Media Advisory and Backgrounder: Affordable Access Coalition Regarding Upcoming CRTC Decision on Basic Telecommunications Services

Media Advisory and Backgrounder
PIAC will be available to comment on upcoming CRTC decision on broadband internet
(OTTAWA) At 4:00 PM EST December 21 the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) will issue its decision on its Review of basic telecommunications services.
The proceeding, initiated in 2015 and culminating with a public hearing in April 2016, was a broad review of basic telecommunications services in Canada, including whether broadband internet access should be considered “basic telecommunications services” and therefore available to all Canadians, and whether funding support is necessary to make sure all Canadians have access to basic telecom services. The proceeding was conducted in reference to the Telecommunications Act, which requires the CRTC to exercise its powers and perform its duties with a view to implementing the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives, which includes the rendering of reliable and affordable telecommunications services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural areas in all regions of Canada, and responding to the economic and social requirements of users of telecommunications services.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) was part of the “Affordable Access Coalition”, along with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Canada (ACORN Canada), the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia; and the National Pensioners Federation.
Geoff White, PIAC’s External Counsel and co-counsel to the Affordable Access Coalition, will be at the CRTC advance “lockup” analyzing the decision and available for comment on-site at 4:00 PM.
Supported by two Environics surveys of Canadians, and a report from an expert on how other jurisdictions ensure all of their citizens have access to affordable telecommunications services, the Affordable Access Coalition argued that broadband access is without a doubt a “basic” and essential telecommunications service, and that the “basic” broadband speed is at least 10 megabits per second (Mbps) download speed and may easily be 25 Mbps by 2020. This “basic” speed is the speed a household needs to meaningfully participate in society. Because the Coalition’s evidence indicated that not all Canadians have access to that basic speed, either because broadband is not available where they live, or because it is unaffordable to low-income Canadians, the Coalition proposed two subsidies to support broadband availability and affordability. This decision may lay the foundation for the deployment of higher-speed broadband to rural areas and a subsidy to make Internet more affordable for low income Canadians.
Media Advisory and Backgrounder re CRTC decision on basic telecommunications service FINAL
For more information, please see the attached backgrounder, or contact:
John Lawford Executive Director and General Counsel, PIAC
Co-counsel, Affordable Access Coalition
(613) 562-4002 ×25
jlawford@piac.ca
Geoff White External Counsel, PIAC
Co-counsel, Affordable Access Coalition
(613) 612-1190
geoff@geoffwhitelaw.ca

Survey Finds Canadians Want Can Con To Succeed, Differ On How to Support It

PIAC files submission to Heritage Canada’s Canadian Content consultations:
Canadian content should be supported but not by forfeiting affordable access to broadband
OTTAWA, December 7, 2016 – A survey filed by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) in its submission to the Minister of Heritage’s Consultation on Canadian Content in a Digital World shows Canadians want Canadian content (Can Con) to succeed globally but differ on how and what type of Can Con should be supported.
The national survey of 1,200 English-speaking Canadians found the majority of Anglophone Canadians watch “some” or “very little” film or television made by Canadians but still want Can Con to succeed globally – 73% of respondents believe the top priority should be to create Can Con so it can be “sold to the rest of the world” rather than “creating Canadian content for Canadians.”
When asked for the best tool to support Can Con, Canadians were split but younger respondents in particular tended to favour greater promotion and marketing of Canadian films and television.
Figure 1. Best tool to support Canadian Content (by age)

While many Canadians would still like to see ongoing support for dramas and documentaries, a growing number of Canadians, including young Canadians and some regional communities, believe local communities and minority groups, such as ethnocultural and First Nations groups, should be given close attention.
Figure 2. First and second priorities for support for types of Canadian programming
 
“Our survey shows Canadian think Can Con is important, but the question is how to support it moving into the future,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel to PIAC. “We believe no policy tool should hinder affordable access to broadband internet because Canadians, including low-income Canadians, need the internet to participate, connect and innovate. So, a levy on Internet Service Providers to support Can Con funding could actually hurt the success of Canadian content—that proposal should be out of the question.”
When asked who should support Canadian content, the top answers given by respondents were: Canadian television broadcasters (81% support), cable and satellite TV providers (72%), and online video streaming services (64%).
“Canadians see traditional and to some extent online media players as having the most ‘skin in the game,’ so maybe they should have greater responsibilities to support Can Con,” said Alysia Lau, Legal Counsel at PIAC. “However, we should look at the current policy tools first and figure out what works and what doesn’t, rather than simply talking about more funding.”
PIAC’s full submission to the Canadian Content in a Digital World consultation can be found here.
 
For more information, please contact:
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ×25
jlawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
Alysia Lau
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ×38
alau@piac.ca
www.piac.ca

CCTS Annual Report Suggests Participating Service Providers Won’t Change Policies Despite CCTS Rulings

OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) believes evidence in the 2015-2016 Annual Report of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) released today suggest some service providers continue employing practices that violate the spirit of the Wireless Code of Conduct, to the detriment of Canadian consumers.
These questionable practices include:

• At least one major wireless provider appears to not cap data and roaming charges under shared data plans once they reach $50 and $100 respectively but instead multiplies this threshold by the number of devices activated on the share plan.
• Another continues to charge customers for the entire month when they cancel service before the end of their monthly bill cycle, instead of charging only for the period until cancellation.

The Annual Report noted the full value of compensation received by customers under the CCTS was $3.44 million in 2015-2016.  “The CCTS works, but only for those few Canadians who know it exists,” noted PIAC Research Analyst Jonathan Bishop. “Service providers are supposed to promote the CCTS, but it is open question how well this is done,” Bishop continued.
According the CCTS Public Awareness Plan, service providers are required to do the following:

• place on their websites a notice about CCTS and a link to the CCTS website.
• to place notices about CCTS on customers’ bills four times per year.
• to notify the customer about the right of recourse to CCTS following the second level of escalation in the company’s complaints process.

PIAC encourages the CCTS to regularly assess its participants’ compliance with the promotional obligations. In March 2016, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) also urged the CCTS to collect this compliance information and publish the results on an annual basis.
For more information please contact:
 
John Lawford
Executive Director
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002 x25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
http://www.piac.ca
 
Jonathan Bishop
Research & Parliamentary Analyst
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002×23
jbishop@piac.ca
– 30 –

PIAC's Annual Dinner to be Held Thursday, November 24th at the Novotel Hotel

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(PIAC)
Annual Dinner
Presents

Featured Speaker
Jean-Pierre Blais
Chairman, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Novotel Hotel – Ottawa, Morning Light Room – (3rd floor)

The Evening’s Events
6:00 – 6:50 p.m.
Cocktails (Cash Bar)

7:00-7:30
Featured Speaker
Jean-Pierre Blais

7:40 p.m.
Dinner Served
Includes 2 glasses of wine

Throughout the evening there will be a draws for prizes
Also Featuring Manhattan Glow

The registration form can be downloaded here.
Cheques should be made payable to:
PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE
Please return the form to:
Fax to: 613-562-0007
email to: dbrady@piac.ca
Thank you.

Affordability of Communications Services for Low-Income Canadians Risks Increasing Digital Divide

New PIAC report: “No Consumer Left Behind, Part II: Is There a Communications Affordability Problem in Canada?”
OTTAWA, September 15, 2016 – There is evidence many low income Canadians struggle to afford their communications services, concludes a report released today by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). The report, entitled, No Consumer Left Behind Part II: Is There A Communications Affordability Problem in Canada? suggests that as the cost of communications services continues to rise, a growing number of Canadian households struggle to retain their communications services. According to Statistics Canada, 13.5% or about 4.64 million Canadians were considered low-income in 2013.
“Our study confirms an affordability problem exists for many Canadians who need to be connected to broadband and other communications services,” said John Lawford, Executive Director & General Counsel to PIAC.
Low-income survey respondents viewed communications services to be as important as other household goods and services traditionally viewed as essential. Home internet service, in particular, was perceived to be just as important as health care, coming second only to food and housing, and considered more important than transportation or clothing.
According to PIAC’s 2015 report No Consumer Left Behind Part I, Canadians should spend no more than 4% to 6% of their household income on communications services. However, a survey of 752 low-income Canadians who use the Internet found they spend an estimated 8% of their income on communications expenditures, with some families spending closer to 10%. In addition, the survey found:

• About one-half of low-income respondents had to trade off other household goods or services in order to pay their communications bills—almost 1 in 5 (17%) indicated they went without other essential goods, such as food, medicine or clothing in order to pay a communications bill; 1 in 10 respondents (11%) ultimately cancelled a communications service.
• Despite this, about 20% of low-income subscribers still struggled to pay their communications bills in the past year, having to make partial payments, suspend or disconnect the service, commit to a payment plan, or be referred to debt collectors.
• Of low-income respondents who wanted another communications service, 84% cited affordability as a main reason for not being able to subscribe to that service.

To address this affordability challenge, PIAC recommends the establishment of a National Affordability Plan to ensure broadband Internet service is both available and affordable for low-income households in Canada. Addressing affordability requires a multi-pronged approach which includes both public and private funding. The report also recommends the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) spearhead affordability initiatives, with federal and provincial political support and coordination. Specifically, PIAC proposes a flexible end-user subsidy would most effectively address the affordability of communications services by allowing low-income Canadians to make telecommunications choices that best suit their needs.
“Canadian policy makers must ensure low-income families will not be left behind as Canada moves forward in a digital reality,” noted Alysia Lau, Legal Counsel at PIAC and co-author of the report. “Otherwise a growing number of Canadian families may be forced to make difficult choices, such as retaining home internet service by sacrificing the quality of food they provide for their families,” concluded Ms. Lau.
To see the full report, please consult the following link:
No Consumer Left Behind Part II: Is There A Communications Affordability Problem in Canada?
To view the report in French, please consult the following link:
Aucun consommateur laissé pour compte, partie II: Le caractère abordable des communications pose-t-il un problème au Canada?
PIAC received funding from Innovation, Science and Economic Development’s (ISED) Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations to prepare the report. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily those of ISED or the Government of Canada.
 
For more information please contact:
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext.25
lawford@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
Alysia Lau
Legal Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
(613) 562-4002 ext. 38
alau@piac.ca
www.piac.ca
 
 

PIAC files CRTC Part I application regarding Québec Bill 74 and purported ISP blocking

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre today filed the attached Part I application regarding Quebec Bill 74, Loi concernant principalement la mise en oeuvre de certaines dispositions du discours sur le Budget du 26 mars 2015, and blocking of certain websites associated with online gambling.
The application argues that Bill 74 is outside Quebec’s jurisdiction by attempting to encroach on federal jurisdiction over telecommunications. The bill is also inconsistent with past CRTC decisions on website blocking under the Telecommunications Act and infringes on the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
“Bill 74 sets up a dangerous precedent where internet service providers would be responsible for policing the websites their customers access,” said John Lawford, Executive Director & General Counsel to PIAC. “If this is allowed, where will it stop?”
Electronic service of this application has been made to the respondent WSPs and ISPs operating, to our knowledge, in Quebec. Courtesy copies have been sent by e-mail to the Quebec Attorney General, Minister of Finance and Minister of Public Safety, as well as the Attorney General of Canada.
Cover letter filed with CRTC (26 July 2016) confirming service on attorneys-general of Notice of Constitutional Question (with proof of service), CRTC procedural letter, the PIAC application and appendices now effected.
For more information, please contact:
Geoff White
Counsel to PIAC
(613) 612-1190
geoff@geoffwhitelaw.ca
John Lawford
Executive Director & General Counsel to PIAC
(613) 562-4002 x25
lawford@piac.ca
 

Summer 2016 Newsletter: Basically Broadband

The communication needs of Canadians have changed a great deal over the years. In the 1990’s, we saw an individual telephone line become a basic service as a result of a CRTC hearing. Now, in 2016, the CRTC is once again looking at the basic communication needs of Canadians, and specifically, whether the internet is essential and affordable.
The CRTC’s Basic Telecommunications Services (BTS) Hearing was a 3 week hearing which began on April 11th in Gatineau, Québec. During the hearing, the CRTC heard from a wide array of stakeholders regarding three specific issues: whether the internet was essential for all Canadians to paricipate in Canadian society, whether it was accessible to all, and whether it is affordable. The first half of the hearing primarily featured groups arguing that the internet should be an “essential” service. PIAC, as part of the Affordable Access Coalition (AAC), was among those arguing for this distinction.
The AAC, regarding access, proposed a “Broadband Deployment Subsidy Mechanism” which would have telecom companies put aside approximately 1% of their revenues each year into a fund. The fund would then be distributed through a competitive bidding process to companies willing to serve areas where broadband access was “above cost” and therefore unlikely to be served with broadband. Additionally regarding affordability, the AAC proposed an Affordability Funding Mechanism levied at a similar percentage, but which would be reserved for low-income Canadian households who subscribe to telecom services – so that they could apply the discount towards one of those services and make them more affordable.
“The proposal we put forward for the affordability subsidy doesn’t tell the companies what price to offer their services at. It is just a discount available to qualifying consumers for either $10.50 or $20.50 off whichever plans are available. This proposal leaves the subscriber to find the best package for them,” noted John Lawford, Executive Director of PIAC. “If there’s nothing affordable available in the market, we believe companies would design more low income packages once they see a subsidy is attached. Our hope is that they will design something that will meet the required speed the CRTC decides, and that would fall into the $30 or $40 range. If you make it attractive for service providers to design something on their own that will satisfy the market need, we anticipate that they’ll actually promote it and will want to sign people up. If you just tell them to provide a $30 plan some will be losing money, which means they will resist signing up low income customers.”
In addition to presenting a thorough plan for subsidizing broadband access and deployment, ACORN Canada, as a member of the AAC also presented at these CRTC hearings. Some of ACORN Canada’s low-income members spoke about their own struggles with the affordability of services and their growing dependence on broadband. The personal stories appeared to have a great impact on the Commission and played a part in a significant turn in the hearings.
Just before many of the big telecom companies were to present their views on broadband and affordability, CRTC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais stated that, in the CRTC’s view, broadband was vital for Canadians, the same way that the phone was in 1993.
“Individual Canadians came to testify that they did not choose to face life in poverty or challenged by physical or mental disabilities. Yet governments at all levels have chosen to ask these citizens to seek government services through digital platforms,” CRTC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais stated before the second week of the April hearing. “Vulnerable individuals burdened by social and economic insecurity came to testify that the calculation for the level of social assistance available from governance does not take into consideration the cost of connectivity that is nevertheless essential to schedule medical appointments, ensure success in school for their children, facilitate searching for a job, and to do many of the online activities many of the rest of us take for granted.”
The Commission’s apparent acceptance of broadband as an essential service means Canada can finally move forward and fix what has been a great burden on low-income consumers. The sacrifices many were making to afford their communications service, including foregoing medication or dipping into food budgets, was proof enough for the CRTC that the internet was no longer just entertainment.
“The internet is already the place to access information, we’re only now catching up. Services such as Telehealth and educational videos; Health Canada is putting video info online. Service Providers have argued that video is nice to have, but it’s not basic,” Geoff White, Counsel to PIAC points out. “When the Commission said ‘all Canadians should have access to all telephone services’, they didn’t pay attention to how much time you spent chit chatting with your friends, so we’re saying you shouldn’t be looking at how much time is spent on so-called trivial things. It’s patronizing. It’s a no brainer that high speed internet is essential. You can barely get by without it. That’s why we put those two proposals on the table to fund deployment to high cost areas and to help low-income households out.”
With the hearings now finished, the CRTC has a lot information to consider in making its final decisions on the basic service. PIAC and the AAC are hopeful that the focus of the CRTC’s efforts in this area continues to be getting low-income Canadians the assistance they need so as to be able to fully participate in society by having access to the same basic services as all other Canadians. A decision on Canada’s broadband future is likely to be issued by early 2017.

Summer 2016 Newsletter: Zero Rating Isn't Free

In our last newsletter, we looked at an application filed against Vidéotron and it’s “Unlimited Music” service. PIAC, along with the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC and the Consumers’ Association of Canada argued in their application that Vidéotron was showing unduly preferential treatment by allowing certain streaming music providers to have their data not count against a subscriber’s cap. This application has now grown into a much larger hearing.
The “Unlimited Music” plans made by Vidéotron tout free streaming music, but only for audio, and only if you were signed up for the ‘right’ services; Spotify, Stingray, and Google Music are a few examples. There is no question that streaming music has grown exponentially in the past few years, and certainly giving customers ‘free’ data seems like a positive for consumers, but the problem is much deeper and has a lot to do with a popular current topic: Zero Rating.
“Zero rating isn’t free,” asserts John Lawford, Executive Director of PIAC. “It relies on unjust discrimination against other types of internet traffic and against other  audio or video services that are not desirable partners of the ISP who zero rates. That costs everyone in terms of innovation, competion and most importantly, allows the ISPs to maintain data caps.”
This isn’t the first time that PIAC has intervened when a provider has threatened discrimination against certain types of internet traffic (sometimes described as a violation of “net neutrality” – but in fact a long-standing prohibition against unjust discrimination in telecommunications law) with a streaming service. Bell Mobility made available a similar offer with its ‘Mobile TV’ application. Customers were allowed viewing of Bell owned or controlled streaming video, at reduced prices, so long as it was seen through Bell’s app. In that case, the CRTC ruled Bell’s Mobile TV app left competitors with an undue disadvantage, as Bell was showing preference to its own services over the data of any other party providing data (including competing content), a violation of the Telecommunications Act. That case was recently upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, and PIAC contends in its application that it is effectively similar to Vidéotron’s current program.
“By allowing unlimited streaming of specific types of online content for certain providers, Vidéotron is unduly favouring itself and its streaming partners,” says Geoff White, Counsel to PIAC. “Vidéotron is treating a very small subset of internet traffic differently. They’re doing so in such a way that, since they aren’t being charged any rates or overages, customers are obviously going to favour that content. Vidéotron’s role as a traditional telecom provider in the eyes of telecom law, is to just pass information from point A to point B. Now they are inserting themselves in an editorial manner, in a way that is helping move end-users towards certain content by favoring the way in which it’s treated from a billing perspective.“
Now that the CRTC is taking an even broader look at net neutrality and how data flows to customers in its newly announced hearing, it may be time to look at another troubling aspect of these types of services: the data cap as a whole. Providers set caps for monthly data allotmentsfor consumers for a majority of plans, meaning customers have to worry about overage fees if they exceed their monthly cap. Now, with ‘Unlimited Music’, it seems to point to these caps being an artificial problem which they’ve provided a solution for. Is the data scarce, and therefore in need of a cap to keep customers within a reasonable ‘budget’ of data, or do these unlimited streaming plans unintentionally show that data is maybe not as scarce as providers advertise? Consumers and net neutrality advocates would likely much prefer to be able to experience new media and content without being herded in the direction of companies that make deals with application providers.
PIAC hopes that the precedent set in the Bell Mobile TV case is extended as the CRTC takes a broader look at differential internet pricing. Consumers should have access to the internet that isn’t diverted by third-party money. PIAC has filed initial comments for the hearing in October and hopes to see a decision in early to mid 2017.

Summer 2016 Newsletter: More Fibre In Your Diet

There will be competition in the internet market as fibre is rolled out in Canada. The Federal Cabinet recently denied a Petition to overturn the CRTC’s decision to allow competitor access to Bell Canada’s fibre network. PIAC participated in the initial hearings regarding wholesale fibre access for third parties, and also acted when Bell asked the Governor in Council to reverse the decision in a petition filed October of 2015.
In the wholesale fibre access hearings at the CRTC, PIAC and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) argued that consumers would benefit from mandated open access to the established telecom providers’ fibre lines because it would drive competition from third party providers and encourage more reasonable pricing of high-speed internet access now and into the future. Without access to those lines, many third-party internet providers would be left in the dust in terms of internet speed. The cost of building a parallel fibre network for one of the non-incumbent internet providers would be astronomical and impossible.
Bell argued that for them to build out their fibre network, they need customers to subscribe not just to their internet service, but also their TV and phone services. In their Petition, they argued that being paid for wholesale internet access only can’t make up for the potential revenue loss of signing up customers for all three of the services, which is the basis on which they are building their fibre-to-the-home network. They also stated that mandating wholesale fibre access for these smaller providers would likely cause them to scale back the building process. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
“We argued that Bell will continue to build because fibre-to-the-home is much faster than copper based networks. Bell has  so much content it’s producing that it can sell down those lines, so they’re going to do it anyway.” noted John Lawford, PIAC’s Executive Director. “Bell is still being paid a wholesale rate which will be breaking even plus extra on the internet connection. What they want to use it for over and above that connection is irrelevant.”
Bell has benefitted from rights and certain protections to build up their infrastructure, for example, access to rights of way so that they can afford to efficiently invest and build their fibre-to-the-home network. Smaller telecom companies simply cannot gain similar access at this point. The CRTC noted this, just as they did in the past wholesale hearing, and made a sound decision to create a competitive market for fibre speeds.
“The CRTC very clearly and responsibly consulted on the issues, and considered all of the evidence and views before it,” said Geoff White, Counsel to PIAC. “The Cabinet standing behind the CRTC, instead of second-guessing it, is the right public policy, and the best consumer outcome.”
It could take roughly a year to set tariffs for fibre-to-the-home wholesale rates, but once those are set, many additional providers will begin offering fibre speeds to Canadians. The additional competition means it won’t just be the big names setting rates, but we hope, a more competitive market.

Manitoba consumers fear price hikes, data caps if BCE buys MTS: Poll

Tuesday, 7 June 2016 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TORONTO – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (Ottawa), on behalf of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, and the Public Interest Law Centre (Manitoba), on behalf of the Manitoba branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, today released a poll of Manitobans showing high levels of concern with the proposed takeover of Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. (MTS) by BCE Inc. (BCE). In particular, consumers have fears that the merger will raise prices for wireless and internet service and usher in a market with expensive data caps in Manitoba.
If the deal goes through, 53% of present MTS customers said prices for Internet access would rise (only 8% said they would drop); 54% thought wireless prices would rise (8% drop).  More alarmingly, 75% expect data caps will be introduced by the new BCE-MTS in home internet service and 74% believe unlimited data plans will disappear for BCE-MTS wireless customers.
A majority of all poll respondents believe their overall communications bill would rise (51% expect a price rise versus 10% who expect a drop).  Moreover, 59% disagreed that BCE’s takeover of MTS would lead to accelerated high-speed Internet rollout in rural Manitoba.
“Manitoba consumers think the BCE offer for MTS will hurt them where it matters most – in the wallet”, said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel to PIAC, “They know the deal is bad news for Manitoba and they’ll lose the competitive market that’s delivered low prices and unlimited Internet.”
The poll was conducted by Environics via an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) telephone survey of 1,048 residents of Manitoba age 18 and over on May 31 and June 1, 2016. 789 surveys were conducted by landline and 259 were completed by cell phone.  The margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points (at the 95% confidence level).
A copy of the Environics poll (Excel format) and a summary of main findings (Powerpoint) are available on the PIAC website (www.piac.ca).
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
(613) 562-4002 x25 (office)
jlawford@piac.ca
Mr. Lawford is available for in-person interviews at the 2016 Canadian Telecom Summit at the Toronto Congress Centre, June 7 and 8.
Bruce Cran
President
Consumers’ Association of Canada
(604) 418-8359
bcranbiz@telus.net
– 30 –