Wireless Competition Vanishing After Latest Spectrum Deal
OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) today warned that consumers’ hope for a fourth wireless competitor to the three major carriers, Bell Mobility, Rogers Wireless and TELUS Mobility is vanishing in Canada.
PIAC and CAC reacted to media reports today that TELUS Corporation has entered into exclusive negotiations to purchase Data & Audio-Visual Enterprises Inc., doing business as Mobilicity, Canada’s second-largest “new entrant” wireless company.
“Choice in the cellphone market seems doomed,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel for PIAC. “This proposed deal is just another example of the three big providers, Rogers, TELUS and Bell, doing almost anything to return to a three-player wireless market.”
The groups remind the public that the federal government had gone to great lengths in the 2009 AWS auction to ensure that the spectrum would be used to launch new wireless services, competing with the big three “incumbent” wireless providers. The rules for that auction stipulated that no incumbent could, directly or indirectly, obtain the spectrum won by “new entrant” for five years so that wireless companies who had benefitted from “set-aside” spectrum could become viable competitors.
“The Minister should stand up for competition in wireless,” demanded Bruce Cran, President of the Consumers’ Association of Canada. “It seems he is not applying his Department’s own rules to the big three.” He noted that information about this deal came only weeks after an uproar over Rogers acquiring an option to buy Shaw Communication Inc.’s undeployed AWS spectrum, also in apparent violation of the 2009 auction rules.
Lawford added that Industry Canada had launched a consultation on wireless spectrum transfers, apparently in reaction to the Shaw-Rogers deal and that PIAC and CAC comments that supported a policy restricting anti-competitive transfers. However, he noted that in the meanwhile, deals that restrict consumer choice in wireless appear to be going ahead: “The Minister will continue to be pushed by the big boys of wireless to go back to the future for wireless. It’s time to offer consumers a truly competitive wireless future.”
The full text of PIAC and CAC’s comments to Industry Canada on the spectrum transfer consultation is found : here [pdf file: 0.09mb]
PIAC and CAC with the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) and other public interest groups also signed a letter to the Minister in opposition to the Shaw-Rogers deal which is found here: full text of Letter to the Minister is found here.
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
lawford@piac.ca
Bruce Cran
President
Consumers’ Association of Canada
(604) 943-943-9181
bcranbiz@telus.net
Consumer and Public Interest Groups Still Oppose Bell-Astral Merger
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 8, 2013
OTTAWA – Five Canadian consumer and public interest groups filed comments with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on Friday opposing the proposed acquisition of Astral Media Inc. by Bell Canada, a division of BCE Inc.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), who also acts as counsel for the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC), Council of Senior Citizens’ Organization of British Columbia (COSCO), National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation (NPSCF) and Option consommateurs (OC) argued that Bell and Astral’s new proposed merger is not in the public interest and thus should be denied. The groups stated the deal would be bad for consumers and outlined several concerns, including:
- Bell’s already significant position in the broadcasting system and the highly concentrated tight oligopoly in all broadcasting product and geographic markets in Canada;
- The impact of the proposed transaction on the diversity of voices in the Canadian broadcasting system if Astral, the largest remaining, non-integrated, independent broadcaster is removed;
- Increasing levels of media concentration in pay and specialty television services in the hands of Bell, especially in French-language pay and specialty television services;
- Further media concentration into the hands of a few large, vertically integrated companies that own both broadcasting services and telecommunications services (such as internet access services and wireless telephone) and the impact of this concentration on the ability of independent broadcasters and distributors to effectively compete;
- Consistent increases to costs for “basic service” television programming, including Bell’s recent price increases to its Bell TV services;
- Weakened competition in broadcasting services and less choice and flexibility for Canadian consumers in television packaging; and
- Inadequacy of the proposed safeguards to address the impacts of the transaction on the Canadian broadcasting system and to properly safeguard healthy and fair competition that will benefit consumers, particularly given the increase in Bell’s already significant market power.
“Increased media concentration into the hands of few large vertically integrated telecommunications and media companies will not result in more competition in the market,” said John Lawford, PIAC Executive Director and General Counsel. “The loss of Astral in the marketplace does not deliver more competition for consumers. Any increases to Bell’s size will further threaten the ability of independent broadcasters and broadcasting distributors to effectively compete against the highly concentrated, tight oligopoly of large media companies that own both broadcasting and distribution services.”
The five public interest and consumer groups noted that consumers are paying increased prices for inflated packages that do not meet their expectations and needs. “Prices for subscriptions to television services are increasing at a significantly higher rate than for all other communications services,” added Janet Lo, PIAC Counsel. “Consumers have clearly demanded more choice and flexibility to pick and pay only for the television services they want to watch – the trend of increased media consolidation has not delivered this and the proposed Bell-Astral merger does not promise any increased consumer choice or flexibility for television services.”
The groups’ submission contains commissioned evidence from respected academic Dr. Dwayne Winseck, Professor at the School of Journalism and Communications with a cross appointment at the Institute of Political Economy, Carleton University. Dr. Winseck has been the lead Canadian researcher in the International Media Concentration Research Project since 2009 and Director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project.
Full Comments of PIAC/CAC/COSCO/NPSCF/OC [pdf file: 0.52mb]
Appendix 1 – Evidence of Dr. Dwayne Winseck [pdf file: 2.83mb]
Appendix 2 – Evidence of Dr. Dwayne Winseck – Data Tables and Figures Source Notes [pdf file: 4.3mb]
Appendix 3 – Historical Overview of Bell’s Retail Television Service Pricing and Packages [pdf file: 0.15mb]
Appendix 4 – Selected Metropolitan Market Comparison of Basic Television Service Monthly Rates, 2013 [pdf file: 0.09mb]
Appendix 5 – PIAC 2012 Telephone Survey About Consumer Choice in TV Service [pdf file: 0.12mb]
Appendix 6 – Selected Questions and Answers from CanadiansDeserveMore.ca [pdf file: 0.11mb]
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
Janet Lo
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
jlo@piac.ca
Spectrum Announcements Do Not Address Real Problem
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OTTAWA – Canadian cellphone customers are unlikely to see any real benefit from today’s announcement by Minister of Industry Christian Paradis, said consumer rights group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). Despite claims that the announcement would “ensur[e] at least four providers in every region can acquire spectrum in the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction” there have been no substantive changes to the upcoming auction rules to ensure this result.
“It is unfortunate that the federal government has in fact not learned its lesson from the last spectrum auction,” said John Lawford, Co-Counsel for PIAC. “New wireless players can only bring down prices for consumers if they can have a viable national network to take on Rogers, Bell and TELUS. That takes adequate spectrum. These announcements avoid the real problem,” he added.
PIAC also noted that the announcement of a further short consultation on transfer of wireless spectrum between wireless carriers appeared designed to avoid the problem faced by Rogers Communications Inc.’s announced option to buy Shaw Communications Inc.’s AWS spectrum from the previous spectrum auction. “That’s just bolting the door long after the horse has left the barn,” said Lawford.
PIAC and several consumer and public interest groups had recently written to the Minister on the issue of the Rogers-Shaw spectrum deal, expressing the view that it was contrary to both the letter and the spirit of Industry Canada’s stated spectrum auction policy.
The full text of Letter to the Minister is found here:
document PDF
For more information:
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
Janet Lo
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlo@piac.ca
CRTC Wireless Code Hearing PIAC Summary – Day Five (February 15, 2013)
Three remaining wireless carriers and the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) closed Day Five – the final day – of the CRTC’s hearing on a mandatory code for mobile wireless services.
The Manitoba carrier, MTS Allstream, was able to share its views on the CRTC Working Document as well as on implementation of Manitoba’s Bill 35 in relation to contracts for cell phone services. MTS supported many provisions of the proposed Code, but feared that certain aspects were too prescriptive. For instance, while it supported both notifications and caps on additional fees for data usage, it advised against the imposition of any prescribed amount and proposed that carriers ought to set their own respective thresholds. The carrier also emphasized the need for adequate time to implement the Code, proposing up to 18 months to install set notifications. In discussing Bill 35, MTS said it found that general consumer reaction to the provincial rules was positive, and that customers did not complain that they were receiving too much information. It also noted the benefits of the new early termination fee formula. When asked by the Commission whether it has raised its monthly rates for services as a result of Bill 35, MTS said that it has not and chose, rather, to absorb the costs of implementing the provincial legislation.
WIND Mobile emphasized its unique business model, and praised the creation of the Code, which would hopefully facilitate the ability of consumers to switch between carriers. Notably, WIND opposed the 3-year contracts typically offered by the incumbent wireless carriers, arguing that they were anti-competitive and effectively locked in customers, despite open criticism of the 3-year length by consumers, consumer groups and the Competition Bureau. The carrier also suggested that early termination fees should not be calculated from inflated retail phone prices or short-term promotional discounts. With respect to additional fees, WIND said that it has already implemented certain notifications for roaming and data usage as well as a roaming data cap of 200 MB. It estimated that many national bill shock tools, including certain caps and notifications, could be readily set up within 6 to 8 months.
Québecor highlighted certain themes in its presentation, including that Bill 60 worked well in Quebec and that the CRTC ought to reconsider whether there was a need to impose further costs on providers that were subject to provincial rules. The carrier further objected to providing Personalized Information Summaries before consumers sign a contract, allowing consumers to refuse changes to their contracts, and imposing notifications and caps for additional fees. It agreed that certain aspects of the Code, such as unlocking, could actually promote greater innovation in the wireless industry. Overall, however, Québecor advocated for greater flexibility for wireless carriers to be creative in their own offerings.
CCTS focused specifically on enforcement of the Code and assessment of the Code’s effectiveness in its presentation. It continued to stress its mandate as an ombudsman to resolve individual complaints, and expressed concern about possibilities of expanding its powers or addressing collective complaints in a “class action” manner. It agreed to administer the Code and gather data on complaint issues related to the Code and made several recommendations regarding the clarity of the Working Document. CCTS also noted that it was more practical – at an operational level – to interpret one national code rather than several in addressing consumer complaints.
While the presentation phase of the Wireless Code hearing is officially closed, online comments will be accepted until 5:00 pm Vancouver time tonight.
Wireless Code Hearing PIAC Summary – Day Four (February 14, 2013)
The CRTC Commissioners began Day Four of the Wireless Code hearing by pressing Bell Canada on its positions with respect to the CRTC’s Working Document . Bell emphasized that it was a wireless service provider, not a handset retailer, and that cheaper phones provided for fixed-term contracts were merely “reduced retail price” or “economic incentives” to encourage customers to sign three-year contracts. At the same time, it did not prefer to separate the financing of a handset from the provision of wireless services because it did not want the liability of a Bell phone failing to function on another carrier’s network. Bell also argued that the format of the Personalized Information Summary should not be too prescriptive so that carriers could employ their own marketing strategies. When asked whether manufacturers charged more to provide unlocked phones, Bell stated that it did not think it would cost more or less to have phones locked or unlocked. However, it emphasized that “even if all manufacturers offered to sell unlocked phones, [it] would not buy them,” insisting that it needed locked phones to prevent fraud and churn.
The Commission also heard a presentation from the Minister for Service Alberta, who advocated for a strong Code that would protect consumers from bill shock. The Minister emphasized the need for plain language, clear disclosure of costs (particularly the standardization of data units – be it megabytes or gigabytes), notifications and caps on additional fees, no charge for incoming calls, and protection of privacy. He also said that he saw no reason why devices should not be sold unlocked. When asked by the CRTC, the Minister agreed that a potential $5,000 “penalty” for non-compliance with the Code was too lenient, and suggested an amount close to the $500,000 mark.
Vaxination Informatique brought some new ideas to the public proceeding, advocating for the abolition of fixed-term contracts altogether. The presenter’s position was that this would lead to greater competition and lower prices. Vaxination also argued that data ought to be presented according to a standardized unit, be it megabyte or gigabyte. While the presenter supported the concept of notifications and caps, it advised against setting prescribed amounts or thresholds, underlining that carriers ought to be given the flexibility to set their own thresholds. Finally, Vaxination also promoted the sale of unlocked handsets.
Public Mobile argued against the application of the Code to its prepaid services. It underlined its low-cost business model and argued that requirements to provide paper bills, provide metered minute notifications and allow a mandatory notice period before suspending services would increase costs for many of their low-income customers. The carrier also stressed the Code in itself would not be a substitute for a truly competitive market.
In its presentation, SaskTel emphasized that customers foremost value convenience and price, and that it would not be practical for the Code to address “every conceivable problem” faced by customers. SaskTel also requested that the Commission consider the costs of acquiring a customer in setting out its termination fees, quoting that acquiring a customer typically costs $200. It also reiterated the need to consider carrier costs of updating billing or IT systems. With regards to implementation, the carrier estimated that the end of 2014 was a reasonable target, and emphasized that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to apply the Code retrospectively to pre-existing contracts.
The hearing reconvenes at 8:30 am on Friday, February 15.
Wireless Code Hearing PIAC Summary – Day Three (February 13, 2013)
Day Three of the CRTC Wireless Code hearing began with a presentation by Media Access Canada (MAC), representing the Access 2020 Group of Accessibility Stakeholders. The presenters reiterated the need for special accommodation for individuals with disabilities. Common issues they encountered were: a dearth and lack of transparency of information, a failure to accommodate special needs, and an inability of the market to develop diverse options for customers with disabilities. They called for a specific provision in the Code that would address accessibility needs, as well as the creation of an Office of Disability Issues, which could exclusively assist wireless consumers with disabilities.
MAC was followed by the DiversityCanada Foundation, which advocated for the application of the Code to prepaid service customers. The item the presenters focused on was the prohibition of any expiry date on minutes purchased on prepaid cards. The Foundation emphasized that wireless providers have failed to be transparent whenever they have confiscated a customer’s balance.
Eastlink began its presentation by announcing plans to launch a wireless service business on Friday, February 15. The presenters were unable to disclose details on their planned offerings, but commented on the CRTC’s Working Document . The carrier supported certain aspects of the Code, such as the Personalized Information Summary and the all-inclusive advertising provisions, but opposed rules it found to be too prescriptive, including the notifications and caps on additional fees. Eastlink also emphasized that wireless providers ought to be given the flexibility to treat device subsidies in different ways, and that the most important aspect of the Code was the requirement to provide full disclosure to consumers.
Mobilicity’s presentation gave the Commissioners the opportunity to ask the carrier questions about its prepaid business model, which Mobilicity emphasized was founded on preventing bill shock. The wireless provider generally opposed the application of the Code to prepaid services, but agreed with certain provisions in the Working Document, such as unlocking and the coexistence of the Code with provincial legislation.
The Consumers Council of Canada (CCC) encouraged contractual clarity and notifications of roaming fees. However, CCC opposed the use of the misleading term, “subsidy”, to describe the cheaper handsets provided to consumers in exchange for a fixed-term contract. CCC also questioned the effectiveness of enforcement by the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, as the ombudsman is only permitted to impose a “penalty” of up to $5,000. Ultimately, the CCC agreed it would be ideal to separate the purchase of handsets from the provision of wireless services.
Finally, Bell Canada – also representing KMTS, NorternTel, and Télébec – appeared before the Commission. The carrier touched on a range of issues, arguing that the national Code should supersede all provincial rules related to wireless services, that notification of additional charges should focus only on data usage, with no caps, and that the Code should only apply to new contracts created on or after the Code comes into effect. Questioning by the Commissioners will continue on Thursday morning.
Today, the Commissioners continued to press on hot topics, such as bill shock, unlocking, and three-year contracts, but also explored other issues, including whether the CCTS could provide effective remedies that would encourage wireless providers to comply with the Code.
The hearing is set to reconvene at 9:00 am on Thursday, February 14.
Wireless Code Hearing PIAC Summary – Day Two (February 12, 2013)
Day 2 of the CRTC Wireless Code hearing continued with TELUS’ appearance before the Commissioners. The carrier continued discussing caps for additional data usage, sharing that it already has a default $200 cap per phone on international data roaming. TELUS also agreed to explore a similar cap for domestic data, but emphasized that the $50 cap proposed by the CRTC was too low and that it would be too complex technically to allow consumers to set their own caps. The Commissioners asked TELUS to report with further details on those options and pressed the carrier on other issues, such as giving customers discounts on their wireless services once the customers have fully paid for their phones.
TELUS was followed by the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic and OpenMedia.ca (CIPPIC/OpenMedia). CIPPIC/OpenMedia shared several “cell phone horror stories” they had received from Canadian consumers, and stressed that the Code should protect Canadians from exploitation by placing them on “equal footing” with providers and empowering them to take control of their wireless services. They advocated for: cooling off periods, prohibitions on unilateral wireless carrier changes to contracts (including fair use policies), prohibitions on three-year contracts, and the right to unlock one’s phone immediately for a reasonable fee.
Following CIPPIC/OpenMedia, Dr. Catherine Middleton and Dr. Tamara Shepherd from Ryerson University, as well as Dr. Barbara Crow from York University, presented their research on senior citizen and youth wireless consumers. The three presenters emphasized that although the creation of a wireless code was movement in a positive direction, it only represented one element of the need to increase accessibility to telecommunications services, particularly for vulnerable groups. They found that many senior citizens and youth showed enthusiasm in picking up and using different features of their phone. However, these groups encountered significant financial barriers in using these services, whose costs were not transparent to them. The presenters called for the use of simpler, easy-to-understand plans, lower service rates, and improved consumer education, particularly with respect to data usage.
Rogers Communications was the second wireless carrier to present at the hearing. The carrier disagreed with several aspects of the CRTC Working Document. For instance, it did not think carriers should be required to give customers a Personalized Information Summary with all the key information related to a customer’s plan. Rogers also opposed any caps on additional charges and only agreed to give two notifications for additional charges on data roaming. The carrier emphasized that options available in the marketplace would meet these consumer needs. Under questioning, Rogers also expanded on its purchase of handsets from manufacturers. It said that it typically paid 15 to 20% more for phones than US carriers paid. Rogers also conceded that phones were sold locked by mutual agreement between it and the manufacturers, but emphasized that this was necessary to provide the device subsidies that consumers desired.
Finally, Day 2 was capped off by a series of presentations from individuals teleconferencing in from Dartmouth to Toronto to Calgary. The individuals shared their views on several topics, including unlocking, three-year contracts, frustration with hidden fees, and discrepancies in wireless service prices between different regions. Some of the common themes that these individuals said they valued were transparency of costs (and prevention of bill shock), ease of switching between carriers, and the ability to unlock their phones for a reasonable cost.
Wireless Code Hearing Provides Hope for A Fairer Wireless Market for Consumers
OTTAWA – Consumer rights group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said today that there is now real hope that a comprehensive “Wireless Code” can solve many of consumers’ most daunting problems with their wireless service providers.
PIAC represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) and Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), in an oral hearing today. PIAC’s remarks focused on closing loopholes and improving the CRTC’s draft Wireless Code, which will revolutionize consumer rights to receive fair and understandable service from their cellphone providers.
“Canadians need a Wireless Code to improve contracts, allow them to switch carriers without unfair termination fees, and limit bill shock,” said John Lawford, Co-Counsel for PIAC. “We will ensure the CRTC takes its responsibility to get this right for consumers very seriously,” he added.
PIAC’s presentation focused on five key areas for consumers: notification of extra charges and monetary caps on those charges; prohibition of unilateral changes to contracts by wireless companies; a fair termination fee formula so consumers know the cost of switching carriers; unlocking of cellphones; and effective enforcement of the Wireless Code.
Janet Lo, Co-Counsel for PIAC said PIAC’s oral presentation emphasized this unique opportunity to create a durable, workable and fair Wireless Code: “We emphasized the collective responsibility of wireless carriers, the CRTC and consumer groups to respond to the needs of wireless consumers,” said Lo, “Consumers want and deserve a Wireless Code now.”
Read the PIAC/CAC/COSCO oral remarks to the CRTC:
Download File: piac_oral_comments_wireless_code_feb_11_2013_final_for_printing.pdf [size: 0.11 mb]
Link to PIAC/CAC/COSCO chart of detailed comments on the draft Wireless Code:
Download File: piac_cac_cosco_comments_on_wireless_code_working_document_final_for_oral_hearing.pdf [size: 0.13 mb]
For more information:
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
Janet Lo
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×24
(613) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlo@piac.ca
Wireless Code Hearing PIAC Summary – Day One (February 11, 2013)
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) kicked off its public hearing to create a mandatory code for mobile wireless services today. Some of the key issues focused on by the Commissioners included two- versus three-year contracts, unlocking, prepaid services, and the effect of the Code on provincial laws that currently deal with wireless contracts.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Consumers Association of Canada, and the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (PIAC/CAC/COSCO) – represented by John Lawford, Janet Lo, Jean-François Léger, and Alysia Lau – presented first. The group emphasized the need for a mandatory Wireless Code to address consumer complaints and bolster consumer confidence in their wireless carriers. The presentation reviewed the CRTC Working Document, focusing on: mandating notifications for and caps on additional charges, prohibiting unilateral changes of the contract by wireless providers, clarifying an early termination fee that is based on phone subsidies provided only, allowing consumers to unlock their phones immediately for a reasonable fee, and ensuring that CCTS can effectively enforce the Code.
The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) followed PIAC/CAC/COSCO. The Association sought a Code that would balance market forces and regulation, and emphasized that the Code should not be so onerous that it would hamper effective competition. Certain sections in the CRTC Working Document that the CWTA found too restrictive were: notification and caps on additional charges, unlocking, and prohibitions on carrier changes to contracts. The Association also promoted the implementation of a national Code that would supersede provincial consumer protection laws.
Following the CWTA, Union des consommateurs presented its comments on the Working Document, applauding the creation of a national Wireless Code and advocating for its coexistence with provincial legislation (including Quebec’s Bill 60) already in place. The Commission’s questions to Union focused especially on the implementation and results of Bill 60 in Quebec. For instance, Union des consommateurs shared that it did not see an increase in prices for wireless services after the implementation of the Bill 60 rules. Union des consommateurs also supported the sale of unlocked phones, the implementation of the Code as a whole (as opposed to different segments), and the imposition of mandatory notifications and caps on additional charges. Finally, it proposed that consumers be permitted to complain directly to CCTS rather than first having to resolve an issue with their wireless providers instead.
Finally, TELUS marked the final presenter on Monday. The carrier supported certain aspects of the Code, but disagreed with other sections, such as the imposition of mandatory notifications and caps on additional charges. While TELUS supported having notifications for data usage and roaming charges, it asserted that notifications for voice and text usage would be difficult and expensive to set up. The carrier also found that spending caps were too prescriptive, pointing out that consumers who did want limits on their usage could opt for prepaid services, and encouraged the Commission to allow notifications and caps to develop as elements of competition in the marketplace. TELUS completes its appearance tomorrow, before the Commission moves on to other parties.
MEDIA ADVISORY, PIAC TO APPEAR BEFORE CRTC ON WIRELESS CODE
OTTAWA, ON, FEBRUARY 8, 2013 – In an ongoing effort to address consumers’ concerns about early termination fees, unlocking of cellphones, unilateral contract changes and bill shock, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Consumers’ Association of Canada and the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) will be appearing before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). PIAC/CAC/COSCO will advocate for a wireless code of conduct to address the clarity and content of contracts for cellphones and other personal mobile devices in order to protect Canadian consumers.
Canadians will be able to listen to a live audio feed of the hearing and by going to www.crtc.gc.ca, and following the links.
For more information on how to participate in this consultation process, please join in the online discussion. The consultation will remain open until 8:00 p.m., Ottawa time on February 15, 2013.
WHO : John Lawford, Executive Director and Janet Lo, Legal Counsel, PIAC on behalf of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Consumers’ Association of Canada and the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO)
WHAT : Appearing at the CRTC Public “Proceeding to establish a mandatory code for mobile wireless services”
WHEN : Monday, February 11, 2013, 9:00 am
WHERE : Conference Centre, Outaouais Hearing Room, Portage IV, 140 Promenade du Portage,Gatineau, Quebec
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.
Media Contacts
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×25
lawford@piac.ca
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
613) 562-4002 ext. 24
jlo@piac.ca
