Let’s Talk TV Day 4

Day 4 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (“CRTC”) Let’s Talk TV hearing was largely focused on issues with back-end business dealings in the ‘wholesale’ market, between broadcasting distributors (such as a local cable company) and programming distributors (i.e., content owners). It was suggested many times today that the unhealthy wholesale market has significance consequences for the lack of choice consumers face at the retail level.
These issues included the control of content rights and the method of reflecting that control in distribution agreements, specifically the problems with and appropriateness of: penetration-based rate cards; volume-based licensing; fair penetration-rate curves; make-whole clauses; most-favoured nation requirements and arbitration and dispute resolution processes.
The wholesale market in the broadcasting system is particularly complicated due to various levels of vertical integration. For example, vertically integrated companies like Rogers and Shaw, which spoke today, produce, purchase and distribute content. Both companies cited similar problems in negotiating agreements between each other, and especially rival vertically integrated media conglomerate BCE (Bell).
Additionally, there are ‘pure distributors’ such as independent broadcasting distribution undertaking (“BDU”) Cogeco and the various members of Canadian Cable Systems Alliance (representing 117 small independent BDUs across Canada), both of which also spoke today. They cited the same issues as their larger vertically integrated competitors, but with several added issues that result from their lack of leverage against these larger competitors.
The Canadian Network Operators Consortium also spoke today, representing a slew of independent Internet Service Providers, many of whom are interested in, or who are, offering television service through IPTV similar to TELUS’s Optik TV, but who cite additional challenges due to telecom-related regulations.
Further complicating the issue are the pure content creators, such as Insight Production Company Ltd, L’Association québécoise de la production médiatique, and the Writers Guild of Canada; all of whom spoke today as well. To them, the current system is working: Canadian content is being produced; any big changes to the system would upset the careful balance that has developed in the industry over the years. They generally echoed the comments of similarly-placed groups before them: simultaneous substitution is still an important revenue source; consumer choice should not come at the cost of Canadian jobs; and new Over-The-Top services such as Netflix should be required to contribute to the Canadian system. These parties emphasized their viewpoint at the creative end of the equation and concentrated less on the battles raging on at the backroom negotiating tables, where their content is being used as bargaining chips.
The Commission persisted in their questioning with each speaker to find the common ground that would address the concerns of all companies in the wholesale market, both big and small. The Commission sought confirmation that it has the ‘broad strokes’ correct in their Working Document, albeit that the details still must be fine-tuned.
A few speakers today also made clear that the Commission’s proposed implementation date of December 2015 would be too soon, suggesting that parties are realizing substantial change is very likely to occur as a result of this proceeding. The Commission has also been asking many of the larger companies to provide their view of a ‘implementation roadmap’ as recommended by Corus Entertainment Inc. yesterday, lending support to the idea that the Commission is seeking to fine-tune their approach stated in the Working Document rather than entertain new proposals raised at the hearing.

Let’s Talk TV Day 3

Day 3 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (“CRTC”) Let’s Talk TV hearing, a packed day of eight speakers, quickly turned into ‘the Bell subsidiaries… and others.’ Bell Canada, speaker number two, started around 9:30am and finished at 3:15pm, split by a morning break and a lunch break. The remaining six speakers took until roughly 9:15pm to be heard, over 12 hours after the hearing began.
The amount of time and number of questions dedicated to Bell clearly shows the influence Bell has on the Canadian broadcasting system, as the largest vertically integrated media corporation in Canada (i.e. they create content, purchase content and distribute content through several platforms).
Bell Canada’s initial remarks were significantly less apocalyptic than Québecor Média Inc. yesterday, however as questioning went on, Bell made increasingly strong claims regarding the difficulty of competition in a Netflix world, the dangerous financial situation of local stations, and the negative consequences of the Commission mandating too much similarity in the skinny basic and pick-and-pay proposals. Bell offered candid explanations on its business strategy, the reasoning behind its proposals, and company statistics that otherwise might never have been placed on a public record.
The Commission probed every aspect of Bell’s submission and oral remarks, and what came through was a sense that while Bell wanted to provide consumers with more choice, Bell and the Commission did not see eye-to-eye on the way forward on several fronts. Similarly, there was significant discussion on the funding of local stations and Canadian content creation, such as the role of simultaneous substitution or some sort of hit media production fund, but no proposed solution was universally accepted. The one proposal that appeared to be accepted was a new working group to be led by Bell to address technical errors with simultaneous substitution, a source of significant complaints by consumers to the CRTC.
Simultaneous substitution was a popular topic today, with GroupM Canada, the Canadian Media Production Association and Friends of Canadian Broadcasting (along with Bell Canada) all emphasizing its importance as a revenue stream for the broadcasting system. These groups also largely focused on the importance of making only small and necessary regulatory changes to the system, in order to avoid the impact to Canadian jobs in the system.
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting also made several comments regarding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), suggesting that in a new broadcasting age where private broadcasters must market their content globally to compete, the public broadcaster’s role should be re-evaluated. The comments highlight a puzzling absence of the CBC from the Commission’s working document.
Independent broadcaster Blue Ant Media provided a unique perspective to the Commission, noting that since many players in the broadcasting industry are vertically integrated, it is the independent broadcasters who will likely be disproportionately affected by the proposed changes. They also requested changes to the Vertical Integration Code, stating that after a few years of experience dealing with vertically integrated players, they feel the code is not an effective tool to level the playing field. The Commission seemed especially interested in how Blue Ant Media was experimenting with new media, and how business models can transition into a global, online world.
Francophone interest groups Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada and Union des Artistes; Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinema; and Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec provided important views to the Commission from producers of French-language content. As with other interveners speaking on behalf of stakeholders in Québec, they were concerned that the changes proposed may result in unintended adverse effects on the Québec market, since it operates very differently than the rest of Canada. Specifically, both interveners (along with Bell Canada) were concerned with the elimination of genre protection, which plays a more important role in Québec than it may in other markets.
Corus Entertainment Inc. rounded out the day, with a strong focus maintaining the status quo. As a content producer who is not vertically integrated with a distribution platform, Corus depends on their broadcast partners for sufficient marketing of their channels and content. They were very concerned that in a pick-and-pay world as proposed by the Commission, it would be extremely difficult to compete for subscribers’ attention without the advantages of a vertically integrated player. Corus also focused on the high importance of a clear and explicit transitional plan for any of the Commission’s ultimate changes, stating that “how to manage the transition is as important as the changes themselves.”
The Commission agreed that the implementation of any potential changes needs to be carefully managed, but repeatedly questioned whether the status quo was sufficient, given that consumers expressed a need for change and that the Commission’s proposed changes do not prevent broadcast distribution undertakings from offering the types of packages they currently do.

PIAC releases backgrounder “The Importance of a Spectrum Set-Aside in the AWS-3 Auction”

OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) in support of giving consumers a voice in important consultations that affect the competitiveness of wireless services in Canada, released today a backgrounder “The Importance of a Spectrum Set-Aside in the AWS-3 Auction”.
Industry Canada, Canada’s wireless spectrum regulator, is in the midst of a consultation on a new set of airwaves called “AWS-3” spectrum to be auctioned to wireless service providers. In order to promote more competition in the wireless industry, Industry Canada is proposing a “set-aside” of a certain amount of spectrum that only smaller competitors can bid on, therefore increasing their ability to obtain needed spectrum to continue and grow their businesses as alternatives to the bigger service providers. PIAC made formal comments to the government supporting the set-aside and the auction format generally.
“Spectrum is a scarce public resource that is specifically intended by the Government to be put to the social and economic benefit of all Canadians, rather than simply be sold to the highest bidder” said John Lawford, PIAC’s Executive Director and General Counsel. “Setting some of it aside so that smaller competitors aren’t blocked from offering innovate and lower cost alternatives to Canadians supports that objective.”
In support of telling the consumer side of the story, PIAC today released a second backgrounder on the AWS-3 auction, today about how setting aside spectrum for smaller competitors is important for improving wireless competition.
“The evidence from a previous set-aside shows that it was instrumental in introducing more competition and lower prices as a result,” said Geoffrey White, Counsel to PIAC. “That has also been the case in other countries where set-asides have resulted in the emergence of strong competitors. A spectrum set-aside is positive for consumers, who increasingly pay more and more for their wireless services, and rely on them more and more.”
PIAC is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
Link to PIAC Comments on the “Consultation on the Technical, Policy and Licensing Framework for Advanced Wireless Services in the Bands 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz (AWS-3)
Link to PIAC Backgrounder “The Importance of a Spectrum Set-Aside in the AWS-3 Auction” [pdf file: 0.32mb]
Link to first PIAC Backgrounder “Wireless Services in Canada: Why Canadians Deserve Better” [pdf file: 0.31mb]
For more information:
John Lawford
General Counsel and Executive Director
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
Geoffrey White
Counsel to PIAC
(613) 612-1190
gwhite@piac.ca

Let’s Talk TV Day 2

Day 2 of the Let’s Talk TV hearing began with Irene Berkowitz, a PhD Candidate and instructor at Ryerson University, who has been researching the changes in media landscape and specifically how to future-proof Canadian broadcasting.
Ms. Berkowitz provided a unique perspective on the content issue, stating that Canada has never had a lack of talent for content creation, but rather the lack of risk taking and the focus on domestic promotion of Canadian content has held back the Canadian system as a whole. The issue can be summed up in her statement that “content is not king, hit content is king.” In order for Canada to successfully harness the changes in media consumption and production, Canada must look to taking greater risks with new content, invest in the production of hit Canadian content, and make this content available a global audience.
The Commission drew a parallel of these comments to the music industry, where Canadian content regulations spurred the development of an industry that only now is getting consistent international recognition; decades after the regulations were created. They seemed concerned that the Canadian content industry could not afford the same amount of time to pivot to new realities, and proposed several ideas to address the issue, which Ms. Berkowitz mentioned were interesting avenues for further research.
Québecor Média Inc, representing itself, Vidéotron and Groupe TVA (QMI) took up the majority of the next part of the morning. QMI’s submission to the Commission was straight-forward: regulations must be loosened if traditional broadcasters have any chance at competing with Over-The-Top services such as Netflix in the coming years. To that end, QMI wholly opposed the majority of the Commission’s proposed options (such as a skinny basic TV package, or pick-and-pay channels), stating that they were the first traditional broadcaster to offer a basic-type package with the option to add channels on top.
What followed was a fueled back-and-forth between QMI Chief Executive Officer Pierre Dion and Vice-Chair of Broadcasting Tom Pentefountas over the true impact of Netflix on QMI’s services. Commissioner Pentefountas focused on QMI’s own Over-The-Top service Illico, and questioned whether QMI’s claim of a Netflix takeover of the broadcasting industry is inevitable, since a traditional broadcaster has advantages Netflix would not. QMI and the Commission had a frank discussion of the challenges of scale, the money involved for acquiring content rights, and the scope of changes needed to address these concerns.
Private citizen Robert Dilworth, a former head of television audience research for a major broadcaster, spoke on the issue of simultaneous substitution, recommending its elimination due to the constraints it places on traditional broadcasters.
On Screen Manitoba spoke first after the lunch break, emphasizing the concerns of smaller producers of Canadian content that could be disproportionately affected by regulatory changes such as mandated pick-and-pay, or the continued exemption of Over-The-Top services from Canadian content requirements. As yesterday, the Commission was aware and concerned of the effect of regulatory changes on content producers, especially for content that served minority language communities. The commission asked several questions that probed for appropriate definitions to deal with these issues.
The Groups for the Public Interest (composed of: the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of British Columbia, the National Pensioners Federation, Option consommateurs and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council) spoke next, focusing on critical issues that thus far have not seen as much discussion, including the need for more competition and choice in Canada’s highly concentrated and vertically integrated broadcasting industry. The Groups focused their oral remarks on: a mandated skinny basic television package plus channel pick-and-pay option; the importance of local programming serving local communities and minority groups; opposing the elimination of over-the-air (OTA) transmission of television; and privacy concerns related to proposed information collection through next-generation set-top boxes. A copy of the Groups’ oral remarks can be found here [pdf file: 0.51mb] , and their full submission to the CRTC here
The Groups noted that the proposed mandated skinny basic with channel pick-and-pay option suggested by the Commission was the most important issue, clarifying that broadcasters would still have the option to provide a “larger basic” package similar to current offerings if there was consumer demand for it. The Commission appeared to agree with the Groups’ overall position, instead focusing their questions on specific details. The Commission questioned how the industry could transition to a world with both packaging models in a way that minimizes consumer confusion, suggesting it may require broadcasters to provide enough information to consumers to make an informed decision.
The Commission and the Groups also had an important discussion on the role of OTA television in the broadcasting system, with the Groups stating it can be an alternative to cable, IPTV or satellite offerings, and therefore OTA represents value to a broad range of Canadians. The Commission noted OTA does not currently serve all Canadians due to issues of topography or the availability of funding from local stations, but the Groups emphasized the system could be expanded and the suggestion to shut down OTA has received significant opposition from the public through the Commission’s online comment system.
The Groups were also asked to explain the public interest represented on their panel, which includes consumer groups, senior citizens, ethno-cultural communities, and Quebec consumers.
L’Union des consommateurs was the last intervener to of the day, focusing on many of the same issues addressed by the Groups, such as the importance of a skinny basic television package, OTA and increased power in the hands of consumers when dealing with broadcasters. The Commission probed the details of the submission, including asking whether basic television service is becoming as important to Canadians as a public utility.

Let’s Talk TV Day 1

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) today kicked off its two-week long “Let’s Talk TV” public hearing. The hearing is the culmination of one of the most comprehensive public consultations about how well the Canadian television system, which the CRTC oversees, is serving Canadians.
CRTC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais kicked off the hearing by noting that “[broadcasting regulation] has grown into a complex and at times unwieldy framework. How Canadians interact with television has changed. Broadcasting has changed. It’s time the regulatory model also changed.” On the table in this public hearing is a broad package of reforms to the way broadcasting services are regulated in Canada, including how much flexibility Canadians have to pick and pay for only those channels they want to watch.
In his opening remarks, the Chairman identified some themes that would dominate much of the first day’s exchanges between the CRTC panel and appearing interveners: maintaining the status quo isn’t sufficient; Canadians must be the primary consideration in regulatory changes; Canadians are consuming ever-increasing amounts of content, and thus there is a need for more flexibility and choice. Chairman Blais also mentioned the other two hearings taking place in the fall (regarding the mobile wholesale and telecommunications wholesale industries), signaling that the CRTC is ready to make substantive changes these industries, in the best interests of Canadians.
Interveners appearing today included a management consultant hired by Google and Netflix, creative industry support funds; and the Government of Ontario, and the Competition Bureau. One private citizen representing his own views also spoke, highlighting the importance the CRTC places on the views of everyday Canadians.
The management consulting firm. Lemay-Yates (commissioned by Google and Netflix), spoke about their report on the changing nature of the broadcasting industry and how content creation and consumption are moving online, representing a fundamental shift in the broadcasting industry. In response, the Commission questioned whether new online services fill a complementary role and simply provide more choice to consumers, rather than cannibalizing the traditional, regulated sector..
Lemay-Yates and Google both highlighted, as other speakers did, that content is of fundamental importance, prompting the Commission to ask whether the CRTC should focus its efforts on ensuring funds are available to Canadian content producers (both professional and amateur). However, responses to this line of questioning seemed to leave the Commission wanting for more details.
The Competition Bureau provided some recommendations, by emphasizing the concern with growing vertical integration (massive companies owning both programming and distribution assets) in the broadcasting industry, and the reduction in choice consumers face as a result of growing bundles of channels. However they avoided choosing from the commission’s suggested alternatives, repeatedly stating it is unclear how sweeping regulatory changes would affect the market (either positively or negatively).
The interveners that can be grouped under the banner of ‘the content support groups’ include: Éléphant, mémoire du cinéma québécois; the National Film Board of Canada; Telefilm Canada; the Canada Media Fund and the Shaw Rocket Fund. These groups work with content creators to make content available, provide funding or in the case of Éléphant, restore classic films to be enjoyed with modern high-definition technology. The resounding issue that these groups highlighted is discoverability of content.
With the shift of content consumption from traditional television to multiple devices focused around online services has come an explosion in the amount of content available to consumers. While some interveners in the hearing have cited research showing Canadians are consuming increasing amounts of Canadian content, some groups have found it difficult to provide Canadians with the content on the devices they choose. Whether it is difficulty negotiating with rights holders, domestic promotion of content or online advertising (such as social media campaigns), these groups have faced significant challenges in helping Canadians “discover” the content in the first place..
The CRTC showed an increasing interest in this issue as the day went on, asking more questions about the “discoverability” of content in an increasingly fragmented, on-demand world is likely be a focus of more questioning in the coming days.
Finally, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (Ministry), representing the Government of Ontario spoke at the hearing, focused on the issue of jobs in the creative industry. The Ministry emphasized their request for the CRTC to begin regulating “Over-The-Top” broadcasting services (services that deliver broadcasting content over the Internet) such as Netflix, to specifically to impose some form of Canadian content requirement that the traditional broadcasters are subject to. The Ministry also opposed the CRTC’s proposals to empower Canadians with more choice by mandating a “skinny basic” package and then allowing Canadians to “pick-and-pay” for individual channels. The Ministry argued that those proposals would have a major impact on the content producers in Ontario. The CRTC questioned how well such a proposal, which Chairman Blais described as a “tax on Google and Netflix”, would be received.

PIAC releases backgrounder “Wireless Services in Canada: Why Canadians Deserve Better”

OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) continues to welcome regulatory initiatives to address competition issues in the wireless market, and has released today a backgrounder “Wireless Services in Canada: Why Canadians Deserve Better” telling consumers’ side of the story.
The Canadian wireless market needs more competition. Despite the measures taken to promote more competition in 2008’s first “Advanced Wireless Services” spectrum auction, which resulted in more competition and lower pricing, more is needed to nurture and sustain this fragile competition so that Canadians can have access to affordable, innovative, competitive wireless service.
Industry Canada, Canada’s wireless spectrum regulator, is in the midst of several wireless spectrum policy consultations. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, is also in the midst of two important public processes to consider wireless competition at the wholesale level: how large wireless companies can fairly share their infrastructure and spectrum.
“The CRTC and Industry Canada are doing the right thing in wireless” said John Lawford, PIAC’s Executive Director and General Counsel. “It takes time to change the wireless game in Canada.”
In support of telling the consumer side of the story, PIAC today released a backgrounder on how Canadians have been faring with their wireless service providers (link below) in recent years.
“When the conversation is about what can be done to improve wireless service for Canadians, too often the incumbent response is that there is no problem to solve, and that Canadians are actually doing well,” said Geoffrey White, Counsel to PIAC. “The evidence from the regulators, and from Canadians, doesn’t seem to support that. It is a disservice to Canadians to suggest that more competition cannot be achieved, and that what Canadians receive is as good as it can be.”
PIAC is a non-profit organization that provides legal and research services on behalf of consumer interests, and, in particular, vulnerable consumer interests, concerning the provision of important public services.
Link to PIAC Backgrounder “Wireless Services in Canada: Why Canadians Deserve Better” [pdf file: 0.31mb]
For more information:
John Lawford
General Counsel and Executive Director
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
Geoffrey White
Counsel to PIAC
(613) 612-1190
gwhite@piac.ca

Paper Bill Fees Must End: Wireless Carriers and CRTC Disappoint Consumers; Legislation Necessary

OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) reacted today to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) announcement that it had failed yesterday to convince Canadian telecommunications carriers and broadcast distributors to eliminate fees for providing bills in paper format. PIAC and CAC noted that the agreement reached with these companies was unacceptable for the vast majority of customers and noted the CRTC’s own displeasure with the outcome, and promise of a public inquiry.
PIAC and CAC also noted the indication from the federal government that it would enact legislation to end the practice of charging for paper bills.
“Consumers are clearly opposed to paying for paper bills and the federal government has clearly committed to ‘eliminating’ these charges,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel for PIAC, “it is telling that the telecommunications and broadcasting industries could not be persuaded, even by the CRTC, to respond to the wants and needs of their customers when this much money was at stake.”
PIAC released its report: “How to Pay the Piper: A Primer on Additional Charges to Consumers in Canada for Paper Billing” a day before the CRTC’s private, closed-door meeting with the companies. This report estimated paper billing charges cost wireline phone, wireless, cable TV and internet subscribers over $500 million yearly.
PIAC and CAC also welcomed the statement by Industry Minister James Moore today indicating that the federal government “will introduce legislation to end pay-to-pay billing practices in the telecommunications sector.”
“Consumers need this issue to be fixed now and cannot afford to wait.” said Bruce Cran, President of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, “They don’t care if the CRTC or the Minister solves it, they just want this unfair billing to stop.”
PIAC and CAC will participate in any future CRTC process and urge the public to send their views on the practice to the CRTC, to the Industry Minister and to their Member of Parliament.
For more information please contact:
John Lawford
Executive Director
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
Bruce Cran
President
Consumers’ Association of Canada
(604) 418-8359
bcranbiz@telus.net

3.5 GHz Spectrum Announcement puts Affordable Broadband Access in Spotlight

OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) welcomes the Government’s recent wireless spectrum proposals to address the needs of Canadians, particularly those living in rural and remote areas. These include consultation on the AWS-4, AWS-3, and most recently, the 3.5 GHz spectrum bands.
In the most recent announcement, the Government is proposing to reconfigure the way it licenses 3.5 GHz wireless spectrum and to licence it for fixed high-speed wireless broadband use in rural areas, and as mobile broadband in urban areas (30,000 people or more). In addition, licensees will have six months to deploy their spectrum, or face the consequence of losing their licence.
“Deployment using in the 3.5 GHz spectrum has generally been low, and broadband penetration in Canada is also low, or available but unaffordable”, said John Lawford, PIAC’s Executive Director and General Counsel. “Therefore it is important the Government is taking steps to get licensees to actually provide service, or clear the way for other willing service providers.”
The CRTC has reported that as of 2012 only 75% of Canadian households had internet access at 1.5 Mbps download speeds, and only 62% had internet access at 5 Mbps download speeds. When it comes to the leading edge LTE-speed of service, only 72% of Canadians had access. “Those figures reveal a large number of Canadians who cannot access internet service at a speed that can actually support the types of functions every Canadian should be able to use, such as video streaming and e-health”, said Geoffrey White, Counsel to PIAC. “There is also an important question about whether the access that Canadians will have to wireless broadband is affordable.”
PIAC will participate in the Government’s consultation, and advocate for measures that contribute to the availability of affordable broadband access for all Canadians regardless of their location. Comments can be submitted up until October 8, and then reply comments can be made until November 8. A link to the consultation is provided below.
For more information:
John Lawford
General Counsel and Executive Director
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(613) 562-4002×25
(613) 447-8125 (cell)
jlawford@piac.ca
Geoffrey White
Counsel to PIAC
(613) 612-1190
gwhite@piac.ca
Link to Industry Canada’s Consultation on Policy Changes in the 3500 MHz Band (3475-3650 MHz) and a New Licensing Process in Rural Areas
 

PIAC and Consumers’ Association of Canada Release Open Letter to Chairman of CRTC About Paper Bill Fees – UPDATED with CRTC Reply

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) today sent an open letter to Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, Chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regarding the CRTC’s decision to close their complaint about fees charged by telecommunications service providers for providing bills in paper format and to hold a private meeting with the industry. In the letter PIAC and CAC deplore the CRTC’s actions and ask the Chairman to rethink the course the CRTC appears to have chosen.
A copy of the Open Letter (in English and French) is found by following the links:
 

Open Letter to Chairman of CRTC About Paper Bill Fees
Download File: piac_cac_open_letter_blais_re_pay_to_pay_final.pdf [size: 0.39 mb]

 
 

CRTC’s Weak Attempt to Settle Paper Bill Fees with Telcos Disrespects Consumers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OTTAWA – The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) announcement that it will host a private meeting with telecommunications and broadcasting service providers to discuss the practice of charging fees to customers who wish to receive paper bills, rather than rendering a decision on an application filed by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) asking to prohibit the fees, disrespects Canadian consumers and is an abdication of the CRTC’s regulatory authority, the two groups said.
PIAC and CAC filed an application to the CRTC last fall to request the elimination of all fees charged by telecommunications service providers for providing customers their bills in paper format. PIAC and CAC also sought refunds for “paper bill fees” charged to Primary Exchange Service customers and landline customers in regulated areas. Today, the CRTC closed PIAC and CAC’s formal complaint. [pdf file: 0.31mb]
“The CRTC’s private meeting with telcos and broadcasters will not result in a solution that protects customers,” said John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel for PIAC. “This approach risks embarrassing the Government of Canada which promised to Canadians in the Budget that these fees will be eliminated, not just managed.”
“CAC will continue to strongly advocate for the elimination of paper bill fees for all consumers,” said Bruce Cran, President of the Consumers’ Association of Canada. “The industry, not consumers, are being asked to develop a paper bills policy: that’s the fox guarding the henhouse.”
For more information:
John Lawford
Executive Director and General Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre
ONE Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7B7
(613) 562-4002×25
lawford@piac.ca
 
Bruce Cran
President
Consumers’ Association of Canada
(604) 418-8359
bcranbiz@telus.net