Code and Air Passenger Complaints Commissioner, would clarify the rules for air travel passengers in Canada. Moreover, these measures may get the reputation of Canadian airlines out of a holding pattern, in relation to the treatment of consumer complaints,” stated Jonathan Bishop, PIAC’s Research Analyst and co-author of the report.
PIAC has continued to advocate for and explain its recommendations in meetings with the Minister’s staff at Transport Canada as well as with Scott Streiner, Chairman of the Canadian Transportation Agency, and senior staff at the CTA.
“We hope that the issues we’ve continually raised with them, which are issues travellers experience collectively every day, are addressed by this new ‘code’,” said John Lawford, Executive Director of PIAC. “Flight delays, cancellations, lost and damaged baggage, including musical instruments, refunds, overbooking, it’s a long list; all these things should be addressed and PIAC has been pushing for clear rules on these items to be in this new system that they announced.”
In the meantime, the CTA has encouraged airlines to publish an understandable summary of their tariffs (rules) on their websites so that consumers will have a better idea of how to deal with problems they may face while travelling. Additionally, there should soon be videos in airports for or soon after the holiday season providing information on who you may contact should you run into a problem while at the airport.
PIAC is hopeful that the Minister will address most, if not all, of the issues we’ve outlined in our report and in subsequent meetings. PIAC is also optimistic that either an official ombudsman or an ombudsman-like entity which can deal with the problems that fall within of the scope of the ‘Passenger Rights Regime’ will also be created. We are hoping that new legislation will be ready for takeoff in 2018.

No Such Thing as Free Data

On October 31st, the CRTC held a hearing which examined “differential pricing practices” related to Internet data plans. ‘Zero Rating’, as it’s known, was one of the major topics of the hearing, and one that PIAC has been fighting against for some time, as can be seen in our past newsletters. The idea of zero rating is to give customers something ‘free’; in a recent case with Vidéotron, it was unlimited music streaming. You are allowed to stream music from certain providers without that data being counted against your data cap.
This ‘free stuff’ offer introduces a host of questions and problems, all of which lead to the conclusion that, at least in our opinion, there’s nothing ‘free’ about it.
The foundation of zero rating relies on your internet service provider making deals with certain companies to allow their data to stream over the network to its customers for free. If you’re a new or smaller content creator trying to break into the market in Canada with a music streaming service, you could face countless barriers which would ensure your work would never stand a chance. Your app or audience could be considered ‘too small’, your lack of notoriety as a new entrant could cause you to be overlooked, or an Internet Service Provider (ISP) could just find it not to be a good fit. If for whatever reason you can’t get in with an ISP, then you won’t get zero rated.
“Zero rating isn’t free,” John Lawford, Executive Director of PIAC stated. “It relies on unjust discrimination against other types of internet traffic and against other audio or video services that are not desirable partners of the ISP who zero rates. That costs everyone in terms of innovation, competition and most importantly, allows the ISPs to maintain data caps.”
Differential pricing creates an enormous burden for creators to create unless they are able to get zero rated by an ISP. If the providers are happy with their stable of content and the companies they’ve made deals with are happy, why let anyone else into the club when everyone’s making money? These are the results of zero rating and they mean that consumers lose out on new services, new perspectives and unmetered access to the whole of the internet.
Zero Rating also brings up a larger question about the internet in general: Why do we have data caps? Providers set caps for monthly data for consumers for a majority of plans, meaning customers have to worry about overage fees if they exceed their monthly cap. If ISPs can allow audio/video from providers who make deals with them to avoid a cap, it seems to point to these caps being an artificial problem for which they’ve provided a solution. Is the data scarce and so in need of a cap to keep customers within a reasonable ‘budget’ of data, or do these unlimited streaming plans unintentionally show that data is maybe not as ‘scarce’ as providers advertise? Consumers and net neutrality advocates would much prefer to experience new media and content without being herded in the direction of companies that make deals with application providers.
The CRTC sought the opinion of the /r/Canada forum on Reddit as part of the consultation process. The forum overwhelmingly agreed that zero rating was terrible for consumers, and that it allowed unjust discrimination against certain data. Consumers are more tech savvy than ever and they know when they’re getting a bad deal.
During the hearing, the commissioners were very probing of the ISPs who supported this practice. PIAC is hopeful that the depth that they went into with ISPs made it clear that the practice of zero rating gives no true benefit to consumers or innovators alike. PIAC wants to see a free and open internet with no deals between ISPs and content providers, and ideally, have the CRTC look at data caps and their validity. Final arguments were filed on November 23rd. PIAC is looking forward to a timely and well-reasoned decision, which takes into consideration the will and needs of consumers as well as possible technology upstarts in Canada.

Looking Towards CanCon's Future

Canadian Content (CanCon) has been undergoing a transformation. This past year, CRTC CanCon rules saw a shift with big changes to how funding would work and how CanCon would be exhibited. These changes are now being supplemented by a consultation conducted by the Department of Canadian Heritage (Heritage). The consultation, called Canadian Content in a Digital World, was started to strengthen the creation, discovery, and export of Canadian Content.
The initial changes were decided on last year when the CRTC changed some requirements for the production and exhibition of CanCon. The new rules tried to shift the emphasis away from channels showing Canadian shows ‘just to fill schedules’ towards bigger budget productions and better “discoverability” of those programs..  The hope is that, by encouraging larger-budget Canadian-made productions, prime-time television could be filled with more high-quality Canadian television shows.
The consultation was launched by Heritage Canada in September and officially ended on November 25th. The review was not limited to television broadcasting, but encompassed all aspects of CanCon. To get some public input that is crucial to such a comprehensive review, PIAC commissioned a survey of 1200 English-speaking Canadians for the consultation, asking these consumers for their thoughts on the role of CanCon and how they believed it should be supported in the future. The survey shows that Canadians don’t necessarily watch a lot of CanCon, with the majority of respondents saying they watch ‘some’ or ‘very little’; however, Canadians overwhelmingly want CanCon to succeed internationally.  Over seventy percent of consumers said that the top priority for creating CanCon should be to create content so that it can be sold to the rest of the world.
Canadians differed, however, in what they thought was the best strategy to support CanCon. The leading answer was increased promotion and marketing of Canadian-made films and TV. This was particularly true amongst younger Canadians (18-29). Other answers included increased funding and ensuring that in a broadcast schedule or an online catalogue, there is space created for CanCon.
One of the proposals that was put forward was a levy on ISPs to help fund CanCon. PIAC contends that the hidden problem with the idea is that it would severely limit accessibility to the Internet for many Canadians – a competing and primary policy goal for both the Government of Canada and the CRTC.
“Our survey shows CanCon is important and Canadians want it to succeed. PIAC strongly opposes an ISP levy, however. Canadians, especially low income Canadians, need internet access in order to engage, participate, and be connected with the rest of society,” stated Alysia Lau, counsel to PIAC. “We don’t want any policy that would hurt the ability of Canadians to have affordable access to broadband.”
PIAC’s survey showed  that Canadians most strongly support additional monies for CanCon coming from the “traditional” media broadcasters (such as CBC, CTV, and YTV) as well as cable and satellite providers. While there is some support for online video services to fund CanCon, Canadians still see “traditional media players” as gaining the most, and therefore believe they should be contributing the most.
PIAC also asked Canadians what types of CanCon should be supported. Responses varied greatly depending on age, region and education. Younger Canadians (18-29) favored dramas, but also showed a stronger support for programs serving specific minority groups, such as First Nations or persons with disabilities. Canadians from the Atlantic Region were more likely than other regional respondents to support local and community-based programs as a top priority.
“The consultation was very broad. Mélanie Joly, the Heritage Minister, has been noted as saying ‘everything’s on the table’ during this consultation,” noted Lau. “We tried to provide a thorough outline of the consumer’s point of view on all aspects as far as where CanCon is and where they would like it to be.”
The consultation has ended and it is as yet unclear what the next stage of this process will be. The Heritage Minister has signalled she intends to develop a “cultural export strategy” next year (2017) with International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland. Canadian Content is in a major restructuring phase currently, and this consultation, as well as the earlier CRTC decision, will hopefully bring positive changes to how Canadian Content is manufactured and funded. PIAC will continue to work towards making sure the public interest is represented during the process, wherever it may lead.