Helping Canadians for 10+ YEARS · customers took to social media to express their outrage. Also, 1,600 Canadians filled out our online interactive questionnaire to complain. We spoke

“I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” –

G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R.,

internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone

customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R., internet customer in

ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service.We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC

–

Helping Canadians for

10+ YEARS2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT

P.O. Box 56067 Minto Place RO, Ottawa, ON K1R 7Z1 www.ccts-cprst.ca [email protected] 1-888-221-1687

TTY: 1-877-782-2384 Fax: 1-877-782-2924

http://www.ccts-cprst.ca

mailto:[email protected]

https://twitter.com/ccts_cprst

https://www.facebook.com/ccts.cprst/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/commission-for-complaints-for-telecom-television-services/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLagw5p-R3rIJWUto9wt-5Q

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 1

CONTENTS

2017-18 HIGHLIGHTS 2

CHAIR’S MESSAGE 3

COMMISSIONER’S MESSAGE

4

WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO

5

Our mandate

Our complaints process

Year in review

2017-18 COMPLAINTS 7 About our data

Operational statistics

2017-18 operational statistics overview

CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING

10

Introduction

Resolving complaints and analyzing code compliance

Wireless Code

Deposit and Disconnection Code

Television Service Provider Code

TOPICS AND TRENDS 15 Overview

Internet

Internet service delivery issues

Wireless: Overview of issues

Wireless non-disclosure issues

Non-disclosure issues for all types of service

Incorrect charges: monthly price plan

WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

24

Top 10 PSP profiles

Compliance

Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program

WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS

39

Introduction

Website

Accessibility

Customer survey results

STATISTICAL REPORTS 42 Contact Centre activities

Out-of-mandate issues

Small business

Analysis of closed complaints

Compensation analysis

Performance standards

Regional analysis

GOVERNANCE 49Board of Directors

Director biographies

Board changes

Meetings and director attendance

Committee meetings

CCTS budget

Strategic and operational initiatives for 2017-18

APPENDICES 52Appendix A – Complaints by service provider

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints

Appendix C – Financial statements

Appendix D – Definitions


2017-18

HIGHLIGHTS

92%of concluded

complaints successfully

resolved

98%of complaints resolved at the first stage of our process were concluded within 40 days

COMPLAINTS UP

57%

172 service providers had ZERO complaints

another 111 had 3 or less

360 brands operated by 242 service providers

Over 17% of complaints accepted included a TV problem, under 5% were about TV alone, 1 TVSP Code confirmed breach


CHAIR’S MESSAGE

Message from the Chair of the Board of Directors

CATHERINE ACZEL BOIVIE

This is my second message as Chair of the CCTS Board of Directors. Last year I wrote about many of the initiatives being undertaken in 2017-18, including the expansion of our mandate to include complaints about subscription TV services and the development of a service provider compliance monitoring program. I am pleased to report that these were successfully implemented. The results can be found in this Annual Report.

The CCTS celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2017, and I am very proud of the work completed on behalf of Canadian consumers and service providers. Looking ahead, we have identified a number of projects that we intend to undertake in 2018-19 to provide better service to our customers.

We have begun the process of developing a new strategic plan to guide the priorities of the organization in the years ahead. This is a challenging undertaking in an organization established to allow for diverse stakeholder representation on the Board as well as to respond to continuous change, such as the CRTC’s sales practice review, planned to start in late October of 2018. I am confident that the Board and the CCTS staff will complete the new strategic plan successfully, working in the cooperative manner that has become the hallmark of our governance of the CCTS.

As we continue to position ourselves for future success, we intend in 2018-19 to conduct a review of the processes used to deliver our primary service—helping telecom and TV customers and their service providers resolve their disputes efficiently and effectively. Despite our past success in fulfilling this objective, we must always be open to exploring new approaches. For this reason, we intend to carry out a detailed examination of the way in which we deliver our service as well as gather and analyze

information. As part of this initiative, we will review the technologies we use to facilitate access to our service, to determine how we can make it more accessible for customers, service providers and staff.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, we intend to explore the approaches taken by organizations similar to ours worldwide, and the tools they use in a rapidly changing digital world. In this way, we can ensure that we remain among the leaders in delivering the best service we can to our customers.

At the beginning of our fiscal year, Dennis Béland, the director appointed by the cable companies, retired from the Board after nearly ten years of service. I would like to thank him for his dedication and invaluable contribution to the organization throughout his tenure. In his place, we welcomed Dean Shaikh as the newest member of the Board.

My message would not be complete without a word of sincere thanks to the Commissioner, Howard Maker, and to all the CCTS staff for their dedication and hard work. Thanks to their ongoing efforts to meet stakeholder needs, I believe we are well-positioned to undertake the new initiatives mentioned above.


COMMISSIONER’S MESSAGE

Message from the Commissioner

HOWARD MAKER

The big story for the CCTS in 2017-18 was the rapid and significant increase in complaints received from Canadian telecom and TV customers. With the addition of TV complaints to our mandate in September of 2017, we did anticipate an increase—but not the 57% that we received. And our data shows that it was not TV complaints that pushed up the numbers. Complaints about TV alone accounted for less than 5% of all complaints accepted. The increase was in the same types of issues that Canadians have complained about historically: sales transactions that go wrong, service that doesn’t work as expected, and billing problems.

The number of complaints we accepted this year might have been even greater but for our proactive approach to an unusual situation.

Earlier this year a wireless provider decided to remove a particular plan from the market. Customers were outraged, claiming that when they signed up the provider had promised to never retire the plan. In the next 36 hours, customers took to social media to express their outrage. Also, 1,600 Canadians filled out our online interactive questionnaire to complain. We spoke to the provider and informed it of the large number of dissatisfied customers. It promptly reversed the change.

The large increase in complaints this year did have an effect on our operations, and it has taken us somewhat longer to handle those complaints that reach our investigation level. However, our operational results continue to be good.

We concluded almost 4,600 more complaints than last year. Our focus on efficiently resolving complaints resulted in the successful resolution of almost 92% of all the complaints we handled this year. Of the complaints resolved, 84% were resolved at the pre-investigation stage, usually within 30 days of the complaint being received. And our customer survey continues to show high levels of satisfaction with various aspects of our process, including the timeliness of our work.

You may notice a change this year in the way we report the complaint results for our Participating Service Providers (PSPs) in the Top 10 profiles and in Appendix A. Some service providers have commented that simply describing the number of complaints we receive from their customers is misleading because this implies that all complaints have merit.

For many reasons, we have never tracked complaint outcomes (wins and losses). However, to provide more insight into the breakdown of how complaints are concluded, we have revised our reporting to show in a more detailed way exactly how complaints are concluded. We hope you will find this helpful, and we welcome your feedback as we continue to consider the best way to report our statistics.

The CCTS is continuing to grow: more complaints, more demands, more staff, higher expectations, and a larger budget. The CCTS has been successful—and will continue to be so—only through the efforts of our dedicated staff. This year they have worked tirelessly to ensure that we deliver the best possible service to customers and service providers, all to accomplish our mission of providing outstanding dispute resolution services. To all of you I offer my most sincere thanks.

WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO Our mandate The CCTS is Canada’s national and independent organization dedicated to resolving customer complaints about telecommunications (telecom) and TV services. We work with consumers, small businesses and participating Canadian service providers to resolve disputes about most telecom and subscription TV services after direct communications between a customer and a service provider have proven ineffective.

We can help with most types of problems between a customer and service provider, including disputes about contracts, billing, service delivery and credit management.

For full details, see our Mandate web page.

For an overview of who we are and what we do, watch this video.

Services in our

mandate

INTERNET WIRELESS1

TV2PHONE3

1 Including voice, data and text. 2 For residential customers only. 3 For home and small business, including long distance, white page directories,

directory assistance and operator services.

Our complaints process We regularly examine our complaint-handling process to ensure that it is thorough, fair, effective and efficient. The steps in the process are:

1ASSESSMENT

2COMPLAINT ACCEPTED

(or out of mandate)

3INFORMAL

RESOLUTION

4INVESTIGATION

5RECOMMENDATION

6DECISION

For an overview of our complaint resolution process, watch this video.

For a detailed explanation of the steps in the process, see our Complaints process explained web page.

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/mandate/

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/overview/

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/for-consumers/complaints/

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/for-consumers/complaints/complaints-process-explained/


YEAR IN REVIEW

AUGUST 2017 CCTS approves amendments to its Public Awareness Plan, effective February 2018.

SEPTEMBER 2017 CCTS expands its mandate to begin accepting complaints about TV issues and administering the CRTC Television Service Provider Code (TVSP).

CCTS launches new online “Submit a Complaint” interactive questionnaire on newly-redesigned website.

OCTOBER 2017 Canadian cable companies elect

Dean Shaikh to represent them on the CCTS Board for a three-year term.

NOVEMBER 2017 CCTS issues 2016-17 Annual Report.

DECEMBER 2017 CRTC’s revised Wireless Code

comes into effect. JANUARY 2018 CRTC initiates a proceeding against six service providers who had refused to participate in the CCTS. All six later joined.

FEBRUARY 2018 CCTS participates in CRTC proceeding

reviewing wireless phone unlocking rules.

CCTS Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program comes into effect.

APRIL 2018 CCTS issues 2017-18 Mid-year Report.

JUNE 2018 CCTS publishes its first two videos:

“What is the CCTS?” and “This is how our complaint process works”.

JULY 2018 CRTC launches inquiry into use of misleading or aggressive sales practices by large telecom service providers.

AUGUST 2018 CCTS terminates participation of AllCore

Communications for non-compliance and refers AllCore to CRTC for action.

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/public-awareness/

https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2016/2016-1.htm

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/for-consumers/complaints/complaint-form/


https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/report/annual-report-2016-2017/


https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?S=C&PA=T&PT=PT1&PST=A&lang=en

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/participating-service-providers/compliance-monitoring/

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/report/mid-year-report-2017-2018/

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/overview/




https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/ccts-terminates-participation-allcore-communications-due-non-compliance/


2017-18

COMPLAINTS This section provides a broad overview of this year’s complaint data. Additional detailed analysis follows throughout the report. For definitions of the terms used in this section, see Appendix D.

About our data We report on the complaints that were accepted between August 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018 (our fiscal year) as well as on the complaints that were concluded between those dates.

The complaints we receive and investigate after July 31, 2018 will be in next year’s Annual Report.

Included in this report are all telecom complaints accepted during the 2017-18 fiscal year and all TV complaints accepted on or after the September 1, 2017 effective date.

It’s important to note that a single complaint may raise more than one issue for wireless, internet, phone and TV services.

A portion of our concluded complaints are audited throughout the year for quality assurance.

Operational statistics TABLE 1: THREE-YEAR SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL STATISTICS 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16

Number YoY

change Number YoY

change Number YoY

change

Complaints accepted 14,272 57% 9,097 11% 8,197 -18%

Complaints concluded 13,224 53% 8,641 4% 8,323 -19%

COMPLAINTS RESOLVED 12,149 55% 7,846 6% 7,431 -16%

Complaints resolved at pre-investigation 10,214 57% 6,510 9% 5,979 -14%

Complaints resolved at investigation 1,935 45% 1,336 -8% 1,452 -25%

COMPLAINTS CLOSED 1,068 35% 791 -9% 870 -33%

Complaints closed at pre-investigation 337 13% 297 -5% 311 -42%

Complaints closed at investigation 731 48% 494 -12% 559 -27%

Recommendations accepted 5 67% 3 -84% 19 -47%

Decisions issued 2 100% 1 -67% 3 -63%


2017-18

COMPLAINTS

2017-18 operational statistics overview

13,224Complaints concluded

12,149 COMPLAINTS RESOLVED

10,214 complaints resolved at pre-investigation

1,935 complaints resolved at investigation

1,068 COMPLAINTS CLOSED

337 complaints closed at pre-investigation

731 complaints closed at investigation

5 RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED

2 DECISIONS ISSUED

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18

COMPLAINTS

TABLE 2: LEADING COMPLAINT ISSUES, BROKEN DOWN BY SERVICE TYPE

Service Billing Contract dispute Service delivery Credit management Total

Wireless 5,393 4,880 1,947 537 12,757

Internet 3,223 2,909 2,580 275 8,987

Local phone 2,034 1,933 1,242 145 5,354

TV 1,448 1,163 560 77 3,248

Long distance 203 95 81 4 383

Directory assistance 1 0 0 0 1

White page directories 0 0 0 0 0

Operator services 4 0 0 0 4

TOTAL 12,306 10,980 6,410 1,038 30,734

The largest number of complaint issues related to wireless services, including the largest number of issues with billing and contract disputes. However, internet service had the largest number of service delivery issues.

FIGURE 1: COMPLAINT ISSUES BY SERVICE TYPE FIGURE 2: MAIN COMPLAINT ISSUES

Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

9

2017-18

Billing

Contract dispute

Service delivery

Credit management

40.0%35.7%

20.9%

3.4%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

41.5%

17.4%

29.2%

10.6%

1.2%0% 0% 0%

Wireless

TV

Internet

Local phone

Long distance

Operator services

Directory assistance

White page directories


CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING Introduction As the CCTS investigates customer complaints about telecom and TV services, we try to determine if the service provider has reasonably met its responsibilities to its customer. We use three CRTC codes of conduct as yardsticks against which we measure service provider conduct:

• Wireless Code: For consumer and small business (mobile) wireless services

• Deposit & Disconnection (D&D) Code: For home phone services

• Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code: For subscription TV services (residential customers only)

For more detailed information about the preceding codes, see:

• CCTS Annotated Guide to the Wireless Code

• CCTS Annotated Guide to the Deposit & Disconnection Code

• CRTC Television Service Provider Code

Resolving complaints and analyzing code compliance When we accept a customer complaint we record and track all of the issues raised in the complaint. Some complaints raise questions about whether a service provider has complied with a code of conduct. We call these “alleged breaches.”

The vast majority of complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of the customer and the service provider at an early stage of our process. When complaints are resolved, there is no need for us to investigate the underlying issues, including to determine if there have been any violations of a code of conduct. Therefore, these issues remain characterized as “alleged breaches.”

In the cases that we do investigate, we can determine whether there has been a violation. We categorize proven violations as “confirmed breaches.” When we investigate and determine that there has not been a violation, we categorize this as “no breach.”

In this section, we present statistical reports on breaches of the three applicable codes using the preceding terminology.

Wireless Code In developing the Wireless Code, the CRTC sought to ensure that consumers of voice and data services are better informed of the rights and obligations contained in their contracts. The Wireless Code applies to individual and small business consumers, and all wireless service providers must follow its guidelines.

A revised Wireless Code came into effect on December 1, 2017 (Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-200). As part of that decision, the CRTC clarified a number of provisions in the original Wireless Code, based on many of the CCTS’ previous interpretations.

FIGURE 3: SUMMARY OF WIRELESS CODE BREACHES

3,539 ALLEGED BREACHES

3,172 ALLEGED BREACHES NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION

367 BREACHES INVESTIGATED

111 CONFIRMED BREACHES 256 NO

BREACH

“ A rep from the service provider contacted me after I filed my complaint with the CCTS and resolved my issue.” – T.C., a wireless customer from BC

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2017/2017-200.htm

http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Annotated-Guide-to-the-Wireless-Code.pdf

http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Annotated-Guide-to-the-DD-Code.pdf

https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/television/services/codesimpl.htm


2017-18


TABLE 3: WIRELESS CODE CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SECTION

Code section

2017-18

YoY change

Number of confirmed breaches

% of total confirmed breaches

A. Clarity 6 5.4% 20.0%

A.1. Plain language 5 4.5% 25.0% A.2. Prices 0 0.0% – A.3. Unlimited services 1 0.9% –

B. Contracts and related documents 28 25.2% 12.0%

B.1.(i-ii) Permanent copy of the contract and related documents1 11 9.9% -26.7% B.1.(iii) a-e Key contract terms and conditions2 15 13.5% 114.3% B.1.(iii) f-m Other aspects of the contract3 0 0.0% -100.0% B.2. Prepaid service contracts 2 1.8% –

C. Critical Information Summary 1 0.9% -66.7%

C.1. Critical Information Summary 1 0.9% -66.7%

D. Changes to contracts and related documents 2 1.8% -33.3%

D.1. Changes to key contract terms and conditions 2 0.0% -33.3% D.2. Changes to other contract terms and conditions or related documents 0 1.8% –

E. Bill management 41 36.9% 115.8%

E.1. International roaming notification 2 1.8% 100.0% E.2. Cap on data roaming charges 2 1.8% – E.3. Cap on data overage charges 33 29.7% 120.0% E.4. Unsolicited wireless services 4 3.6% –

F. Mobile device issues 10 9.0% 233.3%

F.1.(i) Unlocking – Locked phone sold 1 0.9% – F.1.(ii) Unlocking – means to unlock not provided4 9 8.1% 200.0%

G. Contract cancellation and extension 8 7.2% -20.0%

G.1. Early cancellation fees – General 3 2.7% -62.5% G.2. Early cancellation fees – Calculation – Subsidized device 0 0.0% -100.0% G.3. Early cancellation fees – No subsidized device 0 0.0% – G.4. Trial period 1 0.9% – G.5. Cancellation date 4 3.6% 300.0%

H. Security deposits 1 0.9% -50.0%

H.1. Requesting, reviewing, and returning a security deposit 1 0.9% -50.0%

I. Disconnection 14 12.6% -12.5%

I.1. When disconnection may occur 0 0.0% -100.0% I.2. Notice before disconnection 14 12.6% 7.7% I.3. Disputing disconnection charges 0 0.0% –

TOTAL 111 29.1%

1 This subsection was B.1.(i-iii) in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code. 2 This subsection was B.1.(iv) a-e in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code. 3 This subsection was B.1.(iv) f-m in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code. 4 This subsection was F.1.(i) in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code.



12

2017-18

Section E of the Code (bill management) was the most breached section (almost 37%) of all issues, and a 115% increase over last year.

TABLE 4: WIRELESS CODE CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SERVICE PROVIDER

Service provider

2017-18

Num

ber

of

confi

rmed

bre

ache

s

% o

f al

l co

nfirm

ed b

reac

hes

Sec

tio

n A

. Cla

rity

Sec

tio

n B

. Co

ntra

cts

an

d r

elat

ed d

ocu

men

ts

Sec

tio

n C

. Cri

tica

l In

form

atio

n S

um

mar

y

Sec

tio

n D

. Ch

ang

es t

o c

ont

ract

s an

d r

elat

ed d

ocu

men

ts

Sec

tio

n E

. Bill

Man

agem

ent

Sec

tio

n F.

Mo

bile

dev

ice

issu

es

Sec

tio

n G

. Co

ntra

ct

canc

ella

tio

n an

d e

xten

sio

n

Sec

tio

n H

. Sec

uri

ty d

epo

sits

Sec

tio

n I.

Dis

con

nect

ion

YoY

ch

ang

e

Rogers 44 39.6% 3.6% 7.2% 0.9% 0.9% 22.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 3.6% 76.0%

Bell Canada 23 20.7% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 21.1%

Virgin Mobile 10 9.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 233.3%

TELUS 10 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% 1.8% 2.7% 0.0% 1.8% -41.2%

Fido 9 8.1% 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 200.0%

Freedom Mobile Inc. 7 6.3% 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8% 16.7%

Videotron 3 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% –

PC Mobile 2 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% –

Speak Out Wireless 2 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% –

SaskTel 1 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% –

TOTAL 111 100%

Rogers had almost 40% of all confirmed breaches and showed a 76% increase in the number of confirmed breaches over last year, when it also had the highest percentage of all Wireless Code breaches. Bell Canada had almost 21% of confirmed breaches, a 21.1% increase over last year.

The next three service providers, Virgin, TELUS and Fido, together accounted for over 26% of confirmed breaches. Virgin showed a 233% increase in breaches over last year while Fido showed a 200% increase. By contrast, TELUS had a 41% decrease in breaches from last year.


2017-18


Deposit and Disconnection Code The D&D Code is a mandatory CRTC code of conduct that provides home phone customers with protection in some cases when they’re required to provide a deposit as a condition of obtaining home phone service or when a service provider intends to disconnect the customer’s home phone service.

FIGURE 4: SUMMARY OF D&D CODE BREACHES

95 ALLEGED BREACHES

70 ALLEGED BREACHES NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION


6 CONFIRMED BREACHES 19 NO

BREACH

TABLE 5: D&D CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SECTION

Code section

2017-18

Number of confirmed breaches

% of total confirmed breaches

3.1 Improper disconnection / No grounds

0 0.0%

3.2 Notice at least 14 days prior 3 50.0%

3.3 Advise customer 24 hours prior 3 50.0%

TOTAL 6 100%

Confirmed breaches of the D&D Code continue to decline, with just under half as many breaches (6) this year as last year (13).

TABLE 6: D&D CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SERVICE PROVIDER

Service provider

2017-18

Num

ber

of

confi

rmed

b

reac

hes

% o

f al

l co

nfirm

ed

bre

ache

s

YoY

cha

nge

Sec

tio

n 3.

2 N

oti

ce a

t le

ast

14 d

ays

pri

or

Sec

tio

n 3.

3 A

dvi

se

cust

om

er

24 h

ou

rs p

rio

r

Bell Canada 2 33.3% -50.0% 16.7% 16.7%

Vonage 2 33.3% – 16.7% 16.7%

Bell Aliant 1 16.7% -75.0% – 16.7%

Primus 1 16.7% – 16.7% –

TOTAL 6 100% -53.8% – –

Bell Canada accounted for over one-third of all confirmed breaches, the exact same percentage as Vonage. Together, Bell Aliant and Primus accounted for another third.


2017-18


Television Service Provider Code As of September 1, 2017, the CCTS administers the CRTC Television Service Provider Code (TVSP Code). The Code is intended to make it easier for Canadians to understand their television service agreements and empowers residential customers in their relationships with TVSPs.

The TVSP Code applies only to consumers (not small businesses), and all licensed TV service providers must follow its guidelines. We address complaints about subscription TV services provided by cable, Internet Protocol television (IPTV) and national satellite direct-to-home (DTH) TV service providers.

Our authority to deal with these complaints is limited to events that occurred on or after September 1, 2017.

For more details about the TVSP Code, see our TVSP Code web page.

FIGURE 5: SUMMARY OF TVSP CODE BREACHES

431 ALLEGED BREACHES

420 ALLEGED BREACHES NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION


1 CONFIRMED BREACH 10 NO

BREACH

The only confirmed breach was to Section XI (Changes to programming options) by Bell.

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/codes-stats-and-reports/television-service-provider-code/


TOPICS AND TRENDS Overview In 2017-18, Canadians filed over 14,000 complaints about their service providers, an increase of 57% over last year. We are proud to have been able to successfully resolve almost 92% of these complaints.

Along with an increase in complaints, there has been an increase in the number of individual issues. Consumers raised a total of 30,734 individual issues that fell within the CCTS mandate, an increase of 67% over last year. Issues relating to wireless services continue to be raised the most often, representing over 41% of all issues raised, followed by problems with internet service, which account for another 29% of issues.

There were 111 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code in 2017-18, a 29% increase from last year, largely driven by increases in confirmed breaches of Section B (contracts and related documents) and Section E (bill management). Confirmed breaches of the Deposit and Disconnection (D&D) Code continue to decline, with only six this year: less than half the number from last year. We confirmed only one breach of the new Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code since we began accepting complaints in September 2017.

TABLE 7: NUMBER OF ISSUES BY TYPE OF SERVICE, YoY CHANGE

Service # of issues in 2017-18

% of all issues in 2017-18

# of issues in 2016-17

YoY change in # of issues raised

Wireless 12,757 42% 8,543 49%

Internet 8,987 29% 5,763 56%

Local phone 5,354 17% 3,766 42%

TV* 3,248 11% – –

Other 388 1% 376 3%

TOTAL 30,734 100% 18,448 67%

*TV was added to the CCTS mandate in September of 2017.

“ I tried on my own to resolve my problems for months. You resolved it in one week. I got exactly what I wanted, thank you.” – M.H., an internet customer from AB


2017-18

TOPICS AND TRENDS

In this section we discuss some of the most common types of complaint and code issues we saw in 2017-18 and what we believe may be causing them. We do this to provide consumers with important information about service provider conduct and to give service providers the feedback they need to address these problems. We also highlight issues and practices about which all interested parties should be aware.

TABLE 8: TOP 10 ISSUES RAISED IN COMPLAINTS

Issue

2017-18 2016-17

YoY change

Number of issues

% of total issues

Number of issues

% of total issues

1 Non-disclosure of terms/ Misleading information about terms

4,543 14.8% 2,016 10.9% 125.3%

2 Incorrect charge 4,370 14.2% 2,333 12.6% 87.3%

3 Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service 2,573 8.4% 1,413 7.7% 82.1%

4 Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fees

1,627 5.3% 1,111 6.0% 46.4%

5 Breach of contract 1,575 5.1% 746 4.0% 111.1%

6 30-day cancellation policy/Charges for services not received after cancellation

1,512 4.9% 783 4.2% 93.1%

7 Credit/refund not received 1,379 4.5% 698 3.8% 97.6%

8 Material contract change 949 3.1% 791 4.3% 20.0%

9 Material contract change without notice 931 3.0% 814 4.4% 14.4%

10 Credit reporting 900 2.9% 592 3.2% 52.0%

For a detailed breakdown of all issues raised in complaints, see Appendix B.

“ As soon as the CCTS contacted my service provider they immediately refunded me and cancelled my account. That is what I wanted. Thank you CCTS.” – L.L., a wireless customer from ON


2017-18

Internet In 2017-18 customers raised almost 9,000 internet issues, representing over 29% of all issues raised with the CCTS during the year. In addition, internet issues were raised 56% more often than last year.

We are concerned about the pace at which internet issues are increasingly being raised with the CCTS. We discussed this trend in last year’s Annual Report. This year, the number of internet issues continues to increase. Over the last five years, they have increased by more than 170%. By contrast, wireless issues have increased by only 25% during the same period.

TABLE 9: INTERNET AND WIRELESS ISSUES OVER LAST 5 YEARS

Service 2013

-14

2014

-15

2015

-16

2016

-17

2017

-18

Ch

ang

e o

ver

last

5

year

s

Internet 3,315 5,045 4,177 5,763 8,987 171%

Wireless 10,167 10,214 7,931 8,543 12,757 25%

FIGURE 6: INTERNET AND WIRELESS ISSUES OVER LAST 5 YEARS

The top five internet issues were:

1. Intermittent and complete loss of service: 18.3%

2. Incorrect billing: 15.5%

3. Non-disclosure of information/misleading information: 12.8%

4. Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fee: 6.5%

5. Charges for services not received after cancellation/30 cancellation policy: 5.9%

Internet service delivery issues The number of all issues related to the delivery of internet service increased this year by 77%.

Customers continue to raise concerns about the quality of their internet service, such as slow speeds or intermittent outages. Additionally, customers tell us that they experience difficulties cancelling service or changing providers, also contributing to the overall increase in internet issues.

The top ten service providers with internet service delivery issues accounted for almost 80% of all internet service delivery issues. Also, some of them had an increase of 100% or more since last year, with one showing an increase of almost 300%.

TABLE 10: PERCENTAGE OF INTERNET SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES AND YoY CHANGE – TOP 10 SERVICE PROVIDERS

Service provider

Internet service delivery issues 2017-18

Internet service delivery issues

2016-17 YoY

change

Bell Canada 733 420 74.5%

Xplornet 328 205 60.0%

Rogers 228 148 54.1%

Cogeco Connexion 135 38 255.3%

Comwave 130 75 73.3%

TekSavvy 118 30 293.3%

TELUS 118 70 68.6%

Shaw 98 49 100.0%

Primus 95 46 106.5%

Bell Aliant 72 58 24.1%

Cogeco and TekSavvy had the largest percentage increases in internet service delivery complaints: 255% for Cogeco and 293% for TekSavvy. We reached out to each of Cogeco and TekSavvy to highlight these concerns so they may address them.

TOPICS AND TRENDS

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

-12%

-13%

52%

0%

38%

8%

56%

49%

-17%

-22%-30%

-15%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

Internet Wireless


2017-18

TOPICS AND TRENDS

CASE STUDY #1 A customer from Chesterville, ON subscribed to unlimited internet service which required the use of an

antenna. During this time, she experienced numerous intermittent internet service issues, which the service provider was not able to resolve despite attempts to fix the problem and make adjustments to her antenna. She was also advised that her specific service was limited to 4 GB of usage per day. After the 4 GB was used, the provider’s Traffic Management Policy specified that internet speed be reduced to 50%. We investigated the matter and reviewed the applicable terms of service. We found that these indeed permitted the provider to reduce the internet speeds by 50% after a customer had used 4 GB of data in a 24-hour period. We also reviewed the customer’s usage records provided by the provider for an 18- month period and found that the customer was regularly exceeding the 4 GB daily usage threshold. Nonetheless, the provider offered the customer a credit of $220, representing three months’ of service. The customer accepted the provider’s explanation and offer to apply a credit, and the complaint was resolved.

CASE STUDY #2 A customer from south-east SK subscribed to

internet service delivered through a satellite system. The service functioned properly for a few days until the internet speed decreased, particularly when used for gaming or watching Netflix, two of the customer’s primary uses of the service. During the course of our investigation, the service provider explained that the customer’s internet service would not be suitable for gaming but that it could provide the customer with a different plan that would increase her bandwidth and also help alleviate some of the issues experienced when streaming Netflix. The provider also informed her that it was planning to install new infrastructure soon that would also make gaming possible. When we further discussed this matter with the provider, it also agreed to provide the customer with a credit of $130, covering all installation fees incurred, as well as an additional $100 credit on the account. The provider further offered to allow the customer to convert to the new infrastructure, once it was ready, without needing to pay additional installation fees. Nonetheless, should the customer decide to cancel the service, it would not charge her the early cancellation fees that would normally be billed. The customer decided to retain her service with her provider, accepted the credits offered, and the complaint was resolved.

CASE STUDY #3 A customer in suburban Montreal, QC complained

that, although he signed up for an internet service including a download speed of 5 Mbps, he had been only receiving around 1.5-1.8 Mbps. He indicated that the service provider’s technicians attempted several times to resolve the issue, without success: they were only able to increase the speed to 4 Mbps for a couple of hours, after which it decreased again. As a resolution, the customer requested that the provider deliver the speed he was paying for and provide a 12-month credit of his monthly fees to compensate for the inadequate quality of his internet service. The provider determined that, given its infrastructure and considering the location of the customer’s residence, it had provided him with the best possible speed it could provide to him. The provider also pointed out that the customer was not under a contract and that he could cancel at any time without any penalty. In response to the customer’s requested resolution, the provider offered to provide the customer with a $10 credit for 12 months to address the inadequate quality of service. We investigated the complaint, reviewed the provider’s terms of service, confirmed that the provider had attempted several times to resolve the technical issues the customer was experiencing and determined that, in this context, the resolution offered by the provider was reasonable. The complaint was closed under Section 9.1.f of our Procedural Code.

KEY MESSAGE With the popularity of online streaming and internet gaming, internet service demands have never been greater. Customers should ensure that they are subscribing for a service that will meet their usage needs. We encourage internet providers to ensure that they fully canvass user needs before recommending the appropriate package of speeds and usage limits.


2017-18

TOPICS AND TRENDS

The number of issues related to the loss of internet service increased by over 83% compared to last year. These issues were raised more often than any other issue. We noted a large variety of factors contributing to intermittent and complete loss of service issues that translated into slow speeds: inefficient temporary towers; congestion during peak hours; improper installation; faulty equipment; timeouts; one internet service provider buying out another provider’s customers, thereby generating more congestion; traffic management policy restrictions; technology not accommodating a customer’s needs (e.g., higher speeds required for gaming); and service throttling allegations).

TABLE 11: PERCENTAGE OF LOSS OF SERVICE INTERNET ISSUES – TOP 10 SERVICE PROVIDERS

Service provider

Intermittent and complete loss of internet service issues

% of all intermittent

and complete loss of internet service issues

Bell Canada 414 25.2%

Xplornet 310 18.8%

Rogers 160 9.7%

Comwave 79 4.8%

Shaw 69 4.2%

Cogeco Connexion 68 4.1%

TekSavvy 67 4.1%

TELUS 66 4.0%

Primus 61 3.7%

Bell Aliant 45 2.7%

All intermittent and complete loss of internet service issues

1,645

Wireless: Overview of issues In 2017-18 customers raised almost 13,000 wireless issues, an increase of 49% compared to last year. Customers continue to raise more issues about wireless service than any other type of service. This year, wireless service accounted for over 41% of all issues raised.

The top three wireless issues were:

1. Non-disclosure: 17.7%

2. Monthly price plan incorrect charge: 9.4%

3. Breach of contract: 6.8%

Wireless non-disclosure issues Almost 18% of all issues raised by wireless customers related to concerns about misleading information or non-disclosure of key terms by a service provider to its customer. Many customers tell us that they were expecting to pay a certain price for their services only to be billed at a higher rate than agreed. In other cases, customers seemingly were not informed that a price discount offered to them was subject to change or conditional on retaining certain other services, resulting in the customer having to pay a higher price than expected.

The issue of non-disclosure seems to be a more common problem for wireless customers than for other customers. Of all the non-disclosure issues raised across all types of services, half came from wireless customers. We find this troubling given the myriad requirements contained in the Wireless Code aimed at ensuring clear and disclosure of information by service providers to their customers.

One Wireless Code section, B1(iii)(a-e), requires service providers to ensure that key contract terms and conditions are disclosed to customers clearly. This section is important because it is designed to ensure that clear and accurate information is provided to customers. It also helps customers to understand the services they have agreed to purchase and clarifies which terms are “key” contract terms, and therefore protected from unilateral change by the service provider.

Unfortunately, this year there was a 114% increase in the number of confirmed breaches of section B1(iii)(a-e) of the Wireless Code. Moreover, this was the second most breached section of the Wireless Code in 2017-18, accounting for over 13% of all confirmed breaches. The only section of the Wireless Code that was breached more often was section E3 (cap on overage charges), which was largely the result of Rogers’ challenges in adapting its systems to the requirements of the Wireless Code.


2017-18

CASE STUDY #4 A customer from Langley, BC received an offer from her service provider of a new mobile device which included

a device protection plan. The customer paid $280 for the device and believed she was on a month-to-month agreement. As part of the device protection plan, the customer said that she was supposed to receive a new device if her device needed repair or replacement. However, upon experiencing a problem with her device, she received a refurbished device. She then tried to cancel her service but was advised she would incur a $500 early termination fee because she was ending her 24-month agreement early. She complained to the CCTS, informing us that she did not agree to a 24-month agreement. She wanted her provider to waive the outstanding balance on her account and let her keep the device. She also wanted to be reimbursed the money she had paid to obtain the device protection plan because it did not provide her with a new device, as she was led to believe it would.

During our investigation, the provider submitted copies of the customer’s account notes to demonstrate what had transpired during the phone call in which the customer agreed to the accept the new device. We found that the provider had failed to inform the customer that by accepting the new device she was consenting to a 24-month service agreement. The provider also acknowledged that it had failed to provide the customer with a permanent copy of the contract and related documents within 15 calendar days of the customer agreeing to the contract, as required by the Wireless Code. We therefore found that the provider had failed to disclose to the customer that she was bound to a 24-month agreement, that early cancellation fees would be applicable if the service was cancelled early, and that the provider was in breach of the requirements of the Wireless Code. The provider offered to cancel the customer’s agreement without charge and to reimburse her for the cost of the device protection plan in the amount of $99.99, an offer that the CCTS felt was reasonable to resolve the complaint.

CASE STUDY #5 A wireless customer from Winnipeg, MB was approached by a customer service representative of

a competitor with an offer to switch wireless providers. Before signing up with the new provider, the customer stressed that in future she would likely need to change her monthly wireless plan to one that included unlimited data. The customer service representative stated that all the customer needed to do was contact them to make the proper change when she was ready to upgrade her plan. However, when the customer called to make the change five months later, she was informed there was no plan that included unlimited data. The customer then requested to cancel her service so she could return the device and return to her former provider, but she was advised she would need to pay $600 to be released from her contract, which she refused to do.

The customer filed a complaint with the CCTS, asking to be released from the contract so she could return to her previous wireless provider. During our investigation, we asked the current provider to give us a copy of the customer’s contract. While reviewing the contract, we found that the provider failed to include the details of the customer’s commitment period and the early cancellation fees, as is required by the Wireless Code. We therefore asked the provider to release the customer from her contract without penalty, which it agreed to do, and the complaint was resolved.

CASE STUDY #6 A customer from Kelowna, BC signed up for a two-year contract for wireless service. He explained to his

service provider that he would need data to use while abroad in Germany and said he was assured he could use his 10 GB data feature in Europe for $10/day. However, he subsequently was billed $800 in data charges. When he disputed the charges, a customer service representative advised him to cancel his account to avoid incurring other charges, which he did. The customer then found out that he was also billed early termination charges for having cancelled the service. When he later tried to dispute the data charges and the early cancellation fees, he was told they were valid, and his provider refused to credit them. During our investigation, we discussed the matter with the provider and could not determine whether the customer had in fact been told that he could use his data while in Germany for $10/day. However, when we reviewed the account notes we found that the customer was notified that he was incurring extra data charges and that he had agreed to purchase more data and incur additional charges, as required by the Wireless Code. Nonetheless, in an effort to resolve the complaint, the provider agreed to credit the customer for the early termination and late payment fees of approximately $685. The customer agreed to accept the credit, and the complaint was resolved.

TOPICS AND TRENDS


2017-18

TOPICS AND TRENDS

Non-disclosure issues for all types of service The increase in the number of non-disclosure issues is not just an issue for wireless customers. Internet, phone and TV customers report that they are also experiencing significant challenges in obtaining clear, accurate and timely information about their services. Concerns about service providers’ failure to disclose important information was the top issue raised by customers across all types of service in 2017-18, accounting for almost 15% of all issues raised. Also, the number of non-disclosure issues raised (4,543) was 125% more than last year.

TABLE 12: NON-DISCLOSURE ISSUES BY TYPE OF SERVICE AND YoY CHANGES – TOP 5 SERVICE PROVIDERS

Service

Bell Canada Rogers Videotron Virgin Mobile TELUS

Num

ber

of

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

% o

f all

no

n-d

iscl

osu

re is

sues

YoY

ch

ang

e

Num

ber

of

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

% o

f all

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

YoY

ch

ang

e

Num

ber

of

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

% o

f all

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

YoY

ch

ang

e

Num

ber

of

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

% o

f all

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

YoY

ch

ang

e

Num

ber

of

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

% o

f all

non-

dis

clo

sure

issu

es

YoY

ch

ang

e

Wireless 637 14.0% 82.0% 307 6.8% 74.4% 141 3.1% 182.0% 296 6.5% 88.5% 191 4.2% 81.9%

Internet 489 10.8% 97.2% 87 1.9% 29.9% 90 2.0% 200.0% 10 0.2% 150.0% 61 1.3% 125.9%

Local phone 338 7.4% 107.4% 34 0.8% 70.0% 57 1.3% 216.7% 0 0.0% – 14 0.3% 16.7%

Long distance 22 0.5% 144.4% 2 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 1 0.0% 0.0%

TV* 242 5.3% – 24 0.5% – 54 1.2% – 0 0.0% – 31 0.7% –

TOTAL 1,728 38.0% 124.4% 454 10.0% 71.3% 343 7.6% 246.5% 307 6.8% 90.7% 298 6.6% 105.5%

*TV was added to the CCTS mandate in September of 2017.

Bell Canada accounts for 38% of all nondisclosure issues raised, followed by Rogers at just under 10%.

CASE STUDY #7 A customer from Saint-Charles-Borromée, QC agreed to a bundle of services for home phone, internet and TV.

A service provider representative told him the price of the package would never increase. A few months later, the customer received a notice that the price would increase by $4 per month. During the CCTS investigation, we obtained a chat log between the customer and his provider, and confirmed that the agent had clearly promised the customer he would have this rate “forever.” This information was clearly wrong because the provider’s terms of service allow for it to increase its monthly prices. Based on these findings, the CCTS informed the provider that we expected it to maintain the price quoted to the customer ($117.85 per month) for 24 months because this is what the customer would have obtained had he been under a fixed 2-year term contract. We advised the customer about these findings and informed him that the provider had offered to apply a one-time credit of $360, covering a maximum price increase for two years. However, the customer rejected the offer and withdrew the complaint, with the intent to explore other options.

KEY MESSAGE The mismatch between what a customer is expecting from their service subscription, and what they actually receive, is a frequent cause of complaints. In some cases, we see a conflict between what an agreement or contract actually says and what the customer believes they were told and agreed to. In other cases, the mismatch is caused by non-disclosure (or ineffective disclosure) of important contractual terms, particularly on issues such as the provider’s right to make unilateral changes to an aspect of the service or the price, including time limits associated with offers and promotions. We hope that increased focus, on the disclosure requirements of the Wireless Code and the TVSP Code (and better record-keeping) as well as other similar requirements imposed by the CRTC to ensure clear and timely disclosure of key information to customers will help to reduce the number of non-disclosure issues raised by customers.


2017-18

Incorrect charges: monthly price plan Another trend in 2017-18 was a large increase in the number of times customers raised concerns about being incorrectly charged for their monthly price plan. A total of 4,370 such issues were raised, representing an 87% YoY increase. This is the second-most raised issue in our complaints, accounting for 14% of all issues raised, and is increasingly a larger proportion of all issues raised.

FIGURE 7: PROPORTION OF MONTHLY PRICE PLAN INCORRECT CHARGE ISSUES, YoY

These complaints about incorrect charges happen most often when a customer is billed differently from what the customer believes was agreed to at the point of sale, usually in relation to their monthly price plan. There is probably a connection between the challenges we see regarding the accurate and timely disclosure of key information to customers and resulting billing disputes such as these.

TABLE 13: MONTHLY PRICE PLAN INCORRECT CHARGE ISSUES – TOP 3 SERVICE PROVIDERS

Service provider

# of incorrect charge issues

% of all incorrect charge issues

% of all accepted

complaints

Bell Canada 2,088 47.8% 33.2%

Videotron 487 11.1% 5.2%

Rogers 466 10.7% 10.2%

Bell accounts for almost half of the monthly price plan incorrect charge issues raised, a disproportionate amount considering that it accounts for only a third of all complaints. Videotron was the second leading service provider about which this issue was raised, accounting for just over 11%, also a disproportionate amount considering that it accounts for only 5% of all complaints.

CASE STUDY #8 A customer from Laval, QC agreed to obtain a bundle of services, including home phone, internet and TV, for

$111 per month. She called her service provider to complain, informing it that she was being billed $131 per month. The provider informed her that she was not eligible for the offer priced at $111 per month, so she contacted the CCTS, asking us to help ensure that the provider bill her the amount she had agreed to pay or allow her to cancel her services without penalty. We accepted her complaint and asked the provider to take another look at it. The complaint was resolved to the customer’s satisfaction when the provider agreed to bill her only $111 per month for the next twelve months and also provided her with an additional credit of $70 as a gesture of goodwill. The customer was satisfied with the resolution, and the complaint was resolved.

CASE STUDY #9 A customer in central QC complained to his wireless service provider that he had been billed more for his

wireless service than he had agreed to pay. After numerous attempts to fix the problem with his provider, he continued to be incorrectly charged and made a complaint to the CCTS. During our investigation, we found that the customer was supposed to be receiving a discount of 30% from his regular monthly price but that this discount had not been applied, resulting in the customer being billed more than agreed on. In discussing the matter with the provider, it confirmed that the credit had not been properly applied and corrected the matter by adjusting his bills to reflect the correct monthly charge and by providing the customer with an additional credit of $150 in light of the inconvenience this matter caused him. The customer was satisfied with this outcome, and the complaint was resolved.

TOPICS AND TRENDS

2017-182016-17

9%

13% 14%

2015-16

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%16%


2017-18

TOPICS AND TRENDS

CASE STUDY #10 An internet customer from Pierrefonds, QC complained to the CCTS that she had been billed $12.50 per month

for an “unlimited internet” feature that she never requested. The unlimited internet feature was an add-on that was billed in addition to the cost of the customer’s monthly internet service and that increased the customer’s data allotment by up to 60 GB per month. The customer requested that her service provider issue a number of credits to her account totaling approximately $600.

During our investigation, the provider submitted evidence demonstrating that the customer had indeed requested the unlimited internet add-on feature, which had been on the customer’s account since 2015. The CCTS also found that the customer’s internet usage was high, averaging about 210 GB per month for each of the last three months. We explained to the customer that the information submitted by the provider indicated she had requested this unlimited internet add-on for $12.50 per month. In addition, we informed her that had the unlimited internet feature not been on the account, she would have incurred about $1,800 in internet usage overage charges during the last three months alone. Although disappointed that she did not receive the credits on her account she was seeking, she thanked the CCTS for looking into the matter to ensure she had not been incorrectly billed by her provider, and the complaint was concluded.

KEY MESSAGE We see numerous complaints each year in which customers complain that they were promised something by their provider (usually a specific price or service) and are upset when they don’t receive it. We investigate and sometimes find evidence that confirms what was promised to them. We urge service providers to ensure careful review of all of the terms of offers they make to their customers, and careful recording of the details, to help alleviate misunderstandings. We also suggest that providers empower their personnel to carefully review their internal records when dealing with customers with this type of complaint. When the provider’s account notes confirm that something was offered to a customer, the provider should stand behind its offer and do the right thing for its customer. These customers should not be forced to pursue their complaints with the CCTS in these “open and shut” cases. And when the records support the service provider’s position, it should not hesitate to share them with the customer.


WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS In this section, we present the results for those service providers that have been the subject of the greatest number of complaints. We also discuss some of the challenges we have faced working with service providers, including those related to compliance with their obligations.

TABLE 14: TOP 25 PSPs BY COMPLAINTS ACCEPTED

Service provider Acc

epte

d

com

pla

ints

Per

cent

age

o

f al

l co

mp

lain

ts

YoY

% c

han

ge

i n c

om

pla

ints

ac

cep

ted

Co

nclu

ded

co

mp

lain

ts

Res

olu

tio

n ra

te

(% o

f all

reso

lved

co

mp

lain

ts v

s. a

ll co

nclu

ded

; 92

% o

vera

ll)

Esc

alat

ion

rate

(%

of a

ll es

cala

ted

co

mp

lain

ts v

s. a

ll co

nclu

ded

; 20

% o

vera

ll)

% o

f es

cala

tio

ns

esca

late

d d

ue

to

6.6

of

Pro

ced

ura

l C

od

e (9

% o

vera

ll)

Bell Canada 4,734 33.2% 45.8% 4,281 91.3% 22.9% 0.1%

Rogers 1,449 10.2% 34.4% 1,407 89.1% 15.8% 2.2%

TELUS 944 6.6% 49.6% 901 92.2% 13.7% 1.6%

Freedom Mobile 850 6.0% 185.2% 730 95.6% 24.5% 3.9%

Virgin Mobile 847 5.9% 39.3% 827 95.8% 18.4% 0.0%

Videotron 740 5.2% 113.9% 696 93.4% 14.5% 3.0%

Fido 650 4.6% 42.9% 619 89.8% 15.8% 3.1%

Cogeco Connexion 546 3.8% 358.8% 340 94.7% 15.0% 35.3%

Xplornet 378 2.6% 47.7% 379 93.1% 19.3% 2.7%

Koodo 360 2.5% 36.9% 336 88.7% 15.5% 0.0%

Shaw 337 2.4% 111.9% 315 94.9% 14.9% 4.3%

Comwave 302 2.1% 34.8% 302 96.0% 7.9% 37.5%

Bell Aliant 229 1.6% 77.5% 218 93.6% 15.1% 3.0%

Primus 181 1.3% 28.4% 193 93.8% 16.6% 25.0%

Chatr 159 1.1% 87.1% 153 77.1% 44.4% 2.9%

Public Mobile 142 1.0% 36.5% 141 94.3% 14.9% 0.0%

Bell MTS 135 0.9% 95.7% 141 92.9% 6.4% 0.0%

Eastlink 129 0.9% 108.1% 135 91.1% 9.6% 0.0%

TekSavvy 112 0.8% 103.6% 116 94.8% 12.1% 21.4%

Acanac 66 0.5% 61.0% 48 93.8% 39.6% 68.4%

ACN Canada 53 0.4% -17.2% 63 92.1% 15.9% 0.0%

Distributel 46 0.3% 76.9% 44 88.6% 25.0% 45.5%

Speak Out Wireless (7-11) 37 0.3% 37.0% 41 92.7% 63.4% 42.3%

Sasktel 36 0.3% 16.1% 38 92.1% 15.8% 0.0%

Vonage 36 0.3% -40.0% 38 100.0% 68.4% 84.6%



2017-18

Top 10 PSP profiles

BELL

• This year, Bell saw a 45.8% increase in the number of complaints accepted. Bell accounted for 33.3% of all accepted complaints, a decrease from last year’s 35.7%.

• The number of issues related to incorrect monthly price plan charges increased by 50%. Bell accounted for 47.8% of all incorrect monthly price plan charge issues, a category that saw the second biggest increase (87.3%) in all the complaints concluded this year.

• Bell also recorded the second highest YoY increase in the number of non-disclosure issues, up 124.4%. This complaint category had the largest YoY increase overall (125.3%).

• Bell’s confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code (23) increased by 21.1%, representing 20.7% of the total number of the Wireless Code confirmed breaches for all PSPs (i.e., 111).

4,734 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS

Up by 45.8%

33.2% of all complaints

TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Incorrect charge (2,088)

Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading information about terms (1,728 )

30-day cancellation policy/ Charges billed after cancellation (794)

23 Wireless Code breaches

20.7% of all Wireless Code breaches

4,281 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS

3,202 resolved at pre-investigation

706 resolved at investigation

373 unresolved/ closed

TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES

Further investigation not warranted (130)

Customer not cooperative (102)

Service provider offer is reasonable (86)



2017-18

ROGERS

• The number of Rogers complaints accepted increased by 34.4% (YoY). Rogers’ complaints represent 10.2% of the total number of complaints accepted this year, slightly less than last year’s 11.8%.

• We saw a 76.5% increase in the number of incorrect monthly plan charges (up to 466 this year). Also, mostly driven by a 53.9% increase in the number of intermittent/inadequate quality of service issues, Rogers’ service delivery issues in general went up to 19.4% (from 16.6% last year).

• Rogers breaches of the Wireless Code (44) increased by 76%. This accounts for 39.6% of the total number of Wireless Code breaches for all PSPs. We saw an increase (212.5%, from 8 to 25) in the number of confirmed breaches of section E. “Bill Management,” mainly related to the application of the data cap provisions.

1,449 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS

Up by 34.4%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Incorrect charge (466)

Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading information about terms (454)

Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (257)



1,407 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS

1,124 resolved at pre-investigation









2017-18

TELUS

• TELUS complaints increased by almost 50% this year (from 631 to 944). TELUS accounted for 6.6% of all accepted complaints, a slight decrease from last year’s 6.9%.

• We noted an increase in the number of contract dispute issues in TELUS complaints (up to 31.9% from 27.2% last year), but a decrease in complaints about billing issues (down to 40.4% from 44.6% last year).

• With a total of 10 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, TELUS’ proportion of all Wireless Code breaches declined from almost 20% last year to 9% this year. The most significant decrease (71.4%, from 7 to 2) was related to Section I. “Disconnection,” involving breaches of the Wireless Code obligations related to 14-day and 24-hour notices prior to disconnection/suspension.

944 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS

Up by 49.6%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED





9% of all Wireless Code breaches

901 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS

757 resolved at pre-investigation









2017-18

FREEDOM MOBILE

• Complaints about Freedom increased this year by 185% (from 298 to 850). Freedom accounted for 6% of all accepted complaints, an increase from last year’s 3.3%.

• The proportion of Freedom’s issues that related to service delivery declined slightly, from 29.9% last year to 28.4%. Again this year, the most frequently-raised issue by Freedom’s customers related to intermittent/inadequate

quality of service, a category that increased by 170% this year. Freedom also had an almost 190% YoY increase in contract dispute issues.

• The number of confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code changed only slightly, from 6 to 7, with only minor changes in the distribution by sections of the Wireless Code.


Up by 185.2%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED



Breach of contract (105)













2017-18

VIRGIN MOBILE

• This year, complaints about Virgin Mobile increasedby almost 40%. Virgin Mobile’s complaints accountfor 5.9% of all accepted complaints, a slight decreasecompared to 6.7% last year.

• Virgin Mobile’s complaints showed an almost 63% YoYincrease in contract dispute issues, though its overall numberof billing issues decreased by slightly over 3% this year.

• Virgin Mobile’s number of confirmed breaches of the WirelessCode increased by 233% this year, from 3 to 10, which amountsto 9% of the total number of all Wireless Code breaches.

847 ACCEPTEDCOMPLAINTS

Up by 39.3%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED


Data charges (164)




827 CONCLUDEDCOMPLAINTS

673 resolved atpre-investigation









2017-18

VIDEOTRON

• We accepted nearly 114% more complaints from Videotron customers this year (740). Videotron’s complaints account for 5.2% of all accepted complaints, an increase from last year’s 3.8%.

• The most significant increase in the issues identified in Videotron complaints was the contract disputes category, which went up to 40.2%, from 30.4% last year. Videotron’s number of incorrect monthly price plan charge issues

increased by 11.1%. However, the proportion of billing-related problems in Videotron’s complaints went slightly down this year (from 49.5% to 48.3%).

• We confirmed 3 breaches of the Wireless Code this year (none last year), one in each of the following sections: B. “Contracts and related documents,” E. “Bill management” and G. “Contract cancellation and extension.”


Up by 113.9%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED



Breach of contract (153)













2017-18

FIDO

• Fido complaints increased by almost 43% this year. Fido accounted for 4.6% of all accepted complaints this year, a slight decrease from last year’s 5%.

• The issue raised most frequently by Fido customers was non-disclosure (up to 17.2%, from 14.2% last year). Billing issues increased somewhat, to 36.6% this year (from 33.3% last year).

• Service delivery issues declined from 14.9% to 12.9%.

• Fido complaints disclosed a 200% increase in Wireless Code breaches (9 in total). One-third of Fido’s breaches related to the application of the Code’s data cap provisions.


Up by 42.9%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED



Data charges (83)













2017-18

COGECO

• Complaints about Cogeco increased by over 358% this year, representing 3.8% of all accepted complaints (up from 1.3% last year).

• Cogeco complaints raising service delivery issues increased by more than 500%, representing 41.2 % of all Cogeco complaint issues (up from 27.6% last year). At the same

time, complaints raising billing issues represented a declining portion of Cogeco’s issues, down to 31.1% this year (from 44.8%).

• Although the number of Cogeco complaints about internet declined this year, at the number of internet service delivery issues did increase this year by 255.5% (up to 135 this year).


Up by 358.8%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED


Complete loss of service (96)









Further investigation not warranted (2) and Withdrawn (2)



2017-18

XPLORNET

• This year, we saw a 47.7% increase in the number of accepted complaints. Xplornet’s complaints accounted for 2.6% of all accepted complaints.

• Service delivery problems were identified in complaints 62% more often this year (up to 343 from 212), mostly driven by an increase in intermittent/inadequate quality of service issues, which went up by 81%.


Up by 47.7%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED


Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fees (74)












2017-18

KOODO

• This year, we accepted nearly 37% more complaints from Koodo customers, accounting for 2.5% of all accepted complaints; this is a slight decrease from last year’s 2.9%.

• Billing issues decreased, representing 43% of all Koodo issues (down from 50.1% last year).

• Non-disclosure issues in Koodo complaints (96) more than doubled this year.

• Last year, Koodo had 11 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code; this year it had none.


Up by 36.9%


TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED


Credit reporting (72)


No Wireless Code breaches










2017-18


Compliance The CRTC requires companies that provide retail telecommunications services in Canada as well as licensed TV service providers to participate in the CCTS. Some service providers (typically small providers or new entrants to the business) do not currently participate. Their obligation to do so is triggered when one of their customers files a complaint with the CCTS.

We do everything in our power to get these service providers to sign up, and we’re generally successful. This year it took us, on average, 26 days to locate, contact and sign up a new provider. The CRTC’s objective for this process is 30 days, but we’re not able to sign up every service provider within 30 days.

In 2017-18 we signed up 51 new service providers. However, some providers refuse to join the CCTS. If we’re unable to persuade them to follow the rules and become a PSP, we refer the matter to the CRTC for further action.

TABLE 15: SERVICE PROVIDERS FAILING TO JOIN THE CCTS WHEN REQUIRED

As of July 31, 2018 the following service providers were non-compliant with the regulatory obligation to sign up with the CCTS:

• Collect To Cell • Cybernet Communications • Golden Rural High Speed • MySignal.ca• Pure Channel Communication • Redbox Solution Limited • SkyNet Data Networks Inc. • St-François Telecom • Total Cable • WISP Inc.

We publicize the identities of these providers throughout the year on our Non-compliant Providers web page.

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/participating-service-providers/non-compliant-providers/

http://MySignal.ca


2017-18


Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program On February 1, 2018 the CCTS began to monitor and audit PSPs to obtain confirmation of compliance with the requirements of participation: disclosure of their eligible retail revenues; telling their customers about the CCTS (as required by the CCTS Public Awareness Plan); following the rules for investigating complaints; and paying their fees to the CCTS. We did this by requiring them to complete and return our Annual Compliance Certification (ACC) form.

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE OF REVENUES We sent compliance certification forms to each service provider and asked them to return a separate form for each brand under which they offer service to the public. We also required them to provide certification of their revenues because we need this information for the administration of our funding formula.

Annual Compliance Certification (ACC) forms are required for each brand. As of July 31, 2018, 245 of 304 forms had been completed and returned to us, a compliance rate of 80.6%.

TABLE 16: PSPs NON-COMPLIANT ON JULY 31, 2018 WITH REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT ACC FORMS

Accelerated Connections

ALO Telecom Inc.

Allo Telecom*

Avenue

BabyTel

BlueTone

Brightroam

Bravo Telecom

Cable Cable Inc.*

Canada Payphone

Canada Relink

Canopco

CaspianWave TSP Inc.

City Wide Communications Inc.

CompuXellence

Contact Internet

Digicom Internet sans fil

Digicom Sans Fil*

DMTS*

Epik Networks

G3 Wireless

Infosat Communications

InnSys Incorporated

Internet Papineau

Jive Communications*

KMTS*

My BC Datacom

NECC

NetReach

Netscape

Nophone.ca

Nor-Del Telecom

NorthWind Wireless

OneConnect

OnStar*

Owtel Store Inc.

Parolink.net

Phonebox

Phone Power*

PWHR Solutions

Quantum Xpress Computers

Quinte Long Distance

Securenet Information Services Inc.

Simcoe County LD

SkyChoice Communications Inc.

Skydata

Smart Telecom

Springtel Communications Inc.

Switchworks

Syban Systems Ltd.

Talkit.ca Inc.

Tel-Synergy

Thinktel*

Toronto Telecom*

United Online, Inc.

VBuzzer™

VoIP Much Phone Company Inc.

Vox Sun

Xinflix

* These brands submitted the required ACC form after July 31, 2018.


http://Nophone.ca

http://Parolink.net

http://Talkit.ca


2017-18


Certification of retail revenues is required from PSPs (legal entities, not brands), including service providers that were required to join the CCTS during the year but failed to do so. In 2017-18 we sent 231 forms for completion. As of July 31, 2018, 182 forms had been returned, a compliance rate of 78.8%. 49 PSPs failed to provide their Certification of Retail Revenues (CRR) forms.

TABLE 17: PSPs NON-COMPLIANT WITH REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT CRR FORMS ON JULY 31, 2018

159272 Canada Inc. (o/a Securenet)

2343842 Ontario Inc. (o/a Smart Telecom)

9045-2855 Québec Inc. (o/a Digicom)*

Accelerated Connections Inc.

AEI Internet Inc.

AOL Canada Corp

BabyTel

BlueTone

Bravo Telecom*

Cable Cable Inc.

Canada Relink

CaspianWave TSP Inc.

Collect To Cell

Connex Global Communications Inc.

Cybernet Communications

EspaceNet*

Falcon Internet Services Inc.*

Freedom Phone Lines

Gold Leaf Telecom Ltd.

Golden Rural High Speed

Groupe Negotel Inc.

Infosat Communications

InnSys Incorporated

Jive Communications Technology Canada Ltd.

My BC Datacom Ltd.

MySignal.ca Solutions Inc.

NECC Telecom

Nobel Canada Telecom Inc.*

Nor-Del Cablevision Limited

Primus Management ULC (formerly Primus Telecommunications (Canada) Inc.)*

Pure Channel Communication

PWHR Solutions

Quality Speaks LLC (Phone Power)*

Redbox Solution


SkyNet Data Networks Inc.


St-Francois telecom

Switchworks Technologies Inc.

Syban Systems Ltd.

Talkit.ca Inc.

Telizon Inc.

Tel-Synergy

Total Cable

United Online, Inc.


Vox Sun

Wisp Inc.

XinFlix Media Inc.

* These PSPs submitted the required CRR form after July 31, 2018.

“ I must say that my service provider was a lot more receptive to my problems once the CCTS was involved. Thank you so much.” – M.H., a home phone customer from NS

http://MySignal.ca

http://Talkit.ca


2017-18


TELLING THEIR CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE CCTS All service providers are required as part of their internal complaint-handling process to make their customers aware of the CCTS’ impartial and free complaint resolution service. An audit of compliance by select providers is planned and will be reported at a later date.

FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS All service providers are bound by the CCTS Procedural Code, which means they are expected to cooperate with the CCTS when customers file complaints. Among the key requirements are:

• responding to complaints filed with the CCTS within defined time periods and providing information or documentation as requested

• cooperating in good faith throughout the investigation process

• carrying out resolutions to which they agreed and any binding remedies imposed by the CCTS

Between January and July of 2018 the CCTS identified over 400 alleged violations by service providers of various Procedural Code requirements.

TABLE 18: ALLEGED PROCEDURAL CODE VIOLATIONS

Issue and Procedural Code section Number

Percentage of all issues

Section 7: PSP failed to refrain from proceeding with collections activity

209 41.8%

Section 6.6: PSP failed to provide complete response or did not respond

153 30.6%

Section 15: PSP failed to provide information/ assistance for complaint investigation

81 16.2%

The number of these issues is cause for concern. Although we do our best to ensure that issues impacting customers with complaints are addressed right away as part of our investigation, this is a large number of violations in just seven months. The failure by service providers to provide timely responses to unresolved complaints, to include with those responses the documents necessary for CCTS to conduct its investigation, or to respond promptly to subsequent requests for additional information, make up almost half of these issues. These failings create needless delays for consumers and needless work for the CCTS and service providers.

We urge service providers to pay attention to these issues and ensure that their internal processes and staffing are appropriate to comply with these requirements. Future CCTS reporting on this topic, as we obtain more data on these issues, may include identification of individual service providers and the extent to which they are individually in breach of these requirements.

PAYING THEIR FEES The CCTS is funded by its PSPs based on a complex formula. We bill them quarterly and they are required to pay their fees within 30 days. Some service providers are in breach of the requirement to pay their fees, and the CCTS will be referring a number of them for collection activity.

AllCore COMMUNICATIONS AllCore is a service provider in Hamilton ON that became a CCTS participant in April of 2017. In 2018 AllCore agreed to resolve a complaint by providing a refund to a customer who had complained to the CCTS, but it failed to do so. It also failed to implement a binding Recommendation made in another complaint. The CCTS worked hard to communicate with AllCore and explain what AllCore needed to do to remedy its violations of our rules (which included failure to file its annual certification forms, its revenue declaration, and to pay outstanding fees owing to the CCTS). AllCore did not respond. As a result, on August 2, 2018 the CCTS expelled AllCore from participation. Because AllCore is required by the CRTC to participate in the CCTS, this expulsion put AllCore in breach of its regulatory responsibilities and the CCTS notified the CRTC.

* In October of 2018, AllCore remedied its non-compliance and was readmitted to participation in the CCTS.


https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCTS-Procedural-Code-Sep-2017.html

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/ccts-terminates-participation-allcore-communications-due-non-compliance/


WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS Introduction We’re always looking for ways to help customers find out about our complaint-handling process and make it easier for them to access our services. This section discusses our activities and results in 2017-18.

Website We know that our website is a key tool for helping customers find us. Our customer surveys tell us that 32% of customers report first learning about the CCTS through an online search.

We also know that our website is a focus for customers who want to file complaints. In 2017-18, 81% of the complaints we accepted were filed by customers using the “Submit a Complaint” interactive questionnaire on our website.

There were close to 290,000 website visits this year, an increase of 64% from last year. There was also a corresponding increase in the use of the “Submit a Complaint” interactive questionnaire, which peaked at 20,000 sessions last year but at 50,000 this year.

Accessibility The CCTS has always been mindful of its responsibility to be responsive to the diverse needs of the public and to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to use our services. Providing accessible customer service so that persons with disabilities can reach us easily and make use of our processes is one of our core values. We provide customer service in a manner that accommodates persons with disabilities and reflects the principles of independence, dignity, integration and equality of opportunity.

We conduct annual consultations with groups representing Canadians with disabilities. Based on their feedback from last year, our two new videos that explain what is the CCTS and how the CCTS works are closed captioned and have an American Sign Language/langue des signes Québécoise (ASL/LSQ) version.

We have also performed an accessibility analysis of our website to ensure that current content plus any new content added meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. As a result, we are adjusting some website features for better accessibility. We intend to perform an accessibility analysis every two years to ensure ongoing website accessibility.

Our Annual and Mid-year Reports are provided in PDF versions that are tagged for accessibility, to help optimize the reading experience for those who use screen readers and other assistive technology.

At the request of the CRTC, we have also implemented a process to track accessibility-related issues that appear in customer complaints.

For more information about our policies and guidelines, see our Accessibility web page.

Customer survey results We survey customers who use our service for two reasons:

• to get their impressions of the work we do, so we can focus our efforts for improvement

• to attempt to measure the success of the public awareness initiatives we undertake with service providers

The results are based on almost 3,700 responses. We thank the customers who took the time to participate in the survey and share their views. The results for these survey questions show very little change from previous years’ results.

Numbers for all results were rounded.

WHAT CUSTOMERS SAID ABOUT THE CCTS We asked our customers: Was it easy to file your complaint with the CCTS?

39

Yes Somewhat No

3%

82%

15%

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/for-consumers/accessibility/

We asked our customers to provide feedback on whether the service they received from our Contact Centre agents met expectations in certain important respects.

We also asked our customers about important elements of the service they received from our Complaints Resolution Officers and Investigators.

Finally, we asked our customers about their overall sense of satisfaction with various aspects of our process.

“ The CCTS was very prompt in responding to my complaint and they expedited the resolution in a very timely, satisfactory manner.” – A.S., a TV customer from ON

Polite and professional

Helpful

Knowledgeable

Polite and professional

Knowledgeable

Impartial

Accessibility

Timelines

Professionalism

Impartiality

Process fairness


2017-18

83%

3%

4%

93%

6%

11%

No

5%

10%

Yes Somewhat

85%


Yes Somewhat No

3%

5%

92%

5%

11%

84%

11%

9%

80%

Yes Somewhat

91%

86%

87%

81%

80%

6%

3%

No

6%

8%

2%

11%

7%

12%

9%

11%

WHAT CUSTOMERS SAID ABOUT SERVICE PROVIDER PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES We asked our customers how they first found out about the CCTS. Our customers said:

BREAKDOWN OF “OTHER”

Service providers have committed to notify customers about CCTS during their internal complaint-handling process. We asked our customers whether their service provider told them about the CCTS during their efforts to resolve the problem. Our customers said:

Service providers are required to print a prescribed message about the CCTS on customer bills four times a year. We asked our customers whether they’ve ever seen the notice on any of their bills. Our customers said:

Service providers have committed to placing a prescribed notice about the CCTS in a reasonably prominent place on their web sites, and to include a link to our website. We asked our customers whether they’d seen it. Our customers said:


2017-18

8%

4%

4%

Web search

The CRTC

A friend, colleague or family member

Media or other Public Forum

Notice on bill

A consumer group/agency

Other

32%

23%

17%

12%

12%

Yes No

88%

15%

Yes No

85%

11%

Yes No

89%

A service provider

Already knew about CCTS

Other/don’t recall

Bank or credit card company

24%

6%5% 65%



Issue Number

STATISTICAL REPORTS Contact Centre activities Our Contact Centre received over 110,000 communications by telephone, in writing and by online chat.

TABLE 19: COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED

Type 2017-18 % change

Total written correspondence 44,937 33%

Total phone calls answered 62,023 8%

Total chat sessions answered 3,494 134%

The total written correspondence includes use of our online interactive questionnaire. This information, combined with the modest increase in phone calls and the 134% increase in chat sessions, suggests that the telephone is being replaced by online communications.

Out-of-mandate issues The following tables show the number of issues raised by customers that the CCTS could not accept in 2017-18, broken down by the reason they could not be accepted.

TABLE 20: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 3 AND OTHER

Issue Number

Section 3.1(a)(i) Internet applications/content 409

Section 3.1(a)(ii) Emergency services 57

Section 3.1(a)(iii) Payphones 64

Section 3.1(a)(iv) Yellow pages/business directories 66

Section 3.1(a)(v) Telemarketing/unsolicited messages 844

Section 3.1(a)(vi) 900/976 calls 90

Section 3.1(b)(i) Digital Media Broadcast Undertaking (DMBU) services

53

Section 3.1(b)(ii) Interactive TVSP services and applications

14

Section 3.1(b)(iii) Broadcasting Content 421

Section 3.1(b)(iv) Journalistic ethics 22

Section 3.1(b)(v) Accessibility issues e.g. Closed-captioning and described video

61

Section 3.1(b)(vi) Simultaneous substitution 27

Section 3.1(c)(i) Customer owned equipment 395

Section 3.1(c)(ii) Inside wiring 14

Section 3.1(c)(iii) Security services 230

Section 3.1(c)(iv) Networking services 136

Section 3.1(c)(v) Pricing 1,244

Section 3.1(c)(vi) Rights of way 174

Section 3.1(c)(vii) Plant/poles/towers 749

Section 3.1(c)(viii) False/misleading advertising 278

Section 3.1(c)(ix) Privacy issues 707

Other – Broadcasting (television) 1,572

Other – Broadcasting (radio) 54

Other – Consumer – clarity of offers and promotions (TVSP Code)

111

Other – Not related to service providers (Phone/internet scams)

472

Other – Regulated services 114

TOTAL 8,378


2017-18

STATISTICAL REPORTS

TABLE 21: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 4

Issue Number

Section 4.1 Customer service

Language barriers 203

Outsourcing 292

Rude representative 1,678

Wait times 2,199

Total 4,372

Section 4.3 General operating practices and policies 2,814

TOTAL 7,186

Some complaints could not be accepted due to provisions of the Procedural Code. They break down as follows.

TABLE 22: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 10: DUTY TO DECLINE TO TAKE ACTION

Issue Number

Section 10.1 Service provider not offered opportunity to resolve 1,432

Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency 1,271

Section 10.3(a) Facts transpired over one year 770

Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date 175

TOTAL 3,648


2017-18

STATISTICAL REPORTS

Although accessibility issues are out of our mandate, the CRTC asked us to track when customers raised these about their service providers.

TABLE 23: ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES

Issue Number

Contract not provided in alternative format 0

Customer service

Indifference to customer’s disability 14

Total 14

Emergency services 0

Hearing or speech issues

In-store language accessibility 0

MRS not available 4

VRS not available 4

Total 8

Mobility issues

In-store physical accessibility 1

Total 1

Other 16

Policies and operating procedures 8

Special type of wireless device handset not offered 0

Visual issues

Bills and other information not provided in alternative format 2

Total 2

TOTAL 49

“ I don’t think I would have been able to resolve my complaint without the intervention of the CCTS. I am very pleased with the resolution.” – P.O., an internet customer from PEI


2017-18

STATISTICAL REPORTS

Small business In 2017-18, we had 494 complaints from small business customers, 3.7% of all concluded complaints.

When we report our operational statistics, we include the data for all the complaints we dealt with during the year. However, not all complaints are alike. In particular, we know that complaints from small business customers can be quite different from those of individual consumers. The following tables highlight the differences.

TABLE 24: SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT SUBJECTS vs. CONSUMER COMPLAINT SUBJECTS

Subject Small

business Consumer

Contract dispute 56.7% 34.9%

Billing 21.9% 40.8%

Service delivery 18.1% 21.0%

Credit management 3.3% 3.4%

TOTAL 100% 100%

The small business percentages are similar to last year’s results.

TABLE 25: SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT TYPES OF SERVICE vs. CONSUMER COMPLAINT TYPES OF SERVICES

Service Small

business Consumer

Wireless 23.7% 42.2%

Internet 34.2% 29.1%

Local phone 40.7% 16.5%

Long distance 1.5% 1.2%

There were no small business or consumer complaints in 2017-2018 about directory assistance, white page directories or operator services.

The types of complaints for small business are similar to last year’s results.

TABLE 26: TOP 10 SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT ISSUES

Issue Small

business Consumer

Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fees 21.0% 4.7%

Non-disclosure of terms/ Misleading information about terms

10.5% 15.0%

Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service 8.2% 8.4%

Contract auto-renewal 7.8% 0.2%

Incorrect charge 7.2% 14.5%

No consent provided for contract renewal 4.8% 2.1%

Breach of contract 4.3% 5.2%

No consent 3.4% 0.2%

Credit reporting 2.9% 2.9%

Complete loss of service 2.8% 2.8%

The first eight small business issues were also the first eight issues last year, though the order was different. The last two issues are different from last year, when number nine was “Material contract change without notice” and number ten was “Material contract change.”


2017-18

STATISTICAL REPORTS

Analysis of closed complaints Our operational statistics show that we closed 1,068 complaints in 2017-18. The following table provides a breakdown of the reasons why those complaints were closed, with reference to the relevant section of the Procedural Code.

TABLE 27: COMPLAINTS CLOSED BY REASON FOR CLOSURE

Reason for closure Number of closed

complaints % of closed complaints

Customer withdraws complaint 76 7.1%

Out-of-mandate after further information obtained 54 5.1%

Section 9.1(b) Customer does not have sufficient interest 9 0.8%

Section 9.1(c) Complaint more appropriately handled by another agency 25 2.3%

Section 9.1(d) Further investigation not warranted 347 32.5%

Section 9.1(e) Customer not cooperative 322 30.1%

Section 9.1(f) Service provider offer is reasonable 201 18.8%

Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency 10 0.9%

Section 10.3(a) Complaint filed outside time limits 21 2.0%

Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date 3 0.3%

TOTAL 1,068 100%


STATISTICAL REPORTS

47

2017-18

Compensation analysis In cases that are resolved, as well as in Recommendations and Decisions, customers may receive some form of compensation from their service provider. This compensation can take many forms, including:

• bill credits

• bill adjustments

• free or discounted products and services

• cash payments

We attempt to record the value of all compensation awarded to customers as a result of the CCTS process. This is challenging because in a significant number of cases (in particular resolutions that occur at our Pre-investigation stage) we are not provided with the details of the settlement reached between the customer and the service provider.

This report discloses the full value of compensation received by customers that has been reported to us.

TABLE 28: NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS IN WHICH COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED

Compensation range Number

of complaints Percentage

< $100 3,070 33.8%

$100 – $499 4,570 50.3%

$500 – $999 927 10.2%

$1,000 – $4,999 493 5.4%

$5,000 or more 26 0.3%

TOTAL 9,086 100%

Total compensation: $2,977,658

Performance standards Each year, we set ourselves a goal of great customer service. To ensure that we’re meeting that goal, we track our performance across various benchmarks.

CONTACT CENTRE/PRE-INVESTIGATION TABLE 29: CONTACT CENTRE/PRE-INVESTIGATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Process Target 2017-18

Answer phone calls within 120 seconds

80% 78.0%

Process written communications within 3 calendar days

80% 70.7%

COMPLAINT HANDLING TABLE 30: COMPLAINT HANDLING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Process Target 2017-18

Complaints concluded at Pre-investigation stage within 40 days of acceptance

80% 97.9%

Complaints concluded at Investigation stage within 60 days of referral to Investigation

80% 42.7%

Although the 57% increase in complaints this year impacted our target benchmarks, the only substantial change was for concluding complaints at the Investigation stage within 60 days.

“I always received excellent service from your agents, good advice and explanation of issues. Thank you for providing this service.” – C.N., a wireless customer from ON


2017-18

Regional analysis

We receive complaints from customers throughout Canada.

Here, we identify the number of accepted complaints by

province/territory.

14,272COMPLAINTS

36,708,083POPULATION*

TABLE 31: COMPLAINTS ACCEPTED BY PROVINCE/TERRITORY

Province/Territory Complaints Population*

Alberta 1,118 7.8% 4,286,134 11.7%

British Columbia 1,442 10.1% 4,817,160 13.1%

Manitoba 360 2.5% 1,338,109 3.6%

New Brunswick 205 1.4% 759,655 2.1%

Newfoundland and Labrador 148 1.0% 528,817 1.4%

Northwest Territories 4 0.0% 44,520 0.1%

Nova Scotia 320 2.2% 953,869 2.6%

Nunavut 4 0.0% 37,996 0.1%

Ontario 6,663 46.7% 14,193,384 38.7%

Prince Edward Island 53 0.4% 152,021 0.4%

Quebec 3,776 26.5% 8,394,034 22.9%

Saskatchewan 154 1.1% 1,163,925 3.2%

Yukon 6 0.0% 38,459 0.1%

Not specified 19 0.1%

TOTAL 14,272 100% 36,708,083 100%

Canada, Statistics Canada, Table 17-10-0005-01 (Ottawa, CANSIM, 2017) at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501Please note that percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

ON 6,663

QC 3,776

NB 205

NS 320

PE 53

NL 148

NT 4

YT 6

NU 4

AB 1,118 MB

360SK

154

BC 1,442

STATISTICAL REPORTS

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501


GOVERNANCE Board of Directors Our Board is structured to provide for the participation of all stakeholders while remaining independent from the telecom and TV industries. It consists of seven directors who are elected for three-year terms:

• four independent directors, two of whom are appointed by consumer groups

• three industry directors, one each to represent the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), the cable companies and the other Participating Service Providers

Director biographies INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS Catherine Aczel Boivie, PhD, ICD.D (Board Chair, appointed October of 2016) – A senior executive and CEO, Catherine has led the advancement of the strategic value of information technology as a business enabler at Vancity Credit Union, Pacific Blue Cross and CAA British Columbia. She serves on several boards, including those of Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (REBGV), MedicAlert Canada and Artsclub theatre. She holds a BMath degree from University of Waterloo and an MEd and PhD from University of Toronto. Dr. Boivie has been publicly recognized for her contributions, including being named as one of Canada’s top 100 most powerful women by the Women’s Executive Network in the “Trailblazers and Trendsetters” category, and is the recipient of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee medal for being a “catalyst for technology transformation”.

Darlene Halwas – Darlene currently serves on the boards of Aquatera Utilities Inc., Alberta WaterPortal Society and Watt Consulting Group. She has almost 30 years work experience, with 15 years focused on leading risk management functions for companies. In the past, she has served on a number of boards, including the Safety Codes Council, CKUA Radio Foundation, the Management Employees Pension Board and the Calgary Police Commission. She holds a Bachelor of Commerce (Hons.) from the University of Manitoba and the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Financial Risk Manager (FRM) and Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD.D) designations as well as certification in tribunal administrative justice. Since 1995, she has been an active volunteer with the CFA Institute, and recently completed her term on the global Disciplinary Review Committee. She was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for her contributions to Canada.

Consumer group appointees Marina Pavlovic – Marina is an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, where she is a member of the Center for Law, Technology, and Society. Marina has research and teaching experience in consumer protection, telecommunications, law and technology policy, and dispute resolution. She holds a law degree from the University of Belgrade (Serbia) and a LLM in Law & Technology from the University of Ottawa.

Jacques C.P. Bellemare – Jacques graduated in Engineering Physics at École Polytechnique in Montreal (1961) and later obtained an MBA from Laval University in Quebec (1973). In the private sector, he has worked in telephony with Bell Canada, in Cable TV with Cablevision Nationale (acquired by Videotron), in consulting with Raymond, Chabot, Martin, Paré, and in regulation with Teleglobe Canada after its privatization. Since 1994, with his own firm STEM Consultants Inc., he offers independent expertise in economic regulation of public utility companies, mostly in the energy sector. In the public sector, from 1982 to 1988, Jacques served as a Member of the Quebec Public Service Board then assuming regulatory jurisdiction over certain telephone companies located in Quebec, including Quebec-Telephone and Telebec.

INDUSTRY DIRECTORS Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) Ruby Barber – Ruby is Assistant General Counsel, Legal & Regulatory Affairs, and Director, Compliance at Bell Canada and is based in Ottawa. She joined Bell in 1997 and has a broad range of legal and regulatory experience with telecom issues. Most recently she was responsible for Bell Canada’s consumer legal team, which on a day-to-day basis addresses legal issues impacting Bell’s customers, including the Wireless Code of Conduct. Previously, she supported the Mergers & Acquisitions team at Bell as Assistant General Counsel, M&A. Prior to joining Bell, Ruby was an associate at Fasken Martineau in Toronto, practising corporate and securities law. She is a graduate of Queen’s University (Honours Politics) and Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the Bar in Ontario in 1991.


2017-18

GOVERNANCE

Cable companies Dennis Béland (to October 2017) – Dennis is Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Telecommunications, Quebecor Media Inc. Dennis has a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering and Management and a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is a Member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian LNP Consortium Inc., the Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium Inc. and a former Member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

Dean Shaikh (from October 2017) – Dean is Vice President, Regulatory Affairs at Shaw Communications, where he is primarily responsible for CRTC proceedings and compliance under the Broadcasting Act. He also provides advice on matters involving the Telecommunications Act, Competition Act and Copyright Act. Prior to joining Shaw in 2006, Dean was Regulatory Counsel at the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association. Previously, he worked at the Competition Bureau in the Mergers Branch. Dean is a graduate of Queen’s University (Bachelor of Laws) and the University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Social Sciences – Political Science and Master of Laws).

Other Participating Service Providers Bram Abramson – Bram is a Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellow at Citizen Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. Previous roles include head of law, regulatory, and public policy at TekSavvy; communications lawyer at McCarthy Tétrault; and senior analyst at the CRTC and at TeleGeography. Bram is a graduate of Concordia (BA, Communications) and McGill (BCL/LLB, Law) universities and, alongside his Ontario bar membership, holds the CIPP/C, CIPM, and FIP privacy designations.

For up-to-date biographies throughout the year, see our Board of Directors web page.

Board changes In October 2017, Dennis Béland retired after serving on the Board since 2008. Dean Shaikh was appointed to the “cable companies” director position that Dennis vacated.

Meetings and director attendance

Board meeting date Abramson Barber Béland Bellemare Boivie Halwas Pavlovic Shaikh

October 17, 2017 (conference call)

October 24, 2017 N/A*

January 31 and February 1, 2018

N/A*

March 21, 2018 (conference call)

N/A*

April 19, 2018 N/A*

June 21, 2018 N/A*

*Retired from Board in October of 2017.

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/governanace/board-of-directors/

Committee meetings The Board has a number of committees and working groups. These committees met as follows.

Audit Committee – September 11 and October 6, 2017 and January 18, March 29, May 14, June 13 and June 22, 2018.

Corporate Governance Committee – August 3, September 6 and October 19, 2017 and February 14, 20, 22, March 21, April 3, April 9, 12, June 11 and July 20, 2018.

Independent Directors Committee – October 23 and December 19, 2017 and January 30, April 18 and June 20, 2018.

Budget Working Group – June 4, 11, 14 and 19, 2018.

Committee activity increased again in 2017-18, largely to reflect the Board’s efforts to put new programs and policies in place as well as to begin its strategic planning work.

CCTS budget The CCTS audited financial statements for 2017-18 can be found in Appendix C. The CCTS is funded by the service providers. Large providers pay a fee based on the proportion of their revenues to the revenues of all the large service providers. Small providers pay an annual fee. All providers pay a fee for each complaint concluded by the CCTS from their customers in the year. New provider sign-up fees and bank interest make up the other sources of revenue.

The CCTS generated revenues that almost exactly matched pre-year projections. Expenses were over $600,000 under budget, largely arising from greater than anticipated challenges in recruiting staff.

Under the Participation Agreement that governs the relationship between the CCTS and the service providers, the CCTS normally credits the excess of revenues over expenses back to the service providers as a year-end adjustment. However, due to the substantial growth projected for the CCTS in 2018-19 and to ensure adequate funding for day-to-day operations, in June of 2018 the Board approved a Special Resolution (for the second year in a row) authorizing the CCTS to retain this surplus.

Strategic and operational initiatives for 2017-18 The Board has identified many key initiatives for 2018-19, highlighted by:

• completing the strategic planning process which began in 2017-18

• conducting the service delivery review to ensure that our service continues to incorporate best-in-class processes and technologies

• implementing the first phase of our IT Review plan, following the completion of a review conducted in 2017-18

• implementing the recommendations of two IT security reviews recently conducted

• continuing to work with groups representing persons with disabilities, to ensure full access to our service


2017-18

GOVERNANCE


2017-18

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider

LEGENDWithdrawn Customer withdraws

complaint

Info. obtained

Out-of-mandate after further information obtained

9.1(b) Customer does not have sufficient interest

9.1(c) Complaint more appropriately handled by another agency

9.1(d) Further investigation not warranted

9.1(e) Customer not cooperative

9.1(f) Service provider offer is reasonable

10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency

10.3(a) Complaint filed outside time limits

10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date

ProviderAccepted

ComplaintsConcluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

#100 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1010100 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1010580 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1010620 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1010738 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1011295.com 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1947244 Ontario Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

295.ca 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3Web 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

450Tel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4pairless Communications Inc.

1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8COM 3 0.0% 0.0% 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A dimension humaine

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acanac Inc. 66 0.5% 61.0% 48 45 29 16 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Accelerated Connections

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Access Communications

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Achatplus Inc. 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ACN Canada 53 0.4% -17.2% 63 58 51 7 5 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0

Acrobat Telecom Inc.

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://1011295.com

http://295.ca


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



AEBC Internet Corporation

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AEI Internet 1 0.0% -80.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AIC Global Communications

0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AireNet Internet Solutions

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AllCore Communications Inc.

2 0.0% N/A 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Allo Telecom 3 0.0% N/A 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Allstream 10 0.1% 150.0% 10 9 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Altima Telecom 8 0.1% -11.1% 9 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Amtelecom LP 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Amtelecom Telco GP Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Andrews Wireless 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aol Canada 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arrow Technology Group

1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atalk 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Atop TV 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Auracom 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Avenue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Axess Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Axsit 3 0.0% 200.0% 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B2B2C Inc. 6 0.0% 100.0% 5 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BabyTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bell Aliant 229 1.6% 77.5% 218 204 181 23 14 2 1 0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0

Bell Canada 4,734 33.2% 45.8% 4,281 3,908 3,202 706 373 16 21 2 7 130 102 86 2 3 3 1 0

Bell ExpressVu 21 0.1% N/A 17 17 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bell Fibe 22 0.2% N/A 18 15 13 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Bell Fibe (Ontario) 28 0.2% N/A 16 16 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bell Fibe (Quebec) 26 0.2% N/A 25 23 19 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bell MTS 135 0.9% 95.7% 141 131 123 8 10 0 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0

BluArc Communications Inc.

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BlueTone Canada 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bragg Communications Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bravo Phone Cards 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bravo Telecom 6 0.0% 50.0% 5 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Brightroam 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Broad-Connect Telecom Inc.

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bruce Municipal Telephone System

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bruce Telecom 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BV Communications

3 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cable Axion 5 0.0% 400.0% 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cable Cable Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cablevision du Nord du Québec Inc.

0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Call Select 2 0.0% -33.3% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Can-net Telecom 8 0.1% 300.0% 7 6 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Canada Payphone Corporation

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canada Relink 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Caninter.net 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canopco 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cardinal Telecom (2000) Inc.

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://Caninter.net


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Carry Telecom 8 0.1% 166.7% 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

CaspianWave 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Caztel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCAP (Coopérative de Câblodistribution de l`Arrière-pays)

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCAP Cable 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCI Wireless 5 0.0% 150.0% 5 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

CDMS Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CDTel 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chatr Wireless 159 1.1% 87.1% 153 118 79 39 35 1 1 0 0 24 6 3 0 0 0 0 0

China Telecom Canada Corp.

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Choice Tel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CICI Mobile 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CICILynk 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CIK Telecom Inc. 27 0.2% 125.0% 26 24 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

CipherTV 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

City Wide Communications

18 0.1% 125.0% 13 11 2 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Cityfone 5 0.0% 25.0% 6 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CityWest Cable & Telephone Corp.

2 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clearlink Networks

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coast Cable 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cogeco Connexion

546 3.8% 358.8% 340 322 278 44 18 2 0 0 0 2 11 3 0 0 0 0 0

Cogeco Peer 1 (Canada) Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cogent Canada 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Colba.Net 2 0.0% 100.0% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://Colba.Net


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Compagnie de Téléphone de Saint-Victor

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ComparAction 16 0.1% -5.9% 24 22 21 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compton Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compuxellence 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Comwave 302 2.1% 34.8% 302 290 272 18 12 0 1 0 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 0 0

Connexio 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Convergia Networks Inc.

1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cooptel 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cross Country T.V. Limited

1 0.0% N/A 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cybersurf Internet Access (CIA)

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dcall 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DCI Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Delta Cable 4 0.0% 0.0% 5 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dery Telecom 4 0.0% 300.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diallog Telecommunications Corp.

1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DialTone 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Digicom 2 0.0% N/A 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Distributel Communications Limited

46 0.3% 76.9% 44 39 31 8 5 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

DolphinTel 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastlink 129 0.9% 108.1% 135 123 114 9 12 2 2 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0

EasyVoice Telecom

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EBOX Inc. 17 0.1% 41.7% 18 15 14 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Enhanced VOIP Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Epik Networks 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Espacenet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Execulink 13 0.1% -7.1% 13 12 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Falcon Internet Services

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fibernetics 2 0.0% 100.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fido 650 4.6% 42.9% 619 556 497 59 63 8 2 0 0 13 26 12 0 2 0 0 0

Fleettel inc. 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Followtel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fongo Inc. 5 0.0% 400.0% 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Freedom Mobile Inc.

863 6.0% 189.6% 742 709 552 157 33 2 1 0 0 13 8 9 0 0 0 0 0

Freedom Phone Lines

0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FreePhoneLine.ca 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Frontline 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G3 Telecom 5 0.0% 400.0% 5 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gems Telecom 5 0.0% -16.7% 5 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GETUS Communications LTD.

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Giantel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Globalstar 3 0.0% -40.0% 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gold Leaf Telecom Ltd.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gold Line Telemanagement Inc.

1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Good Call 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Groupe-Acces Communications

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HuronTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://FreePhoneLine.ca


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



ICA Canada On-Line

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ICA Wireless 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ice Wireless 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IceNet Wireless 2 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ilink Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Impact Telecom 1 0.0% -50.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

InfoFortin Telecom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

InfoSat Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

InnSys 3 0.0% -62.5% 5 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Intelecom Solutions Inc.

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inter.net Canada 3 0.0% 0.0% 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Interhop 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Internet Papineau Inc.

2 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IP4B 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iristel 2 0.0% N/A 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

italkBB 13 0.1% 30.0% 12 11 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

iTel Networks Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ITP/International Telephone Prod. LTD.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jive Communications Technology Canada Ltd.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

K-Right Communications Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

K2 Systems Inc. 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kawartha Cable 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://Inter.net


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Key 2 Communications Inc.

0 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kincardine Group 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kingston Online Services

2 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

KnowRoaming Ltd. 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koodo 360 2.5% 36.9% 336 298 272 26 38 1 0 0 1 17 15 3 0 1 0 0 0

Kwic Internet (676766 Ontario Ltd.)

1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Le pigeon voyageur

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Leaf Telecommunications (Leaftel)

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Les.Net (1996) Inc. 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Level 3 Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LightSpeed Internet

4 0.0% 0.0% 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Little Loon Wireless 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LooneyCall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lucky Mobile 15 0.1% N/A 10 8 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

LuckyCall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lycatalk 1 0.0% -50.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Magic Jack Tel 11 0.1% 83.3% 12 11 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mascon Cable 2 0.0% N/A 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maskatel 6 0.0% 50.0% 5 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mastercall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MaximumISP 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

maxTV 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mazagan Telecom 2 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

MCI Canada 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://Les.Net


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



MCS Net 2 0.0% N/A 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mustang Technologies Inc.

1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

My BC Datacom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Capital FreeNet

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Teleconnect

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Navatalk 3 0.0% 200.0% 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NCIC Operator Services

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NECC 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NECC CA 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Negotel 2 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net Reach 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NetAccess Systems Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Netfone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Netfox Communications Corp.

1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NetRevolution 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Netscape 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NetSet Communications

1 0.0% -75.0% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NetTalk 4 0.0% N/A 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NEWT Business Services

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nexicom 2 0.0% N/A 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nobel Canada Telecom

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nor-Del Cablevision

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern Tel 7 0.0% 600.0% 6 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Northwestel 2 0.0% 100.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northwind Wireless

0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Novus Entertainment Inc.

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NRTC Communications

1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nucleus Information Service Inc.

1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NuEra Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odynet 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Omega Cable 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

On Call Centre 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OneConnect Services Inc.

1 0.0% -50.0% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OnlineTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OnStar 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ontarioeast.net 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ontera 4 0.0% 33.3% 7 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ooma 15 0.1% N/A 13 13 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Opcom Hospitality Solutions Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OpenFace 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orbitel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oricom Internet 1 0.0% -50.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Owtel 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PageNet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Parlez rabais 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Parolink.net 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pathway Communications

1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PC Mobile 33 0.2% 10.0% 32 31 23 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

http://Ontarioeast.net

http://Parolink.net


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



People Line 0 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

People's Tel GP Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

People's Tel LP 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Persona Communications Corp.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Petro Canada Mobility

30 0.2% 150.0% 28 25 1 24 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Phone Factory 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phone Power 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phonebox 5 0.0% -37.5% 5 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Platinum 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Platinum Communications Corp.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Point to Point Broadband

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PortalOne 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Premiere Conferencing Canada Ltd.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Premiere Global Services

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Primus 181 1.3% 28.4% 193 181 155 26 12 3 1 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0

Public Mobile 142 1.0% 36.5% 141 133 117 16 8 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulse Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PWHR Solutions 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

QINIQ 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Quadro Communications

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Quebec internet 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Questzones 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Quinte Long Distance

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



RadioActif 1 0.0% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Raftview 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reliant Communications Inc.

3 0.0% 200.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Réseau Picanoc.net

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RevTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ring Central Canada Inc.

4 0.0% N/A 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Roam Mobility 6 0.0% -72.7% 5 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rogers Communications

1,449 10.2% 34.4% 1,407 1,253 1,124 129 154 11 7 2 3 35 52 33 2 7 0 1 1

RuralWave 2 0.0% -33.3% 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S.M.S Vox Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sasktel 36 0.3% 16.1% 38 35 31 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sears Connect 7 0.0% -53.3% 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Seaside Communications (Seaside Cable)

0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Seaside Wireless Communications Inc.

11 0.1% N/A 10 8 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SecureNet Information Services Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Selectcom Inc. 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Selectcom Telecom

5 0.0% 66.7% 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sens-net Canada Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shaw Communications

337 2.4% 111.9% 315 299 259 40 16 1 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0

http://Picanoc.net


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Shaw Direct (Star Choice Television Network Incorporated)

24 0.2% N/A 18 18 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Silo Wireless 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Simcoe County Long Distance

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Simconet Technologies Inc.

1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Skydata 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Smart Telecom 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sogetel 3 0.0% -40.0% 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Solo 14 0.1% 55.6% 13 12 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source Cable Ltd. 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Speak Out Wireless (7-11)

37 0.3% 37.0% 41 38 14 24 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Speak Telecom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spectravoice 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SSi 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SSi Mobile 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Start Communications

8 0.1% 14.3% 6 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

start.ca 1 0.0% -66.7% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Startec Global Communications

3 0.0% 200.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Storm Internet 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sunsonic 7 0.0% N/A 7 1 0 1 6 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Surf Media Inc. 2 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Swiftvox 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

http://start.ca


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Switchworks 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Syban Systems Ltd.

0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Talk & Save 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Talk Canada 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Talkit.ca Inc. 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tamaani Internet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Targo Communications Inc.

2 0.0% 100.0% 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tata Communications (Canada) ULC

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

tbaytel 7 0.0% -41.7% 9 7 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

112 0.8% 103.6% 116 110 99 11 6 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Tel-Synergy 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Télébec 11 0.1% 10.0% 12 10 8 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Télécommunications Xittel

2 0.0% -33.3% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telehop 4 0.0% 0.0% 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telemart 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Téléphone Saint-Éphrem

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telesave Communications Ltd.

1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telizon 1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TelKel Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Telnet Communications

1 0.0% -75.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TELUS Communications Inc.

944 6.6% 49.6% 901 831 757 74 70 5 8 1 2 27 12 11 2 2 0 0 0

http://Talkit.ca


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



TeraGo Networks Inc.

2 0.0% 100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ThinkTel 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Toronto Telecom 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tough Country Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Transvision Cookshire

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tuckersmith Communications

1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Uniserve Communications

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unlimitel 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vancouver Telephone Company Ltd.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vbuzzer 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Velcom 4 0.0% -20.0% 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Velocity Networks Inc.

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Verizon 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VerseTEL Inc. 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vianet Inc. 1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vianet Internet Solutions

2 0.0% -71.4% 6 5 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vidéotron ltée/Videotron Ltd.

740 5.2% 113.9% 696 650 587 63 46 2 4 1 1 18 12 6 2 0 0 0 0

VIF Internet 2 0.0% -60.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virgin Mobile Canada

847 5.9% 39.3% 827 792 673 119 35 2 1 0 0 18 6 7 0 1 0 0 0

VMedia 32 0.2% 88.2% 27 24 19 5 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vodalink Telecom 1 0.0% -50.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Voice Network Inc. 1 0.0% -83.3% 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


APPENDICES2017-18

Acc

epte

d

% o

f al

l C

om

pla

ints

Y/Y

% C

han

ge

Co

ncl

ud

ed

All

Res

olv

ed

Pre

-Inv

estig

atio

n

Inve

stig

atio

n

or h

ighe

r

All

Un

reso

lved

With

draw

n

Info

. obt

aine

d

9.1(

b)

9.1(

c)

9.1(

d)

9.1(

e)

9.1(

f)

10.2

(b)

10.3

(a)

10.3

(b)

Rec

omm

enda

tions

Dec

isio

ns

ProviderAccepted



Voip.ms 3 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vonage Canada Corporation

36 0.3% -40.0% 38 38 12 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vox 0 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vox Sun 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Westman Communications Group

0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WestNet Wireless 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wightman Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WiMac Tel 4 0.0% 300.0% 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Win-tel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

World-Link Communications Inc.

2 0.0% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Worldline 11 0.1% 83.3% 11 9 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

WTC Communications

1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Xinflix 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Xplornet Internet Services

378 2.6% 47.7% 379 353 293 60 26 3 0 0 1 4 13 5 0 0 0 0 0

Yak Communications Corp.

13 0.1% -23.5% 14 14 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

YAP – Your Affordable Provider Inc.

1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zazeen 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zid Internet 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ZIP SIM 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zoomer 7 0.0% 250.0% 8 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 14,272 100.0% – 13,224 12,149 10,214 1,935 1,075 76 54 9 25 347 322 201 10 21 3 5 2

http://Voip.ms


2017-18

APPENDICES

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints This table details the issues raised in the complaints that we concluded between August 01, 2017 and July 31, 2018. The total number of issues exceeds the number of complaints concluded because some complaints raised more than one issue.

Loca

l Exc

hang

e an

d Vo

IP

Long

Dis

tanc

e

Wire

less

Tele

visi

on

Inte

rnet

Whi

te P

ages

Dire

ctor

y as

sist

ance

Op

erat

or s

ervi

ces

Tota

l

Billing 2,034 203 5,393 1,448 3,223 0 1 4 12,306

30-day cancellation policy/ Charges billed after cancellation

365 15 373 230 529 0 0 0 1,512

3rd party charges 10 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 33

Airtime 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 123

Bandwidth usage 0 0 0 0 131 0 0 0 131

Bill delivery 46 5 236 35 91 0 0 0 413

Fees for paper billing 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 16

Invoices not received 46 5 222 34 90 0 0 0 397

Bundling discounts 39 1 11 19 47 0 0 0 117

Calling Cards 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Balance clearing 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Fees not disclosed 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Wrong rate 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Chargeable messages 41 76 183 0 0 0 0 0 300

Credit/refund not received 205 14 676 134 349 0 0 1 1,379

Data charges 0 0 848 0 0 0 0 0 848

Long distance toll fraud 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

Misapplied payments 53 4 119 30 77 0 0 0 283

Monthly price plan 982 55 1,208 744 1,392 0 0 0 4,381

Government and regulatory fees 2 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 11

Incorrect Charge 980 54 1,202 743 1,391 0 0 0 4,370

One-time fees 164 2 567 135 389 0 0 0 1,257

Activation/reactivation charges 34 1 139 12 75 0 0 0 261

Deactivation charges 35 0 26 3 36 0 0 0 100

Equipment charges 40 0 267 84 195 0 0 0 586

Late-payment fees 55 1 135 36 83 0 0 0 310

Pay per use services 2 0 9 18 0 0 1 3 33

Payment arrangement dispute 24 1 86 14 33 0 0 0 158


APPENDICES2017-18


Loca

l Exc

hang

e an

d Vo

IP

Long

Dis

tanc

e

Wire

less

Tele

visi

on

Inte

rnet

Whi

te P

ages

Dire

ctor

y as

sist

ance

Op

erat

or s

ervi

ces

Tota

l

Billing 2,034 203 5,393 1,448 3,223 0 1 4 12,306

Pre-authorized payments 58 5 127 13 105 0 0 0 308

Incorrect amount 14 1 41 3 28 0 0 0 87

Incorrect bank account/credit card 2 1 9 0 4 0 0 0 16

Not authorized 42 3 77 10 73 0 0 0 205

Pre-paid service 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 226

Balance clearing 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 74

Fees not disclosed 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

No invoice 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

Top-up 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 105

Wrong rate 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 38

Premium text messaging charges 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

Rental equipment 3 0 1 35 39 0 0 0 78

Modem 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 39

TV Terminal 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 35

VoIP hub 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

Repair charges 3 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 14

Charges incorrect 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4

Charges not disclosed 3 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 10

Inside wiring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roaming charges 0 0 380 0 0 0 0 0 380

Text messaging charges (not premium) 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 58

Transfer of Responsibility 13 0 26 4 18 0 0 0 61

Value-add services 26 0 111 35 14 0 0 0 186


APPENDICES2017-18


Loca

l Exc

hang

e an

d Vo

IP

Long

Dis

tanc

e

Wire

less

Tele

visi

on

Inte

rnet

Whi

te P

ages

Dire

ctor

y as

sist

ance

Op

erat

or s

ervi

ces

Tota

l

Contract dispute 1,933 95 4,880 1,163 2,909 0 0 0 10,980

Compliance with Terms of Service/Contract 560 25 1,484 490 896 0 0 0 3,455

Breach of Contract 201 6 866 185 317 0 0 0 1,575

Material contract change 184 4 279 179 303 0 0 0 949

Material contract change without notice 175 15 339 126 276 0 0 0 931

Contract duration/Length of Term 16 0 22 2 11 0 0 0 51

Contract renewal 140 3 13 4 94 0 0 0 254

Auto-renewal 91 2 2 0 60 0 0 0 155

No consent 49 1 11 4 34 0 0 0 99

Early Termination Fees (ETF) 434 3 477 133 580 0 0 0 1,627

Amount of ETF 63 0 68 13 71 0 0 0 215

Legitimacy of ETF 371 3 409 120 509 0 0 0 1,412

Hardware Financing Plan 2 0 20 0 2 0 0 0 24

No consent provided 149 20 249 68 178 0 0 0 664

Non-disclosure of terms/ Misleading information about terms

631 44 2,256 465 1,147 0 0 0 4,543

Warranties 1 0 359 1 1 0 0 0 362

Extended warranty purchased from service provider 1 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 139

Manufacturer`s Warranty 0 0 221 1 1 0 0 0 223

Service delivery 1,242 81 1,947 560 2,580 0 0 0 6,410

Customer-initiated cancellations 389 37 403 126 357 0 0 0 1,312

Cx cancellation due date not kept/delayed 106 6 102 61 161 0 0 0 436

Unable to cancel 96 31 187 65 196 0 0 0 575

Unable to port 187 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 301

Device placed on blacklist 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16

Disconnection/Suspension of service 99 3 356 54 136 0 0 0 648

Acceptable use policy 3 0 11 1 3 0 0 0 18

Bandwidth/Data over-consumption 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 16

Fraud 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 29

Non-payment/collections 83 3 281 43 112 0 0 0 522

Partial payment 5 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 24

Seasonal suspension 8 0 11 9 11 0 0 0 39


APPENDICES2017-18


Loca

l Exc

hang

e an

d Vo

IP

Long

Dis

tanc

e

Wire

less

Tele

visi

on

Inte

rnet

Whi

te P

ages

Dire

ctor

y as

sist

ance

Op

erat

or s

ervi

ces

Tota

l

Service delivery 1,242 81 1,947 560 2,580 0 0 0 6,410

Installation/Activation 148 0 81 67 282 0 0 0 578

Damage to property 3 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 15

Install/activate due date not kept/delayed 101 0 54 49 214 0 0 0 418

Installation error 44 0 27 14 60 0 0 0 145

Repair/Loss of service 576 24 1,026 310 1,796 0 0 0 3,732

Complete loss of service 213 12 219 98 330 0 0 0 872

Damage to property 7 0 0 2 18 0 0 0 27

Inside wiring 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5

Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service 293 12 780 173 1,315 0 0 0 2,573

Outside wiring 11 0 0 3 17 0 0 0 31

Service repair/loss due date not kept/delayed 49 0 27 34 114 0 0 0 224

Service provider/Account sold 0 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 31

Transferred wrong number or service 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 9

Unauthorized transfer of service 28 15 30 2 9 0 0 0 84

Further to inquiry 19 10 18 2 5 0 0 0 54

Further to solicitation 9 5 12 0 4 0 0 0 30

Credit management 145 4 537 77 275 0 0 0 1,038

Credit limit 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 27

Disputes limit amount 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

Exceeded limit 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11

Spending limit/other details not disclosed 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10

Credit reporting 127 4 459 71 239 0 0 0 900

Security deposit 18 0 51 6 36 0 0 0 111

Disputes deposit amount 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

Disputes requirement for deposit 1 0 9 2 5 0 0 0 17

Interest 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Not refunded 17 0 38 4 31 0 0 0 90

TOTAL 5,354 383 12,757 3,248 8,987 0 1 4 30,734

Appendix C – Financial statements

F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S

For

COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC.

For the year ended

JULY 31, 2018

An Independent Member of BKR International

Page 1 of 11

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To the directors of

COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC.

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc./Commission des plaintes relatives aux services de télécom-télévision inc., which comprise the statement of financial position as at July 31, 2018, and the statements of operations, changes in net assets and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.

Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor's Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Opinion

In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc./Commission des plaintes relatives aux services de télécom-télévision inc. as at July 31, 2018, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations.

Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants

Ottawa, Ontario October 5, 2018.

Welch LLP - Chartered Professional Accountants 123 Slater Street, 3rd floor, Ottawa, ON K1P 5H2 T: 613 236 9191 F: 613 236 8258 W: welchllp.comAn Independent Member of BKR International

http://welchllp.com

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION

JULY 31, 2018

2018 2017 ASSETS

CURRENT ASSETS Cash - note 4 $ 1,735,917 $ 1,385,322 Accounts receivable 696,093 439,196 Prepaid expenses 12,655 10,980

2,444,665 1,835,498

TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS - note 5 266,158 176,052

INTANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS - note 6 131,473 130,888

$ 2,842,296 $ 2,142,438

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS

CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable and accrued liabilities - note 7 $ 371,897 $ 309,364

NET ASSETS Invested in tangible and intangible capital assets

- internally restricted 397,631 306,940 Unrestricted 2,072,768 1,526,134

2,470,399 1,833,074

$ 2,842,296 $ 2,142,438

Approved by the Board:

Director

Director

(See accompanying notes)

Page 2 of 11

COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC.


STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

2018 2017 Revenue

Operating fees Revenue-based $ 2,788,295 $ 2,713,428 Complaint-based 1,858,863 1,356,510 Annual 16,200 15,000

Special levy - note 8 571,087 523,310 Participation fees 29,000 16,500 Interest 21,038 11,219

5,284,483 4,635,967

Expenses Salaries and benefits 3,187,878 2,674,179 Rent 455,152 425,608 Amortization 160,386 144,007 Directors fees 132,380 132,759 Consultants 132,216 87,805 Systems support and maintenance 88,753 72,060 Legal 82,583 111,544 Communications and advertising 79,335 97,044 Telecommunications 63,460 58,455 Travel and promotion 51,604 44,911 Office 49,568 39,645 Staff training 44,325 31,448 Board expenses 39,881 24,014 Recruiting 35,781 72,558 Insurance 16,250 14,768 Accounting 13,500 11,000 Interest and bank charges 7,668 6,767 Equipment rental 4,925 5,600 Bad debts 1,513 15,766

4,647,158 4,069,938

Net revenue $ 637,325 $ 566,029


Page 3 of 11



STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS


2018 2017 Internally Restricted - capital assets

Balance, beginning of year $ 306,940 $ 335,520 Capital expenditures 251,077 115,427 Amortization (160,386) (144,007)

Balance, end of year $ 397,631 $ 306,940

Unrestricted Balance, beginning of year $ 1,526,134 $ 931,525 Net revenue 637,325 566,029 Amortization charged against restricted capital assets 160,386 144,007 Capital expenditures credited to restricted capital assets (251,077) (115,427)

Balance, end of year $ 2,072,768 $ 1,526,134

Total net assets

Balance, beginning of year -Internally Restricted - capital assets $ 306,940 $ 335,520 Unrestricted 1,526,134 931,525

$ 1,833,074 $ 1,267,045

Balance, end of year -Internally Restricted - capital assets $ 397,631 $ 306,940 Unrestricted 2,072,768 1,526,134

$ 2,470,399 $ 1,833,074



Page 4 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS


2018 2017 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Net revenue $ 637,325 $ 566,029

Adjustments for: Amortization 160,386 144,007

797,711 710,036

Changes in non-cash working capital components: Accounts receivable (256,897) (117,885) Prepaid expenses (1,675) (843) Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 62,533 77,196 Year end fee adjustment receivable - 27,411

601,672 695,915

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchase of tangible and intangible capital assets (251,077) (115,427)

INCREASE IN CASH 350,595 580,488

CASH, BEGINNING OF YEAR 1,385,322 804,834

CASH, END OF YEAR $ 1,735,917 $ 1,385,322




NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


1. NATURE OF OPERATIONS

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc./ Commission des PlaintesRelatives aux Services de Télécom-télévison Inc. is constituted without share capital under Section 211of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. The organization's mandate is to receive, to facilitate theresolution of, and if necessary, to resolve eligible Canadian consumer and small business complaintsrelating to certain telecommunication services. On September 1, 2017, the organization's mandate wasexpanded to include complaints related to certain types of subscription television services and theorganization adopted its current name. Prior to this the organization was named Commissioner forComplaints for Telecommunications Services Inc./ Commissaire aux Plaintes Relatives aux Services deTélécommunications Inc. The organization operates on a not-for-profit basis and, as such, is exemptfrom income tax pursuant to section 149 (1)(l) of the Income Tax Act.

2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of accounting

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian accounting standards fornot-for-profit organizations.

Revenue recognition

Operating fees consist of revenue-based fees, complaint-based fees, and annual fees paid byparticipating service providers to fund the operations of the organization. Revenue-based fees andannual fees are recognized as revenue during the period to which they relate. Complaint-based fees arebased on the number of complaints closed in the period and are recognized as revenue when thecomplaints are closed.

Special levy fees are recognized as revenue during the period to which the fees relate.

Participation fees consist of one-time start-up fees and are recognized as revenue on the date theservice provider becomes a participating service provider.

Interest income consists of interest on overdue participation and operating fees, as well as interestearned on bank accounts, and is recognized as revenue when earned.

Tangible capital assets and amortization

Tangible capital assets are recorded at acquisition cost. Amortization is provided on a straight-line basisover five years in the case of furniture and equipment; three years in the case of computer equipment;and over the life of the lease in the case of leasehold improvements. In the year of acquisition,amortization is pro-rated over the number of months the asset is owned by the organization.

Intangible capital assets and amortization

Intangible capital assets are recorded at acquisition cost. Amortization is provided on a straight-linebasis over five years. In the year of acquisition, amortization is pro-rated over the number of months theasset is owned by the organization.



Financial instruments

The organization's financial instruments consist of cash, accounts receivable and accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Cash is subsequently measured at fair value. All other financial instruments are subsequently recorded at cost or amortized cost.

Transaction costs associated with the acquisition and disposal of financial instruments are expensed as incurred.

Use of estimates

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.

Management makes estimates regarding the estimated useful life of its tangible and intangible capital assets, the collectibility of its accounts receivable and its accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

3. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

The organization is exposed to and manages various financial risks resulting from both its operations and its investment activities, and does not enter into financial instrument agreements including derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes.

The organization's main financial risk exposure and its financial management policies are as follows:

Credit risk

The organization is exposed to credit risk resulting from the possibility that parties may default on their financial obligations. The organization's maximum exposure to credit risk represents the sum of the carrying value of its cash and accounts receivable.

The organization's cash is deposited with a Canadian chartered bank and as a result management believes the risk of loss on this item to be remote.

Management believes that the organization's credit risk with respect to accounts receivable is limited. The organization manages its credit risk by reviewing accounts receivable aging monthly and diligently following up on collection of outstanding amounts. During the last fiscal year the organization has reported bad debts of $1,513 (2017 - $15,766). Management has established an allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable at July 31, 2018 of $20,876 (2017 - $19,606) that represents management’s best estimate of potentially uncollectible accounts.

Liquidity risk

Liquidity risk is the risk that the organization cannot meet a demand for cash or fund its obligations as they become due.

The organization meets its liquidity risk requirements by establishing budgets and cash estimates to ensure it has funds necessary to fulfill its obligations.


NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Cont'd.


2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Cont'd.


Market risk

Market risk is the risk that the fair value of future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market prices. Market risk is comprised of currency risk, interest rate risk and other price risk.

Currency risk

Currency risk refers to the risk that the fair value of instruments or future cash flows associated with the instruments will fluctuate relative to the Canadian dollar due to changes in foreign exchange rates. The organization's financial instruments are in Canadian currency. Consequently, the organization is not exposed to foreign exchange fluctuations on its financial instruments.

Interest rate risk

Interest rate risk refers to the risk that the fair value of financial instruments or future cash flows associated with the financial instruments will fluctuate due to changes in market interest rates.

The organization is not exposed to interest rate risk.

Other price risk

Other price risk refers to the risk that the fair value of financial instruments or future cash flows associated will fluctuate because of changes in market prices (other than those arising from currency risk or interest rate risk), whether those changes are caused by factors specific to the individual instrument or its issuer or factors affecting all similar instruments traded in the market. The organization does not have investments in publicly traded securities and therefore is not exposed to other price risk.

Changes in risk

There have been no significant changes in the organization's risk exposures from the prior year.

4. CASH

Cash consists of the following: 2018 2017

Current chequing account $ 30,898 $ 68,646 Premium investment savings account 1,705,019 1,316,676

$ 1,735,917 $ 1,385,322

The premium investment savings account earns interest which is received monthly.




3. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT - Cont'd.


5. TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS

2018 2017

Cost Accumulated amortization Cost

Accumulated amortization

Furniture and equipment $ 297,179 $ 238,496 $ 251,355 $ 215,791 Computer equipment 545,507 366,051 416,477 302,244 Leasehold improvements 97,344 69,325 81,853 55,598

940,030 $ 673,872 749,685 $ 573,633

Accumulated amortization 673,872 573,633

$ 266,158 $ 176,052

6. INTANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS

2018 2017

Case management software $ 541,861 $ 481,129 Accumulated Amortization 410,388 350,241

$ 131,473 $ 130,888

7. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities consists of the following:

2018 2017

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 274,916 $ 207,760 Government remittances payable 96,981 101,604

$ 371,897 $ 309,364





8. YEAR-END FEE ADJUSTMENT

The operations of the organization are funded primarily by two types of fees charged to participating service providers:

1. Revenue-based fees - Billed to participating service providers with eligible retail revenues greater than $10 million, based on their proportionate share of those revenues; and

2. Complaint-based fees - Billed to those participating service providers with complaints concluded in the fiscal year, based on the number of the provider’s complaints concluded in the fiscal year, and the level of the process at which they are concluded.

Under the Participation Agreement, revenue-based fees are to cover 60% of total expenses while complaint-based fees are to cover 40% of total expenses. For the 2017 year, however, an exception was approved whereby revenue-based fees covered 67% of total expenses and complaint-based fees covered 33% of total expenses. During the year, the amount invoiced to participating service providers is calculated so as to generate sufficient revenues to match budgeted expenses, based on Management’s projections of the year’s anticipated operational activities. At the end of the year these two categories of fees are adjusted to reflect both the 60% / 40% split (2017 - 67% / 33%) and to match the total expense figure of $4,647,158 (2017 - $4,069,938).

Revenue-based fees were adjusted downwards as the actual amount billed to revenue-based fee payors was more than 60% (2017 - 67%) of the actual expenses of the organization. Complaint-based fees were adjusted downwards because the actual amount billed to complaint-based fee payors was more than 40% (2017 - 33%) of the actual expenses of the organization.

Summary of Year End Fee Adjustment:

2018 2017

Revenue-based fees adjustment $ (343,495) $ (357,504)

Complaint-based fees adjustment (227,592) (165,806)

Year end fee adjustment $ (571,087) $ (523,310)

In addition, under Section 27 of the Participation Agreement a special levy can, by Extraordinary Resolution of the Members, be billed to the participating service providers for the purposes of funding the organization. In 2018, the Members approved a special levy of $571,087 (2017 - $523,310) and this amount has reduced the amount otherwise owing to participating service providers.

9. AVAILABLE CREDIT

The organization has access to credit through Visa credit cards with a total credit limit of $27,500. The credit cards are paid in full each month. The company also has access to an operating line of credit. The interest rate on the line of credit is prime plus 1.25% and the authorized limit of the line of credit is $500,000. The operating line of credit is secured by a general security agreement. No balance is outstanding at July 31, 2018.





10. COMMITMENTS

As of July 31, 2018, the organization has one ongoing lease for its premises and one for equipment.The main office lease expires March 31, 2024 and the equipment lease expires on December 31,2023.

Annual minimum lease payments over the next five years are as follows:

Building Equipment Total

2019 $ 452,336 $ 4,682 $ 457,018 2020 436,181 4,682 440,863 2021 455,798 4,682 460,480 2022 456,952 4,682 461,634 2023 461,567 1,170 462,737

$ 2,262,834 $ 19,898 $ 2,282,732

11. RELATED PARTIES

Service providers from which the organization purchases telecommunications services may beconsidered related parties, as they are entitled to participate in the appointment of directors. Theorganization enters into transactions with these related parties in the normal course of business andtransactions are recorded at their fair value. As a result, separate disclosure of these transactions isnot presented within the financial statements.





Appendix D – Definitions Below are some terms used throughout the report and their definitions.

Accepted complaint: A customer complaint received during the year and which falls within the CCTS’ mandate, also sometimes referred to simply as a “complaint”.

Alleged breach: When a customer claims that the service provider failed to perform an obligation under one of the three CRTC-developed codes of conduct the CCTS administer (the D&D Code, the Wireless Code and the TVSP Code) or when a CCTS staff member identifies a potential code breach based on the details of a complaint. Each breach references an individual section of the code. As a result, more than one alleged breach may be recorded in a complaint.

Closed complaint: A complaint that was accepted and then subsequently closed. CCTS may close the complaint for various reasons, including any of the following.

• The service provider has made an offer to resolve thecomplaint that we think is fair and reasonable in lightof the specific circumstances of the complaint.

• The complaint was found to be without merit.

• After filing the complaint, the customer either withdrewit or failed to provide the information we needed toconduct our investigation.

• The complaint should more properly have been brought beforeanother agency, tribunal or court.

Assessment: We assess the information the customer has provided to determine if, based on our mandate, we are able to accept a complaint.

Concluded complaint: A complaint that we have accepted and disposed of by resolving it, closing it or issuing a Recommendation or Decision. The complaint may have been accepted during the year or during the preceding year but was concluded during the fiscal year in which it is reported.

Confirmed breach: When we can confirm, based on our investigation, that a provision of a code has been breached.

Customer not cooperative: When a customer files a complaint but fails to provide the information we need to conduct our investigation. In this situation, the complaint is closed.

Decision: A Decision is issued if either the customer or the service provider rejects the CCTS Recommendation. The party rejecting the Recommendation must set out its reasons and the Commissioner will reconsider the Recommendation and issue a Decision. The Commissioner may confirm the original Recommendation or, if the Commissioner concludes that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Recommendation, the Commissioner may modify the Recommendation as appropriate. A Decision is binding on the service provider but not on the customer. The customer may reject it and pursue other remedies.

Further investigation not warranted: When we determine, after assessment, that an investigation or a further investigation is not necessary because we determine that the service provider has reasonably performed its obligations to the customer.

Investigation: We analyze the evidence provided and use this analysis to suggest ways in which the complaint might be resolved amicably.

Issue: A specific concern expressed by the customer in the complaint. Many complaints raise more than one issue. For example, a customer may complain that their invoice contains a billing error and that the unpaid balance resulted in a service disconnection. This would be considered one complaint that raises two issues.

No breach: When we have investigated an alleged breach and concluded that the service provider did not breach the Code in question.

Out of mandate: Complaints about products, services or issues that we cannot investigate are considered to be “out of mandate.”

Pre-investigation: The stage of our process where the parties have 30 days to resolve the customer’s complaint, failing which we will begin an investigation to begin assessing whether the service provider reasonably performed its obligations to the customer.

Recommendation: The complaint was fully investigated. Often, the service provider has not made an offer to informally resolve the complaint or the offer is not found to be reasonable in light of the specific circumstances of the complaint. We will make a Recommendation requesting that the provider take specific actions to resolve the matter.

Resolved: The complaint was informally resolved with the assistance of a CCTS team member to the satisfaction of both the customer and the participating service provider.

Service provider offer is reasonable: When the service provider makes an offer to resolve a complaint and the CCTS determines that the offer fairly resolves the problem. In this situation, the complaint is closed.


2017-18

84

APPENDICES

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/mandate/

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about-ccts/mandate/exclusions/

P.O. Box 56067 – Minto Place RO, Ottawa, ON K1R 7Z1

[email protected]

TTY: 1-877-782-2384 Fax: 1-877-782-2924

www.ccts-cprst.ca

This report is also available in French.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ccts-cprst.ca

https://twitter.com/ccts_cprst

https://www.facebook.com/ccts.cprst/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/commission-for-complaints-for-telecom-television-services/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLagw5p-R3rIJWUto9wt-5Q

https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/fr/report/rapport-annuel-2017-2018/

Documents

Helping Canadians for 10+ YEARS · customers took to social media to express their outrage. Also, 1,600 Canadians filled out our online interactive questionnaire to complain. We spoke