Consumer groups call for better telecommunications services for all Canadians

Led by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, a coalition of consumer groups will make submissions on behalf of consumers to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) during a consultation to review access to basic telecommunications services in Canada. This is an opportunity to ask the CRTC to make changes to protect consumers, as the telecommunications market, which includes cellphone, landline telephone and internet companies, affects all Canadians.
“Now is the time to ask the CRTC to require Canadian telecommunications companies to do more for Canada. We intend to argue, and we think Canadians will agree, that access to telephone, cellphone and especially broadband Internet at affordable rates, acceptable data speed and quality of service is crucial for all Canadians, and for our success as a country, both socially and economically,” says John Lawford, counsel for PIAC, an Ottawa-based non-profit organization that provides legal representation, research and advocacy on behalf of consumers. PIAC will represent Canada Without Poverty, Option consommateurs and Rural Dignity of Canada.
The CRTC’s examination culminates in a public hearing starting October 25th, 2010. “An important issue for the CRTC to consider is access for all Canadians to essential telecommunications services on an equitable basis” added Lawford. “Many rural and remote communities are underserved or not served at all by cellular or broadband internet services. Broadband internet services are increasingly becoming essential business tools, and studies show that broadband internet access can reduce unemployment and create greater job opportunities, particularly for people with disabilities.”
Affordability of telecommunications services is another issue to be addressed. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) consistently ranks Canada near the bottom of the list for cellular phone service pricing. Canada’s broadband pricing and speed is also unimpressive, being ranked 25th out of 30 comparable countries by a recent Harvard study.
Canadians wishing to participate in the proceeding may file written comments with the CRTC or join an online forum on the CRTC website, or may contact PIAC.
 

Public Interest News: Rogers regulation / Mauvais service chez Bell Canada / Is your teen on Nexopia / Credit cards / La loi 60 / Globalive / Net neutrality

Rogers asks CRTC for regulations to help collect unpaid bills

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) “Customers porting out mid-contract with unpaid balances are costing Rogers, and most probably other wireless carriers as well, millions of dollars each year,” the company said in its letter. “The task of collecting these unpaid balances is made much more difficult once a customer ports their number to a new carrier as the relationship has been terminated,” CBC News reported on Jan. 21.
“Michael Janigan, executive director at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a consumer watchdog, said Rogers’s move is a clear attempt to stem the loss of market share. New cellphone companies such as Wind Mobile, as well as improved offerings from traditional rivals Bell and Telus, are chipping away at market leader Rogers’s subscriber base. “This is the clear downside of long-term contracts for a supplier and now they want regulation to solve a problem brought about by market forces,” (Janigan) said,” CBC’s Peter Nowak wrote. On Jan. 26 the Globe and Mail reported: “Rogers Communications Inc. withdrew (the) application to the CRTC after other wireless carriers refused to support it.” CBC News Jan. 21

Il y a un mauvais service à la clientèle chez Bell Canada : Option consommateurs

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) « Dans un geste juridiquement rare, la Cour supérieure du Québec vient de casser un jugement de la Cour des petites créances qui, l’an dernier, a condamné Bell Canada à indemniser un consommateur harcelé à tort au téléphone pendant des semaines pour un compte impayé auquel il n’était aucunement lié. … Option consommateurs a déploré ce recours par Bell à une procédure exceptionnelle. Elle estime toutefois que les petites créances sont peut-être allées un peu loin dans le jugement rendu l’an dernier en faveur de (le consommateur) M. Crevier » Le Devoir a rapporté le 23 janvier 2010.
« Les plaintes que nous recevons confirment qu’il y a un mauvais service à la clientèle chez Bell Canada, a indiqué au Devoir l’avocate de l’organisme consumériste, Élise Thériault. On sait aussi que les agences de recouvrement ne sont pas réputées pour être gentilles, mais de là à présumer que le harcèlement dont a été victime M. Crevier relève de la mauvaise foi, il y a une marche», que la Cour supérieure a décidé de ne pas gravir » Fabien Deglise a écrit. Le Devoir le 23 janvier

Teen site Nexopia’s user profiles are googleable: PIAC files complaint

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) “The Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre filed a complaint with privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart Monday about the “unnecessary and non-consensual use and disclosure of personal information” by Nexopia, an Edmonton-based social-networking site aimed at teens. Nexopia.com labels itself “the place to be for teens looking to express themselves to the world,” and boasts more than 1.2 million registered members — mostly from Western Canada — with more than one billion page views monthly,” Canwest News Service reported on Jan. 19.
“The complaint outlines six ways that Nexopia violates Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, known as PIPEDA. The most worrisome of these, said (PIAC’s John) Lawford, is that profiles can searched by any Internet user and show up in Google queries. Nexopia users can upload a variety of information from age and interests, to e-mail addresses and photos, all of which then becomes searchable. Privacy settings can later be set to hide personal information, however, four details — username, sex, location and age — can never be changed or deleted,” Canwest’s Amy Husser wrote. Canwest News Service Jan. 19

Voluntary policy for credit, debit industry will clash with rights of consumers

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) “Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s draft code of conduct for the credit- and debit-card industry will drive up transaction costs for consumers while eroding their rights with respect to electronic payments, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre warned Tuesday. The non-profit research group says the code, as proposed, is a poor substitute for true regulation. In addition to harming consumers, the group said, its provisions lack heft to resolve merchants’ grievances with card companies, payment processors and banks,” the Toronto Star reported on Jan. 20.
“Unfortunately, implementation of some of the draft’s provisions would significantly increase consumer search and transaction costs and clash with consumer rights as legislatively implemented, without providing consumers any compensatory benefit,” the group wrote in its report,” the Star’s Rita Trichur wrote. Toronto Star, Jan. 20

Ontario’s Motor Vehicle Dealers Act: Fees kicked out of the fine print

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) “Extra charges are everywhere. You pay system-access fees for telephone service and account opening or closing fees for financial services. Airlines are notorious for advertising low prices that double up once the add-on fees are included. “The preferable solution for consumers would be an outright ban on the practice,” says the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa. In its report last September on extra charges in Canada’s marketplace, PIAC proposes that companies use “all-in prices” in ads as the next best option,” the Toronto Star’s Ellen Roseman wrote on Jan. 20
“In a victory for those who want bundled pricing, Ontario car dealers now have to move fees out of the fine print. More meaningful disclosure is part of the new Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, which came into force Jan. 1,” the Star columnist wrote. Toronto Star Jan. 20

Code of conduct governing credit and debit cards: Consumer pays but has no control

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) “Some companies, such as Visa and Moneris, are warning the government it could delay or even kill competition in the debit card market, now largely run by the Interac Association, if it forges ahead with the nine-point code. … A number of consumer groups, such as the Montreal-based Option Consommateurs, say the code does not do enough to protect consumers and are calling on Ottawa to create a law that governs electronic payments,” the Globe and Mail reported on Jan. 18.
“John Lawford, a spokesman for the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said the code does not tackle the issue of fees. “Our overall concern is that consumers are stuck between the two sides,” he said. “At the end of the day, we do have trouble with any system where the consumer is the one who is paying and doesn’t have control over which account or network it’s going through.” This is one of those rare markets where more competition will like mean the price goes up, he said,” the Globe’s Tara Perkins reported. Globe and Mail Jan. 18

Globalive approval challenged: PIAC says more wireless competition is needed

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) “Upstart wireless company Globalive is facing another legal challenge after another new player in the mobile phone market asked for a court review of the government’s decision to approve Globalive’s ownership structure. … In doing so, federal Industry Minister Tony Clement set aside an earlier ruling from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which found Globalive did not meet Canadian ownership and control requirements,” CBC News reported on Jan. 8.
“We believe Cabinet’s decision is unfair to other wireless carriers, especially new entrants like Public Mobile that have played by the rules and secured substantial Canadian investment,” Public Mobile CEO Alek Krstajic said in a statement. … Consumer advocates cheered the government’s decision as a big win for cellphone customers, since the addition of new players is expected to lower prices. “More competition should elevate Canada’s market to that approaching what exists in the rest of the world,” said Michael Janigan,” CBC News reported. CBC News Jan. 8

Canadian law should protect airline passengers: Michael Janigan

(PIAC 27/Jan/2010) “American air carriers could be fined as much as 27,000 dollars per seat if stranded passengers aren’t returned to the airport after three hours. But a private member’s bill designed to protect passengers here has hit stormy political weather and is now stalled in committee by procedural wrangling,” CBC National reported on Dec. 22.
“Instead airlines are now following new guidelines which say airlines should provide meal vouchers for delays and schedule departures of over four hours. If you get stuck on the tarmac, airlines offer drinks and snacks if it’s safe to do so, and if delays exceed 90 minutes, offer the option of disembarking but only if circumstances permit. Consumer advocates say it’s not enough,” CBC’s Reg Sherren reported. Public Interest Advocacy Centre’s Michael Janigan told the National: “It’s not just simply the airlines’ fault, it’s also the government’s fault for failing to protect the citizens that are supposed to be protected.”

Ontario payday loan caps: Astronomically high

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “The new law, which came into effect Tuesday, sets a maximum charge for payday loans. Now consumers cannot be charged more than $21 for every $100 borrowed. … an Ottawa-based advocacy group said the laws governing payday loan establishments were still not stringent enough. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre said the changes will end up protecting payday loan companies more than consumers. A spokesman for the payday companies disagrees with the criticism,” the Woodstock Sentinel-Review reported on Dec. 17
“It’s more the big businesses that have been protected (and) the little guys can operate at that rate, because it’s so high, and probably not go out of business,” said John Lawford, a spokesman for the advocacy group. “It’s astronomically higher than a bank or credit card company (could charge). It’s not even in the same league,” Michelle Sommer wrote for the Sentinel-Review. Sentinel Review Dec. 17

La loi 60 est adoptée à Québec

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) « Beau cadeau de Noël pour les consommateurs: l’Assemblée nationale a adopté, hier après-midi, le projet de loi 60 qui renforcera la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC). Les mesures entreront en vigueur le 30 juin prochain. … Les organismes de défense des consommateurs se réjouissent de ce nouveau cadre législatif qui couvrira “divers domaines qui n’étaient pas spécifiquement encadrés par la loi, adoptée en 1971”, a rappelé Michel Arnold, directeur général d’Option consommateurs. “Il faut poursuivre le travail afin, notamment, de mieux encadrer les nouvelles formes de crédit” » Stéphanie Grammond a rapporté dans La Presse le 3 décembre. La Presse le 3 décembre

PIAC calls on provinces to regulate financial planning

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “Canada’s provinces should regulate financial planning, suggests a report released Monday by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. … It notes that consumers face an “alphabet soup” of financial planning titles, and that “These groups and designations are not clear to Canadian financial consumers and are largely ignored in the decision to use a financial planner’,” Investment Executive reported on Dec. 14.
“PIAC concludes that “the time appears ripe for the provinces to regulate financial planning in the public interest.” It says that the model used in Quebec, with some minor adjustments, “appears to be the best way forward to protect Canadian financial consumers.” It may be in studying the fee-only model that potential regulatory requirements such as separation of financial planners from ownership of, or employment by, financial companies or particular investments (including prohibition on related parties owning or being employed by these entities) may be appropriate and necessary in the future,” IE’s James Langton wrote, Investment Executive Dec. 14=

PIAC opposes Senate amendments to consumer product safety bill (C-6)

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “We very much regret the decision of your Committee to approve amendments that severely hamper the ability of the government to pursue the public interest in relation to matters of health and public safety. The net effect of the amendments is to potentially frustrate the efforts of Health Canada to swiftly deal with the imminent danger posed by consumer products that may be untested, misrepresented, and released into the marketplace with minimal warning,” PIAC’s Michael Janigan wrote to Senator Art Eggleton Chair, Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on Dec. 7.
“It is particularly disheartening to find the oppositional posture to this Bill presented as a matter of protection of the civil rights of business and property owners engaged in the sale and distribution of the consumer products that are the subject matter of the Bill. Such individuals are amply protected by the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, and possible civil remedies for government behaviour that exceeds the ambit of its protective statutory mandate. Monetary loss, embarrassment and hurt feelings are regrettable, but nonetheless compensable in the event of improper government conduct,” Janigan wrote.

Rogers charges for texts contract said were free

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “In July of this year, Rogers introduced a new fee of 15 cents per incoming text message for all customers who did not have a specific plan or bundle for text messaging. Those charges were applied to von Sacken’s account, despite her contract — which says incoming texts are free. … John Lawford of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) in Ottawa said court decisions have upheld the carriers’ right to change services and fees after contracts are signed. “Unfortunately, Canadian courts have said yes, that is binding,” said Lawford. PIAC has been fighting for better consumer protection from cellphone company practices. He pointed out that Bell and Telus also charge the 15-cent fee for incoming texts, a fee those companies brought in a year earlier than Rogers,” CBC News reported on Dec. 15. .
“Lawford hopes the introduction of new competitors into the marketplace — such as the newly-approved carrier Globalive — will be the real catalyst for change. “Until now, we’ve been going backwards,” said Lawford. “In other countries we have no charges for incoming calls and we have charges for incoming calls in Canada and the same things for texts now. It’s largely because we have three big carriers and not a lot of competition.” Lawford said experts have estimated the 15-cent text messaging charge is hugely profitable for Canada’s three big carriers,” Kathy Tomlinson reported for CBC News.CBC News Dec. 15

Democratization of credit: What about low income consumers?

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “Banks and credit card companies often argue the popularity of credit cards represents a “democratization of credit.” Yet, some experts suggest the current system is fundamentally rigged against the consumer and the merchant. … “For low-income consumers who don’t have access to a conventional credit card, the costs go up much higher,” said Michael De Santis, a researcher at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Low-income consumers, those with spotty credit scores and new immigrants are often encouraged to get secured credit cards to build or repair their credit histories. But many consumers lack sufficient funds to pay the required lump sum. That upfront cost is usually equivalent to or higher than the card’s credit limit. The bank collects that money as security but the funds do not earn the customer any interest, even if the sum remains tied up for years,” the Toronto Star reported on Dec. 14. Toronto Star Dec. 14

PIAC says broadband rulings at odds with same-day Globalive decision

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “A Canadian consumer watchdog agency says the Canadian Cabinet’s decision to allow Globalive Communications Corp. (GLC.YY) to enter the wireless market is at odds with two other rulings it handed down Friday. Industry Minister Tony Clement said Friday that the federal Cabinet is allowing Globalive to enter the market, overturning a controversial ruling by the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission that barred the company from entering the wireless market,” Dow Jones Newswires reported on Dec. 11.
“The two other decisions relate to ongoing feuds in the internet broadband sphere. Winnipeg-based MTS Allstream appealed a 2008 CRTC ruling that the company said denied proper access to the incumbents’ broadband ethernet infrastructures. Here, the federal Cabinet sided with the CRTC. In its other decision, the Cabinet overturned a CRTC ruling that ordered the incumbents to provide small Internet service providers with the same speeds their customers enjoy. “I don’t understand how the government can say we need more than three competitors in the wireless market and then turn around and effectively limit broadband Internet providers to the incumbent telephone and cable companies,” said Michael Janigan, executive director at Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa,” Caroline Van Hasselt wrote for Dow Jones Newswires. Dow Jones Newswires, Dec. 11

Most Canadians support creation of “Do Not Track List” for Internet, PIAC report says

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) A majority of Canadians are concerned enough about being tracked on-line that they would support the creation of a national “Do Not Track List”, a new report has found. A “Do Not Track List” for Canada?, written by Janet Lo, legal counsel for the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre, notes that people who signed up for such a list would not have data about their on-line activities “collected, used, or disclosed,” Georgia Straight reported on Dec. 4.
“The majority of respondents (54%) strongly supported the creation of a “Do Not Track List”, and an additional 27% of respondents somewhat supported a “Do Not Track List”, compared to 8% who somewhat opposed and 10% who strongly opposed the List,” the report states. The report notes that 49 percent of consumers are “not at all comfortable” and 25 percent are “not very comfortable” with on-line tracking for the purposes of targeted advertising,” the Straight’s Stephen Hui wrote. Georgia Straight, Dec. 4

Net neutrality is a consumer right: PIAC report

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) On Dec. 1 the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) called for more consideration of consumer rights to “net neutrality” in a report entitled “Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality.” PIAC’s report called on federal legislators and policymakers to protect consumers’ rights to “use their Internet connection to access the lawful content, applications or services of their choice without discrimination, modification, interruption, or delay of their internet transmissions by any party, subject to law”, among others. PIAC counsel and report co-author John Lawford noted that consumers in focus groups appeared unaware of the definition of “net neutrality” but had strong and clear views on throttling of their traffic by Internet service providers such Bell Canada, Rogers and other Internet service providers. The report is at www.piac.ca/privacy/

Ontario car rental agency under fire for extra fees

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “A Vancouver man is speaking out about his experience with a Toronto car rental company after he was charged hundreds of dollars in fees he said he didn’t expect to pay. “I was flabbergasted, to put it mildly,” said David Carman. “I thought this is ridiculous. This can’t happen. They can’t fleece me for this much money,” CBC News reported on Nov. 30.
“Michael Janigan of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a non-profit consumer law firm in Ottawa, wrote a report recently about what he calls hidden charges in the marketplace. He said online bookings are where rental car customers often get tripped up. “We think it’s getting worse,” said Janigan. “Frankly, it’s a way where you can advertise a lower fee and get a higher amount.” “Companies aren’t competing with each other on the basis of transparent pricing. They are effectively advertising one price and charging another,” CBC’s Kathy Tomlinson reported. CBC News, Nov. 30

Option Consommateurs: Leon’s targeted in ‘buy now’ class-action suit

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “First there was Brault & Martineau Inc., then The Brick Warehouse LP and now Leon’s Furniture Ltd. – major retail chains legally taken to task for “buy now, pay later” promotions. Consumer-advocacy group Option Consommateurs yesterday sought Quebec Superior Court permission to launch a class-action lawsuit against Leon’s, less than three weeks after doing the same with The Brick,” the Montreal Gazette reported on Nov. 25.
“If allowed to proceed with the class actions, they are demanding that Leon’s and The Brick pay group members the equivalent to the amounts billed as annual membership fees, a refund of $100 each and punitive damages totalling $5 million,” Gazette reporter Mike King wrote. Montreal Gazette, Nov. 25

Flaherty propose un code de conduite pour les émetteurs de cartes

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) « Le ministre des Finances Jim Flaherty a proposé jeudi un code de conduite pour les sociétés émettrices de cartes débit et de crédit qui devrait aider à protéger à la fois les consommateurs et les petites entreprises – mais pas avant la saison du magasinage des Fêtes »lLa Presse Canadienne a rapporté le 19 novembre.
« Mais ce code ne répond pas à une des principales complaintes des consommateurs ces dernières années, au sujet des taux d’intérêts imposés par les sociétés émettrices de cartes de crédit. … chez Option consommateurs, qui juge que le code proposé jeudi s’adresse davantage aux commerçants et ne contribuera en rien à la protection des consommateurs. “Malheureusement, notre expérience des codes de conduite nous démontre que ça ne fonctionne pas. (…) M. Flaherty a bien identifié les problèmes, mais la solution est inadéquate, a affirmé dans un communiqué de presse le directeur général d’Options consommateurs, Michel Arnold » Stephen Thorne a rapporté pour la Presse Canadienne.

Define basic TV service, PIAC urges

(PIAC 21/Dec/09) “The current spectacle of Canada’s television networks engaged in a pie-throwing contest with the cable and satellite industry seems as confusing to the viewer as an episode of “Lost”. For one thing, the mantle of “consumer champion” sits uneasily on the shoulders of the distributors – the cable and satellite companies, whose offerings are crammed with services owned by them that hoover up ever-increasing subscriber fees. In turn, some Canadians are startled to learn that there still is significant local broadcasting, after over two decades of damaging cuts to such programming,” Michael Janigan, PIAC executive director wrote for www.cartt.ca on Oct. 30.
“If a review (from the perspective of real consumers) does occur, its first priority must be to make basic service basic and affordable. It should contain only those channels that are required to meet the minimum needs of Canadians to access television programming. This would include local broadcasting channels, coupled with services deemed essential to fulfilling the national objectives and consumer demand. It would be priced to ensure access, and all services carried would be treated the same in terms of carriage fees paid to channels from the basic service rate.
“That rate, preferably less than $15 per month, would be set by regulatory review and capped by the CRTC in a similar fashion as basic service is capped in local service telephony. Together with controlling the content of basic service, these new practices would ensure that most Canadians can afford a television distribution service and halt the pattern of rates skyrocketing beyond the rate of inflation. This is particularly important when over 4 million Canadians are facing the loss of over the air analog broadcasting in 2011. Such measures would also bring some competitive pressure on the rest of the offerings of cable and satellite distributors,” Janigan wrote.
 

PIAC says government issues contradictory broadband and wireless (Globalive) decisions

While consumers welcome the Cabinet decision to allow Globalive to enter the wireless market, overturning an earlier CRTC decision, the two other decisions on Cabinet Appeals, effectively ensure the broadband market in Canada will remain a duopoly for some time to come.
The two broadband decisions involve issues associated with the obligation of incumbent providers such as Bell Canada, Telus, Shaw and Rogers to provide facilities essential to the operations of competition as well as matching speeds.
“These decisions will severely limit the ability of new entrants and smaller internet service providers to compete with the established players,” Michael Janigan, executive director and general counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre said.
“I don’t understand how the government can say we need more than three competitors in the wireless market and then turn around and effectively limit broadband internet providers to the incumbent telephone and cable companies,” Janigan said.
He predicted that while the Globalive decision will bring needed competition into the market, the government’s internet broadband decisions will ensure Canada’s dismal performance by world standards for years to come.

Canadian Consumers Need More Net Neutrality

(OTTAWA)— The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) today called for more consideration of consumer rights to “net neutrality” in a report entitled “Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality.”
PIAC’s report called on federal legislators and policymakers to protect consumers’ rights to “use their Internet connection to access the lawful content, applications or services of their choice without discrimination, modification, interruption, or delay of their internet transmissions by any party, subject to law”, among others.
PIAC counsel and report co-author John Lawford noted that consumers in focus groups appeared unaware of the definition of “net neutrality” but had strong and clear views on throttling of their traffic by Internet service providers such Bell Canada, Rogers and other Internet service providers.
“Canadians are frustrated by interference with their Internet connections and want their rights protected,” said Lawford. “It’s not clear to them that the Internet is neutral enough in Canada.”
The report recommends that in addition to helping consumers complain about Internet slowdowns, the federal government set minimum speed standards for broadband providers.
PIAC’s report is based on six focus groups conducted by Environics Research Group with Canadian Internet users in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal in January 2009.
The full report –– Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality–– is available for download at: Staying Neutral: Canadian Consumers and the Fight for Net Neutrality
Executive Summary [pdf file: 0.02mb]
Sommaire [pdf file: 0.04mb]
PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25 (Tel)
(613) 562- 0007 (Fax)
lawford@piac.ca

Review of Globalive Wireless Management Corp. under the Canadian ownership and control regime

November 20, 2009
Minister of Industry
The Honourable Tony Clement
235 Queen Street
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0H5
Dear Minister:
Re: CRTC Telecom Decision 2009 -678 Review of Globalive Wireless Management Corp. under the Canadian ownership and control regime
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) has been engaged in interventions on behalf of ordinary and vulnerable Canadian consumers in telecommunications proceedings before the CRTC since PIAC’s inception in 1976. PIAC participated in the proceeding that was preliminary to that in which the above-noted decision was made.
In PIAC’s view, whatever the correctness of the Commission’s determination of de facto control of the wireless carrier, Globalive, the practical effect of the Decision is harmful to consumers. In setting the conditions for the 2008 spectrum auction, Industry Canada recognized the necessity for greater competition in the wireless market in Canada. This conclusion has been supported by a number of reputable independent studies ranging from the 2006 Telecommunications Policy Review Report to the August 2009 OECD Communications Outlook. Consumers need at least another major player to provide better prices, service quality, efficiency and choice.
It should also be noted that the value of the current foreign ownership restrictions has been challenged by much critical comment from policy advisers to the government. The Telecommunications Policy Review Panel Report issued in March 2006 stated that liberalization of the restrictions on foreign investment in the Canadian telecommunications sector:
“…would increase the competitiveness of the telecommunications industry, improve the productivity of Canadian telecommunications markets, and be generally more consistent with Canada’s open trade and investment policies.”[1] <#_ftn1>
More recently the Competition Review Panel Report (“Wilson Report”) also accepted a loosening of ownership restrictions.
“Taking these considerations into account, the Panel finds that the TPRP’s proposed phased liberalization of foreign investment rules for telecommunications and broadcasting has merit.”[2] <#_ftn2>
PIAC notes that whatever the past and current merits of the foreign ownership restrictions, in this case, the burdens borne by the consumers, deprived of choice in the wireless market place, far outweigh the benefits of the CRTC’s enforcement decision. It may be trite to note that such benefits are accruing chiefly to the wireless incumbents.
We are concerned that this new entrant Globalive, together with other carriers granted licenses by Industry Canada earlier this year pursuant to the set-aside policy used in the spectrum auction, face continual efforts on the part of incumbents to frustrate their market entry. These efforts not only include complaints about the nationality of ownership, but obstinance with respect to the resolution of key issues of interconnection and facilities sharing with the incumbents. There is no down side for the incumbents in pursuing this sort of conduct, as each month that goes by without new entry means another month of incumbent revenues unimpeded by real competition. Already, there are rumours in the business media of an impending sale of spectrum by Globalive to an existing incumbent. The government must exercise its leadership to protect Canadian consumers, and to bring a stop to this obstruction of the competitive market.
In the context of the Globalive Decision, PIAC believes that agitation on this issue of foreign ownership will continue even if the carrier meets the Commission objections. PIAC would suggest that the Minister exercise his powers under sec. 12 of the Telecommunications Act to vary Decision 2009- 678 in the following fashion:
1. That Globalive will be in compliance with the provisions of sec. 16 of the Telecommunications Act with respect to Canadian ownership when, after taking the appropriate steps to meet the findings made by the Commission in Decision 2009-578, it satisfies the Minister that Globalive is not in control of a non-Canadian.
2. That all further complaints concerning the nationality of Globalive’s ownership be first addressed to the Minister for his consideration of the exercise of his powers under sec. 5(2) of the Radiocommunications Act and such complaints may not be dealt with by the CRTC before the Minister’s decision.
It also appears to PIAC that Minister may wish to also consider issuing a Policy Direction pursuant to sec. 8 of the Telecommunications Act that the Commission shall rescind any determination of forbearance in relation to a carrier where it finds that there has been intentional conduct on the part of a carrier or carrier that may result in a substantial lessening of competition, or the possibility of frustration of competitive entry. This would enable the Commission more directly control the actions of a carrier that are contrary to the public interest.
PIAC believes that the Commission Decision in this matter should be reviewed carefully to examine its potential effect on the structure of competition and the future conduct of players in the wireless market. We welcome this opportunity to suggest how the consumer problems caused by this Decision might be mitigated.
Yours truly,
Michael Janigan
Executive Director/General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre

Public Interest News: Net throttling appeal / Recours collectif contre The Brick / The TV war / Credit cards beyond reach / Broadband expensive / Satisfy warrant or lose welfare

Campaign for Competitive Broadband: Appeal to Cabinet to reverse net neutrality decision

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “With just 42 days before the federal cabinet must decide on the future of competitive internet service in Canada more than 41 different organizations and companies, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Canadian Association of Internet Service Providers, have joined the campaign for Competitive Broadband the Coalition for Competitive Broadband announced on Nov. 3.
At issue is an ill considered ruling by the CRTC that would provide incumbent former monopoly telcos like Bell and Telus the power to threaten competition in high speed broadband services. According to PIAC’s Executive Director Michael Janigan, “competition is how consumers are supposed to be protected. When a regulatory decision favours the big telecommunications giants over new entrants, it is bad for competition and leaves consumers less protected in the long run.” www.consumersforinternetcompetition.com

L’imposition de ces frais est contraire aux représentations faites par Brick: Option consommateurs

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) Option consommateurs a déposé ( le 5 nov ) une requête pour autorisation d’exercer un recours collectif contre The Brick Warrehouse LP, un détaillant de mobilier de maison, d’appareils électroménagers, d’appareils électroniques et de matelas, faisant affaire au Québec sous le nom de Brick Option consommateurs reproche au détaillant de leurrer ses clients à l’aide de ses slogans “Plus ne payez rien pendant 15 mois” et “aucun versement initial, aucun versement mensuel, aucun intérêt”. Dans les faits, les consommateurs qui adhèrent à son plan de financement doivent notamment verser des frais annuels de 35 $.
“L’imposition de ces frais est contraire aux représentations faites par Brick à ses clients, signale Me Stéphanie Poulin responsable du Service juridique d’Option consommateurs. Il s’agit de représentations fausses ou trompeuses.” Le recours collectif vise notamment à obtenir pour les membres du groupe le paiement d’une somme équivalant aux montants facturés en tant que “frais d’adhésion annuels”, un montant de 100 $ à titre de réduction de leurs obligations, ainsi que des dommages punitifs s’élevant à 5 millions de dollars.

Behind the headlines in the television war: Janigan calls for $15 per month basic cable package

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “Both the distribution and broadcasting components of Canada’s television industry face the harsh reality of declining interest in the traditional formats for receipt of video, and with it, diminishing advertising revenues for previous network stalwarts. While the cable and satellite distributors claim that networks have mismanaged their way to penury, their own stewardship of reasonable cable and satellite rates has been exploitative at best,” Michael Janigan wrote in an Oct. 30 Cartt.ca article.
“A review of the policies that gave rise to the current spat … first priority must be to make basic service basic and affordable. It should contain only those channels that are required to meet the minimum needs of Canadians to access television programming. It would be priced to ensure access, and all services carried would be treated the same in terms of carriage fees paid to channels from the basic service rate. That rate, preferably less than $15 per month, would be set by regulatory review and capped by the CRTC in a similar fashion as basic service is capped in local service telephony,” PIAC’s executive director wrote in Cartt.ca.

Credit cards still beyond reach of many Canadians: PIAC report

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “Credit cards are becoming the “preferred mode of payment” in Canada, but growing numbers of residents are unable to access plastic money, says a study by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre,” Rita Trichur wrote in the Toronto Star on Oct. 28.
“The report – Credit cards and access to the digital marketplace: A priceless necessity? – says this group includes new immigrants, aboriginals and others with no credit history, including lower-income Canadians. … Such exclusion has consequences for the larger Canadian economy, the study argues, noting credit cards are required for everyday tasks such as renting a car, purchasing airplane tickets and, in many cases, making online purchases,” the Toronto Star reported.

New type of payment cards need to establish credit ratings: Mike de Santis

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “Mike de Santis, a researcher and articling student at Public Interest Advocacy Centre said low-income Canadians can and do use prepaid credit cards and gift cards as alternatives, but “Neither one of those options is a good option,” he said. “The prepaid credit cards actually involve very high fees for transactions, for all kinds of things that are normally included without fee for a conventional card,” Straight Goods News reported,
“As an alternative, PIAC recommends the development of a new sort of card that would be put out with major credit card branding. This would enable consumers to make purchases as if they had credit or debit cards without incurring credit. In the process, they would build their own credit ratings with the hope of later qualifying for true credit cards. A new system like this will require changes to the Bank Act says de Santis,” Straight Goods’ Ish Thielhiemer wrote on Nov. 3.

Throttle away CRTC says: No Net Neutrality

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today (Oct. 21) approved Canadian Internet Service Providers throttling of Internet connections in a decision that stands in stark contrast to the requirements being contemplated in the United States, which will require that such control does not interfere with customers’ choice of applications or services.
“We just went backwards at warp speed,” lamented John Lawford, counsel for a coalition of consumer groups that fought for an end to throttling of Internet traffic of consumers, “while we watch the U.S. rocket ahead. The CRTC has said in this decision that ISPs own your content and own your Internet connection” said Lawford, “You just got owned.” The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Canada Without Poverty and Option consommateurs during the hearings on net neutrality.

Big Internet carriers win right to manage traffic

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “Canada’s big Internet carriers have scored a major victory, as the telecommunication regulator ruled it is okay for them to slow down some of the Web traffic travelling to customers’ personal computers – as long as the companies explain ahead of time what they are doing. In a decision that clarifies its approach to the practice known as traffic shaping, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said Wednesday that companies such as Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp. should do everything they can to expand network capacity,” the Globe and Mail reported on Oct. 22.
“But if they have to slow down or “throttle” some kinds of Internet traffic – such as downloads of large video or movie files – during high traffic periods, they can do so. John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said it will be very difficult for consumers to fight carriers’ traffic-shaping decisions. Individuals or groups will have to gather evidence and line up experts if they want to take complaints to the CRTC – an expensive and time-consuming proposition,” the Globe’s Richard Blackwell wrote.

Satisfy warrant or lose welfare under new B.C. bill

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “People with outstanding warrants will be denied social assistance in B.C., under a bill introduced by the provincial government yesterday. But critics were quick to warn that a past NDP government lost a court battle on the same issue, and expressed concern that the province is discriminating against people based on allegations and not convictions,” the Times Colonist reported on Oct. 20.
“Forcing someone to submit to a background check to receive support that could be considered a basic personal right leaves the province open to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, said Sarah Khan, staff lawyer at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Vancouver. “I think an issue is whether or not that’s really a rational requirement and legal requirement for applying for income assistance,” the Times Colonist’s Rob Shaw wrote.

Canada’s broadband network panned in Harvard study

On Oct. 16 the Vancouver Sun reported a Harvard study on broadband connectivity concluded: “The highest prices for the lowest speeds are overwhelmingly offered by firms in the United States and Canada, all of which inhabit markets structured around ‘inter-modal’ competition — that is, competition between one incumbent owning a telephone system, and one incumbent owning a cable system.
“Against that backdrop, Shaw introduced a 100-megabit-per-second Nitro service for Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, expanding on a launch earlier this year in Saskatoon, Victoria and Winnipeg. At $149 a month when bundled with other Shaw services and including a modem rental, the offering was panned by John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, as being ‘astronomical,’ and far higher than in other countries. “The main point of that FCC report is that the price to speed ratio in Canada is the worst,” he said. “Especially in terms of what we are paying per megabyte, it is not impressive. It is much better in Japan and South Korea.” Lawford said even what is considered the high end of the speed scale in Canada is becoming average in other markets. “We are stuck in a situation with basically two routes in, cable and the incumbent phone line,” he said. “Unless that is open to competition there is no short-term fix for this,” the Sun’s Gillian Shaw reported.

Consumer groups shut out from hearings on local television

(PIAC 9/Nov/09) “Canadians are being shut out from hearings on local television after the Conservative government refused to help them participate, consumer advocates say. “This is a hearing about the impact of local broadcasting fees on consumers, yet consumers are not going to be represented,” said Michael Janigan of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre,” Sun Media reported on Oct. 16.
“Heritage Minister James Moore recently asked Canada’s television watchdog to study the possible impact on consumers of a fee-for-carriage system. Television broadcasters want cable and satellite companies to pay them to carry local signals, but the distributors say their subscribers will end up footing the bill and paying for stations they now watch for free. … But Friday, Moore’s spokeswoman Deirdra McCracken said the government would not provide the CRTC with extra cash for consumer groups,” Sun Media’s Altia Raj reported.

CRTC’s Net Neutrality Decision Rubber Stamps ISPs’ Throttling

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today approved Canadian Internet Service Providers throttling of Internet connections in a decision that stands in stark contrast to the requirements being contemplated in the United States, which will require that such control does not interfere with customers’ choice of applications or services. “We just went backwards at warp speed,” lamented John Lawford, counsel for a coalition of consumer groups that fought for an end to throttling of Internet traffic of consumers, “ while we watch the U.S. rocket ahead.”
“The CRTC has said in this decision that ISPs own your content and own your Internet connection” said Lawford, “You just got owned.”
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Canada Without Poverty and Option consommateurs during the hearings on net neutrality. PIAC argued that the Telecommunications Act required ISPs not to interfere with customers’ Internet traffic unless such traffic was clearly harming other users of the network and not otherwise.
“ISPs should act as common carriers and just carry traffic, not as broadcasters deciding what you watch” continued Lawford, “but now they can decide what gets through – and how much they get to charge you for the privilege.” Lawford also noted the CRTC’s requirement for the ISPs to disclose their “Internet traffic management practices” will not actually stop any of the practices.
The CRTC decision and all public comment, including PIAC’s submissions, along with those of thousands of ordinary Canadians who overwhelmingly asked for more net neutrality, not less, is available on the CRTC website.

Public Interest News: Watchdog barks / Marketplace manners / L’Accord sur le commerce intérieur / Cellphone cost calculator / Surveillance rules

PIAC barks: Feed the watchdog!

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) The Ottawa-based watchdog has been out there hounding the phone companies, snarling at the airlines, snapping at big bro and reading the fine print of interprovincial trade agreements. The dog is hungry! Help feed the Ottawa-based consumer protection group by making a charitable contribution at:
www.piac.ca/information
Or mail a cheque to: ONE Nicholas, Suite 1204, Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre – Le centre pour la défense de intéret publique is a registered charity BN: 130592405RR0001.

Option consommateurs: L’Accord sur le commerce intérieur

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) L’empressement de Québec à signer les nouvelles dispositions agricoles de l’Accord sur le commerce intérieur (ACI), demain, à Whitehorse, est déconcertant. Le gouvernement possède plusieurs avis lui démontrant qu’il s’apprête à vendre son âme agroalimentaire aux grands industriels canadiens. Les nouvelles dispositions, identiques à celles refusées par Québec en juillet 2008, laissent à l’abandon toutes les mesures favorisant la spécificité des aliments produits au Québec, les règles d’étiquetage, les normes de composition des aliments, la mise en marché collective et ordonnée, ainsi que la gestion de l’offre. En vertu du projet, toute province ou entreprise souhaitant commercialiser ses produits dans une autre province pourrait dorénavant se plaindre à l’ACI, dès qu’une mesure provinciale ou fédérale entraînerait un coût additionnel ou donnerait l’impression d’entraver ou de restreindre les occasions de commerce » François Décary-Gilardeau a écrit, avec autres, dans le Quotidien le 14 octobre.

Consumer protection: More than marketplace manners

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) “Consumer protection is not simply something nice to do if the industry says it can afford to do so. It is not simply requesting marketplace manners,” Michael Janigan said in testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on Oct. 7.
“Protecting consumers protects competition and efficiency in industry by eliminating conduct that is destructive of the objective of open markets through informed and empowered consumer choice. When we allow misleading or sharp practices to flourish, we reward flabby and inefficient providers,” Janigan said in an examination of Canada’s wireless sector.
“Tougher laws that curb identify theft, protect children from mobile marketers and promote greater competition among wireless providers are among the recommendations tabled by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre,” Tech News reported on Oct. 14.

Wanted: A cellphone cost calculator aimed to help people on a budget

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) “It’s been more than two months since Industry Canada killed the cellphone cost calculator that never saw the light of day. But that doesn’t mean Canadians are deprived of handy tools to let them find the right plans for them,” the Montreal Gazette reported on Oct. 9. The story identified four sites: Cell Plan Expert, Cellphones Etc., My Cell My Terms (currently only in Ontario) and Compare Cellular.
“John Lawford, lawyer for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said: (The sites) are not geared to comparing on price for basic features as the killed government one was – it was clearly aimed to help people on a budget. I have doubts they will be able to get enough data in the system quickly enough to keep even their own limited searches up to date. I don’t see how they are funded except advertising – they would have to reveal prominently if they get endorsements or freebies from the companies. I don’t expect either will last, but if they do, they are partial tools again, not there to assist low income or vulnerable consumers as the other government one clearly was,” the Gazette’s Roberto Rocha reported.

Blogger payola getting a pass in Canada

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) “U.S. authorities are using the threat of big fines to force bloggers to disclose their relationships with the companies they write about, but jurisidictional confusion means no similar mechanisms exist or are under consideration in Canada. The Federal Trade Commission on (Oct. 5.) announced new rules that require bloggers in the United States to disclose “material connections” — or “connections that consumers would not expect” — with the subjects they write about. The connections can take the form of outright payments, advertisements or free products given to the blogger by the subject,” CBC News reported.
“John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a consumer watchdog group, said that any existing rules are designed to only go after the advertisers themselves, and not middlemen such as bloggers. ”[The FTC] is trying to put liability on the blogger, which I think might scare the heck out of a bunch of individuals,” he said. While he hopes the new rules don’t cast a pall on genuine conversation online, Lawford said they should help to root out bloggers who are trying to dupe consumers — a situation that is definitely happening in Canada,” CBC’s Peter Nowak reported on Oct. 5.
www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/10/05/ftc-blogger-disclosure-standards-fines.html

Workplace surveillance rules and privacy rights: Hazy

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) On Oct. 4. the Ottawa Citizen reported: “Hidden cameras like the one put in an Ottawa ambulance should be a last resort in checking up on an employee’s conduct, but they aren’t absolutely banned, says an Ottawa privacy law expert. “I hate to tell you this, but it’s one of those hazy areas,” said John Lawford.
“Some uses of cameras in the workplace are definitely not allowed, said Lawford, a lawyer with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa. For instance, an employer can’t use video surveillance to measure an employee’s productivity. Other uses have been allowed, he said. For instance, a company that is suffering from thefts can install surveillance cameras in the area where thefts are occurring,” the Citizen’s Tom Spears reported.
“But he said isolating a single employee on camera is a greater privacy issue than setting up a camera to watch an area like the entrance to a building which many employees use. Rules can vary depending on whether a workplace is under federal or provincial jurisdiction,” the Citizen reported.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Ambulance+camera+hazy+legal+area+expert/2064476/story.html

Community Leadership in Justice Fellow: Michael Janigan

(PIAC 16/Oct/09) On Sept. 29 the Law Foundation of Ontario announced three individuals have been selected as Community Leadership in Justice Fellows for the 2009/2010 academic term. They are Richard Elliott, Executive Director, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; Michael Janigan, Executive Director, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC); and Allan McChesney, Senior Legal Researcher, Reach Canada.
“Michael Janigan will partner with Carleton University’s Department of Law. He will lecture and prepare course material that will engage students to do outreach work with citizen groups in the area of protecting the vulnerable consumer in the Canadian marketplace. His work will cover the principles of competition, regulation and general rules of consumer protection and involve practical involvement with issues arising in specific industries. Mr. Janigan will also liaise with other faculties at Carleton to share information that will be of assistance to his organization (PIAC) in the advancement of consumer advocacy,” the Law Foundation said.
www.lawfoundation.on.ca

Maple Leaf reçoit des milliers de demandes d’indemnisation: Option consommateurs

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) « Plus de 3 000 victimes des aliments contaminés de Maple Leaf, en 2008, auraient déjà déposé une réclamation, estime Option consommateurs, qui pense que d’autres personnes pourraient le faire si elles étaient mieux informées » Métro Montréal a rapporté le 22 septembre.
« Faire une réclamation n’est pas si difficile, d’après Stéphanie Poulin, responsable du service juridique à Option consommateurs. Les victimes n’ont pas forcément besoin de preuve d’achat ou d’emballage pour faire valoir leurs droits. Pour les symptômes, un formulaire de réclamation sous serment suffit pour réclamer jusqu’à 750 $. Attention toutefois, soumettre une fausse déclaration est un acte criminel » Mathias Marchal a rapporté.
http://www.reclamationmapleleaf.com

Supreme Court of Canada rules on $650 million overpayment of local phone bills

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) “Customers of Bell Canada and Telus Corp. may be getting refunds after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that about $300 million in overpayments by landline customers has to be reimbursed. But anti-poverty groups arguing for the rebate said that amount still isn’t enough. … Consumer groups including the National Anti-Poverty Organization appealed that ruling, saying all of the $650 million overpayment should be returned to customers,” the Vancouver Sun reported.
“On (Sept. 18) Canada’s top court upheld the CRTC’s decision, ruling unanimously that the country’s telecommunications regulator did not overstep its powers when it decided how telephone companies must spend the money. The consumer groups, represented by Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, were disappointed,” the Sun’s Fiona Anderson wrote.
“Our [complaint] is [that the companies] collected the money from local telephone service [and] broadband internet is an entirely separate and unregulated service that just happens to be carried on by the same companies,” Janigan said. Through their decision, the CRTC is acting like a government, taxing one service to subsidize another, he said. … Janigan predicted about 15 million current customers could receive one-time rebates of a few dollars to about $20,” the Sun reported.
www.vancouversun.com/news/Telus+Bell+ordered+refund+customers/2009701/story.html

Supreme Court decision: Amend CRTC’s power under Telecommunications Act

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) “(On Sept. 18) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the broad objectives of the Telecommunications Act that include fostering competition and development of the Canadian telecommunications system, allow the CRTC to overcome the historical regulatory presumption that the price of a service should be just and reasonable based on the costs to provide that service. The remarkable set of CRTC decisions that gave rise to the case was ruled permissible. In furtherance of such objectives, the Commission is now, in effect, free of judicial restraint to set rates and craft regulatory policies that may benefit some stakeholders and burden others, independent of service parameters,” Michael Janigan wrote in the Hill Times on Sept. 28
“From long experience, regulatory flexibility inevitably favours big industry players. Stripping long standing consumer rights from telecommunications customers reverses much of the public accountability efforts of the last century. The unforeseen carte blanche given to the CRTC by the Supreme Court of Canada must, in future, be addressed in the anticipated reform of the Telecommunications Act,” PIAC’s executive director wrote in the Hill Times.

TV Alliance promotes a better broadcasting system

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) The TV Alliance, a new ad hoc non partisan grass roots initiative was launched on Sept. 18. The mission is to promote a better and more transparent TV broadcasting and distribution system for Canadians. “The time has come to listen to Canadians” said alliance advisor Ian Morrison. “It’s a privilege to operate in Canada and those that benefit most have the greatest obligations to make the biggest returns for viewers.”
“The downloading on Canadians has to stop,” said alliance advisor Michael Janigan. “Legislators and regulators alike have to protect viewers from unfair billing practices.” Alliance advisor Anu Bose said, “We welcome the CRTC’s request to Heritage Canada for funding to facilitate consumer participation. A transparent process and funding are essential for a level playing field and meaningful consumer input.”
www.TValliance.ca

Ontario energy rate hikes would ‘enrich’ investors: PIAC

(PIAC 16/Oct/09) On Sept. 23 the Toronto Star reported: “Utilities in Ontario want to charge you more for the energy they deliver so they can guarantee higher returns to their investors, and they’re asking the province’s energy regulator to make it so. Collectively, it could result in up to $400 million more a year being drawn from the pockets of electricity and natural gas consumers, according to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an Ottawa-based consumer protection group. “This is a bad, bad time to be looking at these increases,” executive director Michael Janigan said.
“ …Janigan said the industry needs to roll with the punches, just as homeowners, businesses and large industrial energy consumers are expected to do. He said the regulated energy companies weren’t complaining two or three years ago when capital was cheap and the energy board could have just as easily adjusted returns downward. “These utilities are earning what they should be earning,” he said in an interview. “We don’t see the necessity for change that might levy further hardship on businesses and homeowners,” the Star’s Tyler Hamilton wrote.
www.thestar.com/business/article/699450

Aviation Safety News: Watchdogs keep watch

(PIAC 15/Oct/09) On Oct. 8 Aviation Safety News reported on tougher rules for fatigue, airline emissions, FAA debris spotters, Who is in charge of aviation safety, TSB raises concerns about aging pilots, Airports cut back on security and poisoned by fumes. Aviation Safety News is a project of Transport 2000 Canada and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Public Interest Advocacy Centre monitors aviation legislation. PIAC has standing before the Canadian Transportation Agency and the courts. Transport 2000 Canada is represented on the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council. The Aviation Safety News readers’ group includes top aviation safety authorities, industry and civil service professionals.
aviation.web.net
 

Ontario Energy Board Stakeholder Conference this week to tackle request for big rate increases

(PIAC 12/09/09)—This week, an Ontario Energy Board panel will study the request of Ontario’s natural gas and electricity distribution companies for higher rates to compensate their public and private ownership with a bigger return on investment. The request comes about as a result of the economic downturn and may mean that energy customers in Ontario could see rate increases to cover the estimated annual additional $250-400 million sought by the sector to meet investor expectations.
“The demands of electric distributors like Hydro One and Toronto Hydro as well as natural gas distribution companies like Enbridge and Union Gas are being resisted by a range of consumer organizations including residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Coupled with the financial demands the Green Energy Act will place on Ontario consumers, it seems out of place to be considering bigger profits for the suppliers,” said Michael Janigan, counsel for the Vulnerable Energy Consumer Coalition, a coalition representing low income customers, seniors and tenants, which is a party to the proceedings.
The OEB Stakeholder Conference (OEB File 2009-0084) is expected to last all week.

Public Interest News: Supreme Court decision today / Curb those extra fees / Basic telecom / La manière forte / Industry cell calculator / More TV fees / Trade deals: No texts

$650 million overcharge: Supreme Court decision expected today

(PIAC 18/09/09) Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, will be available to comment on the “Deferral Accounts” decision expected to be handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada today. Janigan, acting for Canada Without Poverty (formerly the National Anti-Poverty Organization) and the Consumers Association of Canada represented the claim of about 10 million consumers to the money overcharged.
“In 2002, the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission required larger telecommunications firms such as Bell to charge its customers more so smaller firms could enter the telephone market. That money was put in a deferral account. The CRTC decided in 2006 that $650 million in the account should be used to improve high-speed Internet service for rural communities,” the Sault Star reported on Sept. 5.
“Appeals have tied up the cash since then. The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to announce its decision as to how the money can be spent later this month. Critics say the money should be returned to telephone customers who faced higher bills earlier this decade,” the Star reported.

Curb those extra fees: PIAC report calls for consumer protection legislation

(PIAC 18/09/09) “The Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre is calling for the elimination of the slate of extra charges that are levied by a variety of industries, including financial services firms. “These charges usually represent expenses that are really just part of the cost of doing business,” notes Michael Janigan, executive director of the PIAC, and author of the report. ‘There’s no reason to have them presented like they are mandatory costs passed through to customers separately,’” Investment Executive reported on Sept. 16
“The report argues that these practices harm consumers by misrepresenting actual costs, preventing comparison shopping, harming competition and impeding efficiency, and it calls on policymakers to put an end to the practice. “From a consumer standpoint, the most preferable course of action would be an outright ban on the practice,” it says. “At a minimum, consumer protection legislation should be introduced requiring any advertising or representation to include an ‘all-in’ price that is prominently featured,” Investment Executive’s James Langton reported.
The report, “The Practice of Extra Charges In the Canadian Marketplace”, is available at piac.ca.

CRTC review of basic telecom services: Add high-speed PIAC to argue

(PIAC 18/09/09) “The CRTC is reviewing its oversight of basic telecommunications services and is calling on the public to suggest what it should require of providers. … The CRTC currently requires companies such as Bell, Telus, MTS and SaskTel to provide basic phone service to all Canadians. Part of phone providers’ annual revenues go to a fund that subsidizes the cost of providing service to remote and rural communities. The CRTC’s review will look at whether it should continue to enforce those two requirements, and whether it should be expanded to include other companies, such as firms that wholesale services from the likes of Bell and Telus,” CBC News reported on Sept. 11.
“Aside from the potential dropping or expansion of existing requirements, the review could also see new services added to the list of basic obligations. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a consumer watchdog, says it plans to argue that high-speed internet should be considered a basic service,” CBC’s Peter Nowak reported.
The CRTC will decide what issues will be on table for further discussion by the middle of March.

Bell Canada: Option consommateurs dénonce la manière forte

(PIAC 18/09/09) « Le géant de la téléphonie Bell Canada soulève une fois de plus l’ire des groupes de défense des consommateurs en forçant la main depuis quelques mois de ses clients pour qu’ils souscrivent, à fort prix, à une garantie prolongée lors de l’achat d’un cellulaire. Une pratique commerciale contestable, face à laquelle les adeptes du sans-fil devraient s’insurger, estime Option consommateurs, » Le Devoir a rapporté le 11 septembre.
« Nous sommes devant un cas flagrant de vente sous pression d’une garantie dont le consommateur n’a pas forcément besoin, puisqu’il est déjà protégé par les garanties légales prévues au Code civil», a résumé hier l’avocate Stéphanie Poulin, du regroupement consumériste. «Bien sûr, rien n’interdit à Bell d’agir de la sorte, mais ce n’est pas une raison pour l’accepter et surtout ne pas faire part de son mécontentement sur la façon dont Bell Canada traite ses clients. »
« Pour Option Consommateur, cette vente sous pression d’une garantie est «ironique» alors que Québec se prépare à réformer sa Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC) dans les prochaines semaines. La refonte, inscrite dans le projet de loi 60, vise entre autres à mettre un peu d’ordre dans la vente de ce type de garanties prolongées, vente souvent problématique, » Fabien Deglise a rapporté.

CRTC doesn’t have the power to regulate the way most people want

(PIAC 18/09/09) “Why is THE CRTC so powerless to effectively regulate Now Magazine asked in its Sept. 10 edition. “A part of the problem lies in the outdated documents the CRTC consults. The two documents, The Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, are both over a decade and a half old, with the former being conceived in 1968, long before the internet existed… As crucial as internet services are, our ruling documents contain nothing about the rights of the consumer or reasonable rates.”
“’The Broadcasting Act reflects effectively the policy concern at the time and that is whether or not they would carry enough Canadian content,’ says Michael Janigan. ‘Nobody ever imagined the idea that it would become an important service or a platform for the launch of other services like the internet’,” Now’s Matthew Kim wrote.
“CRTC doesn’t have the power to regulate in the way most people want them to regulate,” says Janigan.

Industry kills cellphone price calculator

(PIAC 18/09/09) “PIAC lawyer John Lawford tested a prototype of the tool and found that discount brands like Fido, Solo and Koodo, as well as resellers like Virgin Mobile and President’s Choice always came out on top when sorted by price,” the Montreal Gazette reported on Sept. 3.
“’The big flagship brands never came up, unless you said you’re a heavy user,’ Lawford said, suggesting this was a motivation for the carriers to oppose the calculator.
“Canada has one of the lowest wireless penetration in the developed world, which has been blamed on low competition and high prices. PIAC argues the tool would have encouraged more Canadians to buy cellphones, a claim rejected by (Industry Minster) Clement’s office and the CWTA (wireless industry lobby group),” the Gazette’s Roberto Rocha reported.

TV networks more commercials: Cable, satellite customers fees upped

(PIAC 18/09/09) “Conventional television broadcasters are free as of Tuesday to air as many advertisements as they wish, up from a maximum of 15 minutes per hour under the old system that died on Aug. 31. And beginning on their September bills, cable customers will start to see a new line on their monthly invoice amounting to a 1.5 per cent increase. The additional cash will go into the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF),” Canwest News Service reported on Sept. 1.
“Michael Janigan, executive director of the consumer rights group Public Interest Advocacy Centre, says the current predicament of ever-escalating bills speaks to the failure of the CRTC. “The problem is they’re doing it in the context of circumstances where you’ve got a broadcasting industry that is not truly competitive. The commission will do pretty much everything except to effectively regulate the cable and satellite (industries). That’s the nub of the problem,” Canwest’s Sarah Schmidt reported.

Wireless code of conduct: Very little substance

(PIAC 18/09/09) “Canadian cellphone companies are giving customers the ability to refuse mid-term changes to their contracts under a new wireless code of conduct. The code, introduced by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association on Tuesday (Sept. 1), promises to let customers cancel their contracts without early termination fees if the carrier makes material changes to terms — or customers can refuse the changes outright,” CBC News reported on Sept. 1
“Consumer advocates don’t think much of the new code. “I think the privacy guarantee isn’t anything. Just saying they have privacy policies is no help whatever,” said John Lawford, a lawyer with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. There is “very little substance here…. At this juncture it’s too general and vague to really be of use,” CBC News’ Peter Nowak reported.
The code was announced a day after it was revealed that the CWTA, the wireless industry’s lobby group, had helped persuade the federal government to scrap a taxpayer-funded online cellphone rate calculator.

Interprovincial trade deals: Where are the texts of the agreements?

(PIAC 18/09/09) “Janet Lo, counsel at PIAC and author of “The Consumer Perspective of Trade & Commerce Powers,” says the goal of removing interprovincial trade barriers should be greater competition and reduced prices. However, she questions whether consumers are being left out of a process that seems to be completed by the time the politicians in the jurisdiction involved announce the deals,” Canadian Lawyer reported on Aug. 31.
“’TILMA [Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement] was introduced and the last year we’ve heard about the agreement of enhancing the Ontario and Quebec economic region, we’ve heard about the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick pair, and we’ve heard about the Western Economic Partnership,” says Lo. “But these are all sort of announced by the premiers and draft agreements are yet to come up and after they are announced we are sort of left wondering what is this about? What exactly is this going to accomplish? What is the text?’”
“The report favours the engagement of interest groups from the consumer side to go along with those on the corporate side. Lo says the engagement needs to be through all processes of the trade agreement, including dispute mechanisms. The report favours increased oversight at the federal government level to protect standards including consumer safety,” Canadian Lawyer’s Kelly Harris reported.

Industry codes of conduct: Little value

(PIAC 18/09/09) “Canada’s mobile phone companies will be required to make sure consumers understand their contracts when they buy a cellphone under a new code of conduct. The code of conduct also says cellphone companies are to “communicate with their customers in a way they understand,” the Canadian Press reported on Sept. 1.
Quebec consumer group Option Consommateurs said the industry shouldn’t be coming up with its own code of conduct. “We’ve been wrestling with a code of conduct for the banks, for credit cards, nowhere have we seen it work because the codes of conduct are devised by the supplier,” spokeswoman Anu Bose said from the organization’s Ottawa office.
Bose said consumers “already have to go through the maze that is the complaints procedure” and then have to spend more time taking the complaint to another level,” CP’s Luann Lasalle reported.

Stop fraudsters with limit on telephone special services charges

(PIAC 18/09/09) “The CRTC is being asked to halt the growing problem of tele-hackers who set up fake 1-900 numbers in order to rack up large telephone bills from unsuspecting individuals and businesses. … The CRTC looked into the issue four years ago without creating new regulations, but a consumer advocacy group believes the time has come to take a second look,” the Canadian Press reported on Aug. 20.
“The bottom line is that the telephone companies are best able to control activity on their networks and protect all of us,” said Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. A CRTC spokesman said the commission would look into the matter once it has reviewed the request,” CP reported.