Spectrum Auctions Need Measures to Promote Competition and Public Interest Uses

OTTAWA–Auctions of radio spectrum for wireless service have been a mechanism for maximizing their value for the Canadian government, according to a new report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Entitled “The Consumer Interest in Spectrum Auctions,” this examination overviews the development of spectrum allocation policy. The report contends that policy objectives such as promotion of a fully competitive Canadian wireless market are difficult to achieve without utilizing measures such as set asides and caps on spectrum. However, the achievement of these public objectives should take precedence over the final amount raised for government a coffer, the report concludes.
”In short, the highest bidder, who may simply intend to use ownership of the spectrum to thwart competition and innovation, should not always win, noted the author, Michael Janigan, special counsel to PIAC. The government has recognized this and moderated the potential dominance of existing wireless incumbents in the process. The report surmises that the initial pessimism about spectrum auctions from public interest advocates may be dissipated by continued efforts to address market flaws and public opportunities through the auction process.
The full report (English) is available for download at: The Consumer Interest in Spectrum Auctions [pdf file: 0.52mb]
The full report (French) is available for download at: L’intérêt du consommateur dans les enchères du spectre [pdf file: 1.13mb]
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information please contact:
Michael Janigan
Special Counsel, Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 26
mjanigan@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director/General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 25
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

Consumer Concerns Addressed in CRTC Draft Wireless Code

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OTTAWA – Consumers’ concerns about early termination fees, unlocking of cellphones, unilateral contract changes and bill shock are largely addressed by the draft “Wireless Code Working Document” released today by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), said the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), counsel for the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) and Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) before the CRTC on the creation of a Wireless Code.
“The CRTC showed they listened to consumers when they wrote this draft Wireless Code,” said John Lawford, Co-Counsel for PIAC.
“Canadians clearly said they are worried about high wireless bills coming from unfair contract cancellation fees and high extra charges for such common features as data use and roaming,” added Janet Lo, Co-Counsel for PIAC. “The draft Wireless Code the CRTC released today tackles those tough issues and seeks to protect consumers.”
The CRTC’s draft Code will be available for public comment in an online consultation for 2 weeks from today until 15 February 2013. PIAC hopes that all Canadian wireless consumers consider commenting on the draft Wireless Code in the online consultation.
Link to the CRTC Notice of Consultation and Online Consultation process for Wireless Code: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2012-557-3
– 30 –
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) 562-0007 (Fax)
jlawford@piac.ca

Fighting for consumer rights

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

Fighting for consumer rights

Canadian Consumers Need Better Disclosure About Internet Speed and Performance Claims

OTTAWA – Canadian consumers have high expectations of advertised internet speed claims but receive little information from internet service providers to judge them on, according to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre’s (PIAC) latest report: “Transparency in Broadband Advertising to Canadian Consumers.”
The report examines broadband internet advertisements such as commonly used “up to” speed claims and sought consumers’ views on whether these advertisements are clear.
“When an internet package advertises a maximum speed, Canadian consumers expect the maximum speed advertised will be achievable at their home connection,” according to Janet Lo, Legal Counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and co-author of the report.
PIAC’s survey gauged consumer expectations towards “up to” speed advertisements by walking consumers through a series of sample advertisements to assess whether consumer impressions shifted after reading a disclaimer about the speed claim achievability. In each scenario, a majority of consumers mistakenly believed they would achieve the maximum advertised speed, no matter the style or clarity of the “up to” speed disclaimer.
“Internet service providers provide very little information to consumers about technical factors and their effect on the achievability of the advertised speed claim,” noted Lo. “The fine print is confusing to consumers and does not tell consumers how to check the actual speeds they are receiving.”
Further complicating matters is a lack of consumer awareness. PIAC’s survey showed 75% of respondents did not know which speed tier to which they subscribe, even though 83% of consumers identified download speed as very important or somewhat important when choosing an ISP for their home. PIAC’s report therefore suggests that consumers are not fully and effectively informed about internet speed and performance claims even though they have high expectations with respect to the achievability of promised “up to” internet speeds.
PIAC’s report recommends that ISPs provide more complete and precise disclosure about various aspects of internet performance and the reliability of these claims. It also recommends that ISPs ensure disclosures are prominent in advertising and in consumer contracts.
PIAC’s report recommends that the Competition Bureau of Canada consider specific enforcement guidelines focused on how advertising claims about internet speed performance are conveyed to consumers. The report further recommends that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) monitor the retail internet market by collecting performance data on Canadian retail internet service speeds and comparing that data to advertised claims.
The full report is available for download at:

Download File: piac_transparency_broadband_ads_final.pdf [size: 1.04 mb]

 
The full report is available in French for download at:

Download File: cdip_transparence_publicit_visant_large_bande_finale.pdf [size: 0.95 mb]

 
 
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information please contact:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 24
jlo@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

Minister Asked to Intervene in Shaw-Rogers Spectrum Deal

OTTAWA – Five consumer and public advocacy groups have asked the Minister of Industry to take action to prohibit Rogers Communications Inc. from acquiring spectrum from Shaw Communications Inc., calling the companies’ recently proposed deal “contrary to the original AWS auction rules of the set-aside” and contrary to “your Ministry’s clear policy to preserve that spectrum for new wireless entrants.”
The groups signing the letter were the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC), OpenMedia.ca, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) and the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO).
“Consumers were just starting to benefit from having a fourth or fifth wireless provider and some real choice in the cellphone market,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel for PIAC. “This proposed deal is the first step back to only three big providers: Rogers, Telus and Bell.”
The groups noted in their letter that spectrum is a public resource and 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.
“Canadians were promised that this spectrum would be used to increase choice and lower wireless prices,” noted Steve Anderson, Executive Director at OpenMedia.ca. “The big three are clearly trying to squeeze out other wireless service providers,” he added.
Lawford added: “The Minister should take clear and immediate action to preserve wireless consumers’ confidence in this government’s dedication to fixing the cellphone market. We hope he will do the right thing by consumers.”
The full text of Letter to the Minister [pdf file: 0.12mb] is found here:
 

Regulation bogeyman not driving up electricity costs

By Michael Janigan
Special Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Originally published by the Toronto Star on July 22, 2012.
Last year, amid sobering news concerning likely steep increases in provincial electricity bills, the Electricity Distributors Association (EDA) of Ontario, representing 76 municipal electricity distributors (EDCs) found a new bogeymen to blame for the gloomy prognosis.
Without a hint of embarrassment, the EDA suggested that overregulation and too many critics in the regulatory process were driving up costs and ratepayer bills.
Last week,the EDA’s claims came under empirical scrutiny, and they are suspect, to say the least.
Up until the start of this century, your local municipal EDC’s rates we reset by agreement with Ontario Hydro allowing for little more than the recovery of reasonable operating costs and funding for capital activities.
The restructuring of the industry by the Harris government brought with it the promise that the municipalities that owned these companies could now collect in their electricity bills rates a market-based return on a deemed equity level of 40 per cent of their capital investments in distribution assets.
With a provincial utility asset rate base of $14 billion, the municipal owners’ ability to collect 9- to 10-per-cent return was both a big prize, and a big ratepayer expense.
The catch was that to get the money in the new system, they had to justify their costs in a sophisticated regulatory system in the Ontario Energy Board(OEB). For many small EDCs, it was like a rural county theatre company opening on Broadway. As a result, the complexities of regulation and the hard realities of economies of scale winnowed down the 270 EDCs of the old era to today’s figure of 76.
Still, the rigorous testing and filing requirements of the OEB continued to baffle the smaller EDCs, causing them to spend on pricey external talent top rocess applications. With rates escalating as a result of increased return on equity, power demands and conservation costs, the EDA was anxious to find a way to blame the system for both for the higher costs and their failure to get all they asked for.
Thus, last year’s complaint was hatched that the problem was that interventions by other stakeholders were driving up costs by opposing reasonable EDC demands. Pint-sized distribution companies of less than 20,000 customers said they couldn’t afford the current system of regulation to get what they wanted, despite the fact that the OEB had largely streamlined the process by giving them a model to work from.
The auditor general, perhaps agog at the escalating costs elsewhere in the system appeared to give some credence to the “less opposition to rate applications means saving for ratepayers” argument. The OEB, as a consequence, has had to scurry around to once again justify its high standards for proof before natural gas and electric companies get to put their hand in your pocket.
An analysis of OEB data, made public by veteran consumer legal counsel Robert Warren, demolishes any reasonable basis for the electric distribution companies assertions.
It shows that the current OEB regulatory process has saved millions of dollars for Ontario ratepayers by making the EDCs justify their claims for operating and capital expenses. In a provincial electric distribution industry generating more than $3 billion in revenues, the average EDC rate application in 2010 and 2011 was reduced 3.8 per cent by the OEB, or about $28 per customer. If this result obtains across the entire set of EDCs, it means that regulation is saving Ontarians at least $114million a year. And what about those needless interventions getting in the way of EDC rate increase plans?
It turns out they have cost a little over 2 cents per customer on average, and that amounts to about a tenth of one percent of the average EDC revenue request.As recently as 1960 in Ontario, there were some 277 local telephone companies in operation. While many were made uneconomic by Bell Canada’s toll revenue sharing policy, most eventually were bought out because it did not make sense to have local utility service companies on that kind of scale subject to increasingly sophisticated regulation by the federal government.
In Ontario’s case, there can be no economic reason to countenance the current numbers of local electric distribution companies or to dumb down the level of regulation to accommodate them. The EDA needs fewer members, not fewer critics and less scrutiny.
This chart contains data on 2010 and 2011 cost of service applications by Ontario local distribution companies.

Robert Warren analysis of OEB data
Download File: costawarddata_1.pdf [size: 0.09 mb]

It was compiled, from publicly-available information, by OEB staff. It has been reviewed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, its accuracy. The spreadsheet containing the calculations on the cost-per-customer of intervenor cost awards, and on the savings-per-customer of revenue reductions, were made by the office of Robert Warren, counsel to the Consumers Council of Canada.
——
In September Michael Janigan became PIAC’s Toronto-based Special Counsel for Consumer and Regulatory Affairs after serving as the consumer groups executive director for almost 20 years. Janigan is now representing PIAC clients before the Ontario Energy Board. In addition, he oversees PIAC’s ongoing work in the fields of airline transportation, competition law and general consumer protection. Mr. Janigan also continues in the capacity of chair of the Ontario government agency, the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO), serving as an appointee of the Ontario Government.

Part 1 Application, directed to Bell Canada and WiMacTel Inc., “Regarding Billing Of Calls Placed From Bell Canada Payphones Which Contravene The Telecommunications Act And Are Inconsistent With Directives Issued By The Commission”

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Canada Without Poverty (collectively, (PIAC/CWP) by its counsel PIAC hereby file a Part 1 Application, directed to Bell Canada and WiMacTel Inc., “Regarding Billing Of Calls Placed From Bell Canada Payphones Which Contravene The Telecommunications Act And Are Inconsistent With Directives Issued By The Commission”.

Part 1 Application, directed to Bell Canada and WiMacTel Inc., “Regarding Billing Of Calls Placed From Bell Canada Payphones Which Contravene The Telecommunications Act And Are Inconsistent With Directives Issued By The Commission”
Download File: piac_cwp_part_1_application_payphone_collect_calls.pdf [size: 0.13 mb]

Canadian Consumers Expect Better Protections for International Roaming Fees

New PIAC report, “Consumers and Wireless Data Roaming”

OTTAWA – Canadian wireless subscribers want better protection from international data roaming fees, according to a report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) entitled “Consumers and Wireless Data Roaming.” The report examined wireless service, billing practices and consumer experiences related to international data roaming fees, and how these fees affect the wireless device usage of consumers when outside of Canada. It also provides a comparative look at consumer protection measures implemented and considered in other countries to determine what actions, if any, are required to limit the occasions of bill shock experienced by Canadian consumers.
“Canadians are clearly frustrated with international data roaming fees they currently pay and are scared of unexpectedly large bills from their wireless provider when they travel,” according to Janet Lo, Legal Counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and co- author of the report. PIAC found that 89% of Canadian consumers surveyed feel they pay too much for wireless data when they travel outside of Canada, while 89% have received an unexpectedly large wireless bill for data roaming charges while traveling.
The report also found that a majority of Canadian consumers surveyed who travelled with their wireless device:
•expressed that billing related to international roaming charges is difficult to understand;
•rarely buy a data plan add-on, and if they do, feel they paid too much for it;
•are not confident in estimating the cost of their international data roaming travelling;
•believe regulation is required to compel wireless service providers to notify consumers about the charges they have incurred for roaming while they’re travelling; and,
•remain insecure about using their wireless device while traveling internationally, since 44% of respondents surveyed prefer to leave the device turned off while they travel, while 16% simply leave their wireless device at home.
In order to alleviate consumer frustration, PIAC recommends that the CRTC require Canadian wireless carriers to notify subscribers via text message of the applicable international data roaming rates when they enter another country. Moreover, PIAC recommends that Canadian wireless providers be required to implement a monthly bill limit for data roaming to safeguard consumers against bill shock. The monthly limit would be chosen by the subscriber or default to $50 in addition to the subscriber’s monthly fees, and temporarily suspend data service when the subscriber incurs roaming fees exceeding this limit.
PIAC also recommends greater transparency regarding wholesale roaming rates paid and charged by Canadian wireless service providers to the CRTC. “The collection of wholesale roaming rate data would give the CRTC the ability to monitor whether retail roaming rates for Canadian consumers are fair or represent a disproportionate mark-up for Canadian consumers in accordance with market expectations,” said Jonathan Bishop, co-author of the report. The report notes that European regulators regulate the wholesale and retail rates for international roaming and many other foreign regulators have studied the issue of international roaming rates.
In the meantime, PIAC suggests the Canadian Government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission CRTC should examine the wholesale cost of roaming through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with other countries, ensuring that countries with the largest number of Canadian visitors are given priority. “Since a vast majority of Canadian tourists travel to the United States, it only makes sense for the CRTC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to initially engage in such discussions,” noted Lo.
 

“Consumers and Wireless Data”
Download File: piac_consumers_wirelessroaming_final.pdf [size: 0.45 mb]

 
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information please contact:
Janet Lo
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 24
Mobile 613-816-5688
jlo@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
Jonathan Bishop
Research & Parliamentary Affairs Analyst
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 23
jbishop@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×25
Mobile (613)447-8125
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

Les consommateurs canadiens attendent de meilleures protections contre les frais d’itinérance à l’étranger

Le 10 décembre 2012
OTTAWA – Les abonnés canadiens aux services sans fil désirent être mieux protégés contre les frais d’itinérance à l’étranger associés à la transmission de données, selon un rapport publié aujourd’hui par le Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP) intitulé « Les consommateurs et les frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission sans fil des données ».
Le rapport examine les services sans fil, les pratiques de facturation et l’expérience des consommateurs relativement aux frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission des données, de même que leurs répercussions sur l’utilisation d’appareils sans fil par les consommateurs lorsqu’ils voyagent à l’étranger. Le rapport jette également un regard comparatif sur les mesures de protection du consommateur mises en œuvre et envisagées par d’autres pays en vue de déterminer les interventions requises, au besoin, en vue de limiter les situations de « factures astronomiques » éprouvées par les consommateurs canadiens.
« Les Canadiens éprouvent manifestement des frustrations envers les frais d’itinérance internationale associés à la transmission sans fil de données et craignent de recevoir pendant leur voyage des factures coûteuses imprévues de la part de leurs fournisseurs de services sans fil, » indique Janet Lo, conseillère juridique au Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public et coauteur du rapport.
Le CDIP a observé que 89 % de consommateurs canadiens interrogés estiment qu’ils paient trop cher les services de transmission sans fil de données à l’étranger, alors que 89 % ont déjà reçu une facture de services sans fil beaucoup plus élevée que prévu pour des frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission de données en voyage.
Le rapport a également constaté que la majorité de consommateurs canadiens interrogés ayant voyagé avec leur appareil sans fil :
•ont indiqué que la facturation des frais d’itinérance internationale est difficile à comprendre;
•achètent rarement des forfaits de données complémentaires et, le cas échéant, estiment qu’ils sont trop coûteux;
•manquent de confiance dans l’estimation des coûts d’itinérance à l’étranger associés à la transmission de données;
•sont d’avis qu’une réglementation est nécessaire afin d’imposer aux fournisseurs de services sans fil des notifications obligatoires aux consommateurs au sujet des frais d’itinérance encourus lorsqu’ils voyagent;
•demeurent dans l’incertitude quant à l’utilisation de leur appareil sans fil en voyage à l’étranger, car 44 % des répondants préfèrent laisser leur appareil éteint en voyage, tandis que 16 % le laissent simplement à la maison.
En vue de pallier les frustrations des consommateurs, le CDIP a recommandé que le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications (CRTC) exige des fournisseurs canadiens de services sans fil qu’ils avisent les abonnés par message texte des frais d’itinérance internationale applicables à la transmission de données lorsqu’ils arrivent dans un autre pays.
En outre, le CDIP recommande que les fournisseurs canadiens de services sans fil soient tenus de mettre en œuvre un plafond mensuel de facturation de la transmission de données en itinérance afin de protéger les consommateurs contre les factures astronomiques. La limite mensuelle serait choisie par l’abonné ou fixée par défaut à 50 $ en plus des frais mensuels de l’abonné et le service de transmission de données serait temporairement interrompu lorsque l’abonné assume des frais d’itinérance supérieurs à cette limite.
Le CDIP recommande aussi une transparence accrue des frais d’itinérance de gros payés et facturés par les fournisseurs canadiens de service sans fil au CRTC. « La collecte de données sur les frais d’itinérance de gros donnerait au CRTC la capacité de vérifier si les tarifs d’itinérance de détail facturés aux consommateurs canadiens sont justes ou représentent une majoration disproportionnée, conformément aux attentes du marché, » indique Jonathan Bishop, coauteur du rapport. Le rapport note que les organismes de réglementation européens ont assujetti les tarifs d’itinérance internationale de gros et de détail à une réglementation et que de nombreux autres organismes étrangers de réglementation se sont penchés sur la question des frais d’itinérance à l’étranger.
Entre-temps, le CDIP suggère au gouvernement canadien et au CRTC d’examiner le coût de gros de l’itinérance dans le cadre de négociations bilatérales et multilatérales auprès d’autres pays, afin que les pays comptant le plus grand nombre de visiteurs canadiens reçoivent la priorité. « Puisque la grande majorité des touristes canadiens se rendent aux États-Unis, il est tout à fait logique que le CRTC entame d’abord de telles discussions avec la Commission fédérale des communications (FCC) des États-Unis, » note Me Lo.
Le rapport intégral peut être téléchargé au Les consommateurs et les frais d’itinérance associés à la transmission sans fil des données [pdf file: 0.51mb]
Le Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public a reçu du financement du Programme de contributions pour les organisations sans but lucratif de consommateurs et de bénévoles d’Industrie Canada. Les opinions exprimées dans le rapport ne sont pas nécessairement celles d’Industrie Canada ni du gouvernement du Canada.
Renseignements aux médias :
Janet Lo
Conseillère juridique
Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP)
613-562-4002 poste 24
Cellulaire : 613-816-5688
jlo@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
Jonathan Bishop
Analyste de la recherche et des affaires parlementaires
Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP)
613-562-4002 poste 23
jbishop@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
John Lawford
Directeur général et avocat général
Centre pour la défense de l’intérêt public (CDIP)
613-562-4002 poste 25
Cellulaire : 613-447-8125
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
 
 

Wireless Code Can Empower Consumers

Media Release, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, December 5, 2012
OTTAWA – Consumers will be empowered by the “Wireless Code of Conduct” being proposed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said yesterday in a filing supporting the national code of conduct.
PIAC is also representing the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) and Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) before the CRTC on the creation of a Code.
“Canadians have embraced the concept of a Wireless Code,” said John Lawford, Co-Counsel for PIAC, who noted hundreds of Canadians made well over a thousand public comments on the idea so far – nearly all in favour. “We support Canadians who want simple contracts and clear rules for wireless providers,” he added.
The CRTC yesterday accepted written comments on the shape of such a Code. PIAC’s filing asked that unilateral changes by a wireless service provider to core terms and services should be prohibited, meaning the change would be void and of no effect. PIAC also called for an end to the 30 day notice requirement to cancel contracts and unfair termination penalties that stifle consumer choice and competition.
Janet Lo, Co-Counsel for PIAC said PIAC’s filing respected Canadians wish for more control for consumers over their wireless experience and cellphones. “Canadians want to be empowered in the wireless market, enjoy real choice and control their experience,” said Lo, “We hope this Code will help consumers get a fair result when they are in the market and when they have problems with their wireless carrier.”
Read the PIAC/CAC/COSCO filing
Link to the Notice of Consultation and Public Hearing process for Wireless Code
– 30 –
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

Fighting for consumer rights

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

Fighting for consumer rights

 

Have EVEN MORE say on Cellphones! Comment on the CRTC’s Wireless Code – UPDATE: CRTC Online Consultation Now Open!

REVISED: DEADLINE for written comments: Tuesday, DECEMBER 4, 2012
ADDED: FIRST ONLINE CONSULTATION: Opening 13 November 2012; closing 4 December 2012 on a CRTC website to be announced
ADDED: SECOND ONLINE CONSULTATION: Opening 28 January 2013; closing 1 February 2013
REVISED: PUBLIC HEARING in Gatineau, Québec: Monday, FEBRUARY 11, 2013
UPDATE: As of 1 November 2012 the CRTC has CHANGED THE PROCEDURE. You NOW HAVE 2 ADDITIONAL WEEKS to make COMMENTS and the PUBLIC HEARING STARTS 2 WEEKS LATER
UPDATE: To help the public comment more fully, the CRTC has created TWO PHASES OF ONLINE PUBLIC CONSULTATION:
The first online consultation IS OPEN NOW and seeks to collect comments on what should be in the Code. Participants can respond to and “like” each other’s comments. CRTC Consultation: Help Develop a Wireless Code Consultations close: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 5pm PT
NOTE: There will be a second round of online consultations to comment on the draft Code from January 28, 2013 to February 1, 2013.
PIAC is very pleased that the CRTC has extended the procedure. For an official statement of these changes, please see: Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-557-1
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) wants to help you provide your ideas and opinions to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for its proceeding to develop a mandatory code for wireless service providers (the Wireless Code) to address the clarity and content of wireless contracts and related issues for consumers.
So, we have created a document in Microsoft Word 2003 format to help you focus your answers on the questions and issues that the CRTC has defined, which are listed in the Notice of Consultation but are not otherwise available as part of the CRTC’s online comment form.
We have also included a section at the end of this document for you to relate any personal experiences you have had with wireless service, or for you to add general comments on wireless service or to express your views on any matter not raised in the CRTC’s formal Notice of Consultation.
How to submit your comments:
• Save this document template as your own document.
• Fill out your answers.
• You do not need to answer all the questions. Feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you like, depending on your experience, interest and time. All comments to the CRTC are valuable.
• Send a copy to the CRTC via their formal comment page at this link by Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 8pm EST. Make sure to attach your template comments to your electronic comment form.
• We encourage you to participate in the public hearing the week of February 11, 2013. If you would like to participate, make sure to request to appear when you submit your document to the CRTC.
• If you like, copy PIAC of your document. However, PIAC will not submit your form for you. Please use the CRTC’s comment link.
TIP: The CRTC will publish any personal information you include in your comments on its website, meaning it will be publicly available.
Here is the PIAC comment template (in Microsoft Word 2003 format). Thank you for commenting!

PIAC REVISED Template CRTC Wireless Code
Download File: crtc_wireless_code_template_for_individual_interventions_revised_final_for_web.doc [size: 0.06 mb]

CCTS Report Shows Need for Wireless Code

OTTAWA – Canadians deserve an enforceable, comprehensive wireless code in light of the number and type of complaints observed in the Annual Report of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS), according to telecommunications advocacy group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).
The CCTS Annual Report, released today, shows an increase in complaints about wireless providers to more than 60% of all complaints received by the CCTS, which also handles internet and wireless service problems for Canadians after being given that mandate by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
“The CCTS can only do so much: the wireless industry needs to step up to address chronic consumer problems like billing errors, early termination fees and unwanted premium text charges,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel of PIAC. “We trust the CRTC will encourage the wireless industry to remedy these failings in an honest and constructive way, and to agree to a robust and effective wireless code.”
The CRTC has undertaken proceedings to create a wireless code where PIAC is representing the Consumers’ Association of Canada and Council of Senior Citizens’ Organization of British Columbia (COSCO). PIAC encourages all Canadians to participate in developing the wireless code.
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director, 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

Fighting for consumer rights