Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation
CRTC 2015-239
Review of the structure and mandate
of the
Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc.
Reply of the
National Pensioners Federation (NPF)
Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO)
&
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
11 September 2015
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 2 of 20
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3
Glossary of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
2. Public Awareness ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Measurement .................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Current public awareness initiatives ............................................................................... 9
2.3 Public Service Announcements .................................................................................... 11
3. Code Administration .................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Investigation of code violations.................................................................................... 13
3.2 Interpretation of codes .................................................................................................. 15
4. Complaints Resolution Process .................................................................................. 16
5. Disabilities Rights Office ........................................................................................... 17
6. Other Issues ................................................................................................................ 18
6.1 Customer survey ........................................................................................................... 18
6.2 OTT participation ......................................................................................................... 18
6.3 Third party service providers ........................................................................................ 19
7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 20
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 3 of 20
Executive Summary
E1. The National Pensioners Federation (NPF), Council of Senior Citizens’
Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) and Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(PIAC) – together “NPF-COSCO-PIAC” – are pleased to provide the Commission
with their reply comments on Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation
CRTC 2015-239, Review of the structure and mandate of the Commissioner for
Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc. Failure to address any particular
arguments raised by other parties does not indicate agreement with those
positions.
E2. NPF-COSCO-PIAC believe the Commission should ensure that the CCTS –
although required to operate within its scope of authority – is not unreasonably
restricted as it undertakes to effectively fulfill its mandate. The Commission must
ensure that the availability and benefit of CCTS’ service for all communications
customers are strengthened as a result of this proceeding.
E3. Public awareness: Contrary to assertions made by industry parties, there is no
evidence to show that current public awareness initiatives have been adequate in
ensuring public awareness of CCTS. While the recent Harris/Decima survey on the
Wireless Code shows that 56% of Canadian cell phone owners are vaguely aware
or fully aware of their right to complain to CCTS, among those who did complain,
56% were not at all aware about their right to complain to the CCTS and only 20%
of all respondents were “fully aware” of CCTS. The Commission should consider a
multi-pronged public awareness approach which includes regular measurement
and public awareness activities undertaken by both CCTS and the PSPs.
E4. Administration of codes: It is clear that CCTS has been granted general
authority to administer mandatory codes and report on complaints which relate to
those codes. In NPF-COSCO-PIAC’s view, this approach prevents consumers,
who often have less influence and fewer resources than their service providers,
from assuming the full burden of investigating and identifying potential breaches of
codes of conduct which the industry is already required to adhere to. Requiring
CCTS to restrict its investigation to the description in the original complaint could
result in: (1) the exclusion of information which directly pertains to the facts of a
complaint, and (2) denial of a fair and proper outcome merited by the customer.
These results would undermine the entire purpose of establishing codes of
conduct to protect and empower consumers.
E5. CCTS must be granted a reasonable scope of discretion in applying codes of
conduct to individual complaints. As each complaint has its own set of facts, every
case requires a certain level of interpretation of applicable codes. To prohibit the
CCTS from issuing any interpretations of mandatory codes which it has been
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 4 of 20
charged to administer could seriously hinder its ability to effectively resolve
complaints.
E6. Complaints resolution process: When a customer approaches CCTS, the
service provider has already had an opportunity to address the complaint. There is
no reason why a customer’s complaint ought to be subjected to several levels of
escalation before it is open to the customer to file a complaint with CCTS. In fact,
NPF-COSCO-PIAC are concerned that such a process would disincentivize
service providers from ensuring that all levels of customer service – not merely
management or executive office levels – continually improve in their ability to
resolve customer complaints.
E7. Disabilities Rights Office: NPF-COSCO-PIAC support the concept of
establishing a DRO although, in their view, this office should not be housed within
CCTS. Nonetheless, NPF-COSCO-PIAC propose that, separate from the concept
of establishing a DRO, CCTS should be required (and be provided sufficient
funding) to hire an accessibility coordinator or liaison officer to ensure that the
accessibility needs of complainants are met.
E8. Other issues: NPF-COSCO-PIAC would support CCTS participation of DMBUs
and OTT services which provide telecommunications services to Canadians for a
fee. While NPF-COSCO-PIAC are not opposed to the concept of requesting
information from third parties, they are concerned about the efficiency and
effectiveness of CCTS’ complaints resolution process. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-
PIAC would be more likely to support a data collection and reporting mechanism
whereby CCTS would report in detail on metrics such as: (i) breakdown of
complaint issues by Participating Service Provider, and (ii) complaint issues
related to wholesale service issues.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 5 of 20
Glossary of Abbreviations
ACMA Australian Communications and Media Authority
CCTS Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services
CFC U.K. Consumer Forum for Communications
CRTC Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
DMBU Digital Media Broadcasting Undertaking
DRO Disabilities Rights Office
FCC U.S. Federal Communications Commission
OBSI Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments
OTT Over-The-Top
PSA Public Service Announcement
PSP Participating Service Provider
TIO Australia Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman
TSP Telecommunications Service Provider
TVSP Television Service Provider
WSP Wireless Service Provider
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 6 of 20
1. Introduction
1. The National Pensioners Federation (NPF), Council of Senior Citizens’
Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO) and Public Interest Advocacy Centre
(PIAC) – together “NPF-COSCO-PIAC” – are pleased to provide the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC or Commission)
with their reply comments on Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation
CRTC 2015-239, Review of the structure and mandate of the Commissioner for
Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc.
2. The CCTS, originally identified by the Governor in Council as a “Consumer
Agency,” is an ombudsman. Although CCTS must be fair and independent, it is not
a court, nor simply an alternative dispute resolution service. CCTS’ role originates,
in part, in the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel’s finding that
“telecommunications services are becoming more pervasive and increasingly
complex for consumers,” and that therefore “a new agency, to be called the
Telecommunications Consumer Agency, should be established to protect the
interests of Canadian consumers in this new environment.”1
3. CCTS provides a complaints resolution service in that the core of its roles and
responsibilities relates to the complaints which it receives. However, its obligations
and authority go beyond mediating telecommunications complaints—they include
transparent reporting requirements, powers to investigate and report on systemic
issues, and the administration of binding codes of conduct.
4. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-PIAC believe the Commission should ensure that the
CCTS – although required to operate within its scope of authority – is not
unreasonably restricted as it undertakes to effectively fulfill its mandate. The
Commission must ensure that the availability and benefit of CCTS’ service for all
communications customers are strengthened as a result of this proceeding.
5. NPF-COSCO-PIAC address some of the key arguments raised by other parties in
this proceeding below. Failure to address any particular arguments raised by other
parties does not indicate agreement with those positions.
1 Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, Final Report 2006 (2006), online: Industry Canada
<https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/tprp-final-report-2006.pdf/$FILE/tprp-final-report-2006.pdf> at p 6-7.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 7 of 20
2. Public Awareness
2.1 Measurement
6. NPF-COSCO-PIAC find it telling that, although no intervener (including the CCTS),
knew what percentage of the Canadian public was aware the CCTS existed before
this proceeding began, many industry interveners nonetheless concluded that
current measures used by CCTS participants to promote the CCTS were
sufficient.2
7. Since this proceeding began, however, the Commission has publicly released a
quantitative research report prepared by Harris/Decima regarding the Wireless
Code that contained questions concerning the CCTS.3
8. Many interveners may point out that, based on this survey, 56% of Canadian cell
phone owners are aware of their right to complain to CCTS about wireless service
provider issues.4 However, NPF-COSCO-PIAC encourage the Commission to look
at all the figures in this survey, and consider that this particular survey result does
not mean there is substantial unprompted awareness of CCTS. For instance, the
survey questionnaire mentioned the “Commissioner for Complaints for
Telecommunications Services” in the body of the question before asking
respondents about their level of awareness.5
9. In the 2014 Harris/Decima survey for the CRTC, 76% of respondents did not recall
receiving information about how to make a complaint when they signed their
contract.6 The 2015 results reveal that “among the people who did complain, more
than half (56%) say they were not at all aware about their right to complain about
wireless service provider issues to the CCTS.”7 The 2015 survey also found that
only 20% of respondents were “fully aware” of CCTS, even though CCTS’ services
2 Shaw (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 24. See also:
TBayTel (2015), Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 21-22; Bell Canada (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 26; Rogers Communications (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 16; SaskTel (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 15; and TELUS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 48-49. 3 CRTC (2015). Wireless Code Public Opinion Research 2015. March 31, 2015. Online:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html. 4 CRTC (2015). Wireless Code Public Opinion Research 2015. March 31, 2015. Online:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html. 5 CRTC (2015). Wireless Code Public Opinion Research 2015. March 31, 2015. Question B5.
Online: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html. 6 CRTC (2015). Wireless Code Public Opinion Research 2015. March 31, 2015. Online:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html. 7 CRTC (2015). Wireless Code Public Opinion Research 2015. March 31, 2015. Online:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 8 of 20
have been available to telecommunications customers for 8 years.8 Approximately
the same number of respondents (19%) clearly recalled seeing or hearing
something about the Wireless Code coming into effect.9 By comparison, the
Wireless Code came into effect 21 months ago.
10. NPF-COSCO-PIAC note that in 2012-2013, the last time CCTS published figures
on how their customers became aware of CCTS (whether informed by their service
provider, seeing a bill notice, or a notification on their service providers website),
less than 20% of respondents chose any of the options presented.10 Moreover,
CCTS submitted recent figures collected from Participating Service Providers
(PSPs) for activities such as referrals to CCTS at second level of escalation,
website notices, and notices on customer invoices, which revealed a significant
lack of initiative from PSPs.11 If the marketing departments of a number of service
providers in this proceeding were performing in an environment where less than
20% of their clients were aware of their brand through promotional activities, this
performance would likely be considered unacceptable.
11. NPF-COSCO-PIAC note CCTS’ position there is no consensus, either in the
ombudsman community or among academics, as to the appropriate level of public
awareness of an organization.12 On this point, TELUS suggests reaching a certain
level of public awareness of the CCTS is not the actual goal.13 TBayTel noted “the
effectiveness of public awareness can not be measured, and why should it, to
what end? Any method would render a meaningless result.”14 However, NPF-
COSCO-PIAC note that at least other ombudsman-like offices still conduct
research to determine public awareness levels.15
12. While there is no definitive benchmark to measure the optimum level of awareness
for an organization such as the CCTS, an anecdotal example, in addition to the
data NPF-COSCO-PIAC already provided in their intervention, could be helpful. If
four Canadians were sitting in a room and one expressed an issue with a
communications service provider, two of the other three participants in the
conversation should be able to share information that the CCTS exists. This would
not necessarily be detailed knowledge, but at least an unprompted awareness.
NPF-COSCO-PIAC believe if this were the situation in Canada today—where 50%
of Canadians surveyed were aware of the CCTS unprompted—that level of
8 CRTC (2015). Wireless Code Public Opinion Research 2015. March 31, 2015. Online:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html. 9 CRTC (2015). Wireless Code Public Opinion Research 2015. March 31, 2015. Online:
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html. 10
NPF-COSCO-PIAC (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 18. 11
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Appendix 4, Questions 2-4. 12
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 26. 13
TELUS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 48. 14
TBayTel (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 24. 15
NPF-COSCO-PIAC (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 41-43.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 9 of 20
awareness, together with the underlying presumption that public awareness was
being measured, would be a vast improvement. However, the initial polling must
be conducted before CCTS can undertake “continued polling and surveys [which]
will provide some indication of whether awareness is increasing over time and
which initiatives are contributing most to this increase.”16
2.2 Current public awareness initiatives
13. At least one intervener in this proceeding, SaskTel, states a full public awareness
promotional campaign would drive additional complaints to the CCTS rather than
go through the PSP complaint handling and escalation process.17 While this could
occur, NPF-COSCO-PIAC are confident CCTS staff would be able to simply
identify this issue and redirect the customer to the PSP on those occasions the
CCTS has been approached prematurely. NPF-COSCO-PIAC believe that
SaskTel’s real concern is a potential increase in consumer complaints generally
(both those referred from CCTS to SaskTel as premature and those that went to
the CCTS for resolution) due to the required awareness raising.
14. Regarding consumer segments which could be specifically targeted by public
awareness activities, interveners such as TELUS and Quebecor suggested there
is no customer segment that would need special attention.18 NPF-COSCO-PIAC
question, however, how any intervener can reach this conclusion without specific
public awareness data. The Australian TIO has identified several groups, including
those speaking another language than English as a first language, seniors and
students as requiring more resources and attention.19 It is likely CCTS would find a
similar need in Canada.
15. NPF-COSCO-PIAC support CCC’s argument that customers should be informed
sooner in the complaint resolution process about the existence of the CCTS.20 The
current stage for disclosure by PSPs, commonly referred to as “second level
escalation,” at which point PSPs disclose the existence of the CCTS at all, should
be brought forward so that customers are aware of CCTS at a sooner stage. NPF-
COSCO-PIAC have proposed, for instance, that PSPs be required to promote
CCTS in their automated recordings when a customer contacts customer service
representatives. NPF-COSCO-PIAC note with concern the results of the CCTS
self-assessment process which revealed only 15 of 47 respondents reported a
16
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 26. 17
SaskTel (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 15. 18
TELUS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 42. See also Quebecor (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 13. 19
TIO, Responding to consumers with different needs (3 March 2015), online: TIO <http://www.tio.com.au/about-us/position-statements/responding-to-consumers-with-different-needs>. 20
Consumers Council of Canada (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 4251
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 10 of 20
notification process that appeared to comply with CCTS’ Communications Plan.21
This extremely low compliance rate of 32% should be addressed by the
Commission immediately.
16. CCTS’ public awareness plan is built on the strategy of ensuring that information
about CCTS is readily available to customers at the time they experience a
problem – directly from CCTS, through their service provider, and at key referral
points.22 NPF-COSCO-PIAC appreciate the dedication the CCTS has to this
strategy. However, it is not the only method to achieve the goal of greater public
awareness of the organization.
17. For instance, the compliance rate of respondents who notified their customers of
CCTS at the second level of escalation was 32%.23 The same exercise revealed
only 8% of PSP respondents were fully compliant regarding the proper display of a
notice on the websites of PSPs.24 The most successful of the disclosure
requirements, with a compliance rate of 66% of PSP respondents, was the
obligation for PSPs to place a message about CCTS on customer invoices at least
four times annually.25
18. These compliance figures indicate that stakeholders are generally unwilling to
ensure that CCTS public awareness continues to grow. As put by Union des
consommateurs, the current disclosures do not seem to have “the desired
effects.”26
19. NPF-COSCO-PIAC recognize that part of the problem is enforcement of PSP
obligations towards the CCTS. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-PIAC have proposed that
the Commission assume the role of enforcing CCTS obligations.
20. However, NPF-COSCO-PIAC believe the Commission should also consider a
multi-pronged public awareness approach which may prove to be much more
effective than focusing on a singular approach.
21. CCTS asserts that “one of the considerations in the design of any awareness
campaign is to ensure that each dollar spent promoting awareness delivers the
21
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Appendix 4, Questions 2-4. 22
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 18. 23
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Appendix 4, Questions 2-4. 24
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Appendix 4, Questions 2-4. 25
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Appendix 4, Questions 2-4. 26
Union des consommateurs (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 19.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 11 of 20
greatest return from a customer perspective.”27 Moreover, the CCTS contends the
cost of the awareness initiatives must not come at the expense of CCTS’ core
business activities.28 NPF-COSCO-PIAC note the amount spent by the CCTS on
public awareness activities is largely unknown. NPF-COSCO-PIAC are not
concerned so much that awareness initiatives are being undertaken at the
expense of CCTS’ core business activities, rather NPF-COSCO-PIAC are
concerned that awareness initiatives are not being undertaken at all. As a result,
NPF-COSCO-PIAC suggests the Commission inquire of CCTS during the
remaining process with regards to the amount of funding CCTS has spent on
public awareness initiatives since 2010.
22. NPF-COSCO-PIAC are concerned that the recent recruitment of a CCTS
Communications Officer and decision to conduct public polling in the 2015-2016
fiscal year may be strategic decisions made in anticipation of this CCTS review
rather than a sustainable, long-term commitment to measuring and promoting
public awareness. In fact, NPF-COSCO-PIAC are concerned by the substantial
amount of time since the previous CCTS review which was needed before the
funds for a Communications Officer and public polling were finally approved. NPF-
COSCO-PIAC request that the Commission inquire of CCTS as to the number of
occasions CCTS requested funding for this purpose before it was approved. The
response could shed some light on the potential practical difficulties faced by the
CCTS in completing the undertakings asked of it by the Commission.
2.3 Public Service Announcements
23. Other interveners in this proceeding, notably the incumbent telephone companies,
argue that a requirement for TVSPs to broadcast public service announcements
(PSAs) for the CCTS is not necessary.29 Interveners contend such messages
would lead to consumer confusion, misdirected complaints, or that consumer
would go to the CCTS too early in the complaint resolution process.30
24. NPF-COSCO-PIAC request that the Commission consider the proposal raised by
TekSavvy which raises a number of contexts where TVSPs are permitted to play a
role in originating television content as BDUs, rather than as broadcasters.31 They
27
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 27. 28
CCTS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 27. 29
TBayTel (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 23. See also TELUS (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 50, Shaw (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 22, Bell Canada (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 27, SaskTel (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 13 and Quebecor (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 15. 30
SaskTel (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 13, 15. See also Bell Canada (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 27. 31
TekSavvy (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 9-15.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 12 of 20
are: local availabilities, community channels, and promotional (“barker”)
channels.32 NPF-COSCO-PIAC also note Cogeco’s agreement that “methods such
as public service announcements could be useful to promote awareness of the
CCTS just as it has been for the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.”33
3. Code Administration
25. The Commission has granted CCTS the authority to administer and enforce
certain binding industry codes of conduct, including the Wireless Code and the
Deposit and Disconnection Code. In granting CCTS this authority, the Commission
has stated the following:
The Commission considers that the development, approval, and
enforcement of mandatory codes would work as follows: … (5) The CCTS
administers the code, publishes the code on its website, and reports on
complaints related to violations of that code in subsequent annual
reports.34
To resolve this issue, the Commission set out a new approach for the
development and approval of mandatory codes to be enforced by the
CCTS in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-46. The Commission determined
that such codes would be developed by a CRTC Interconnection Steering
Committee (CISC) working group, in which the CCTS would participate. In
addition, the Commission requested that CISC develop a deposit and
disconnection code to be enforced by the CCTS, and specified that the
code must fulfill the criteria set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2009-
424.35
The Commission agrees with the CCTS’s submission that its procedural
code is sufficiently broad to provide authority for it to rely on the Wireless
Code in addressing disputes related to wireless services… The
Commission hereby requests that the CCTS administer the Wireless Code.
This includes (i) resolving any complaints related to the Wireless Code; (ii)
monitoring trends in complaints; and (iii) reporting on both complaints and
trends in its annual report. The Commission will enforce the Wireless Code
by addressing issues related to (i) delayed implementation; and (ii)
systemic non-compliance… The Commission notes that as with any new
set of rules, there may be issues of interpretation that it has not anticipated.
In order to ensure the greatest benefit to consumers, if any part of the
Code or a consumer’s contract is ambiguous, or if it is unclear how the
terms of the Code or the contract are to be applied, then the Code and the
32
TekSavvy (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 9. 33
Cogeco (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 20. 34
Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-46 at para 44. (Emphasis added) 35
Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-702 at paras 4-6.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 13 of 20
contract must be interpreted in a manner that is favourable to the
consumer. Moreover, if at any time WSPs or other interested parties are
unclear about the application or interpretation of the Wireless Code or this
decision, they may seek guidance or interpretation from the Commission.36
The Commission notes that the majority of BDUs that offer other
communications services, such as Internet, local voice services and
wireless services, will offer incentives for their customers to purchase a
bundle of these services. In a marketplace where a growing number of
consumers take advantage of these offers, it becomes ever more important
to have a consistent approach to informing consumers and dealing with
consumer complaints. As such, given its expertise in administering the
Wireless Code and handling telecommunications complaints, the
Commission considers that the CCTS would be the appropriate
ombudsman to administer the TVSP Code of Conduct.37
26. It is clear that CCTS has been granted general authority to administer mandatory
codes and report on complaints which relate to those codes. In NPF-COSCO-
PIAC’s view, this approach prevents consumers, who often have less influence
and fewer resources than their service providers, from assuming the full burden of
investigating and identifying potential breaches of codes of conduct which the
industry is already required to adhere to. Rather, a general code administrator is
able to monitor, investigate and report on code violations related to complaints it
has received.
27. NPF-COSCO-PIAC note that, in ordering the creation of a complaints resolution
service, the Governor in Council had first identified the ombudsman as a
“Consumer Agency.” Therefore, CCTS – although providing a fair and independent
complaints resolution process – should not be treated as a court in which
individual customers are required to “plead” all facts and arguments relevant to
their complaint. Rather, the Governor in Council has already recognized that
consumers require an independent ombudsman to assist them in resolving their
complaints in a deregulated telecommunications market.
3.1 Investigation of code violations
28. Interveners such as Rogers38 and TELUS39 have argued that CCTS should be
required to limit its investigations to the “scope of the original complaint” and, in
particular, to refrain from investigating potential breaches of codes such as the
Wireless Code.
36
Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2013-271 at paras 373, 376, 378-379. (Emphasis added) 37
Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-104 at para 23. 38
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Rogers Communications Partnership (25 August 2015) at para 12. 39
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of TELUS (25 August 2015) at para 11(c).
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 14 of 20
29. NPF-COSCO-PIAC submit these arguments should be rejected for several
reasons.
30. First, the Commission has already granted CCTS the general authority to
administer mandatory codes and to resolve and report on complaints “related to”
those codes. A complaint that “relates to” a code is one which has a relationship or
connection with the code. The code need not be specifically identified in the
original complaint in order to have a relationship or connection with it.
31. Second, as mentioned above, the result of Rogers’ and TELUS’ request would be
to place the onus entirely on consumers to identify breaches of mandatory codes
of conduct even though there would be clear imbalances in the levels of
information and resources available to telecommunications customers. NPF-
COSCO-PIAC submit that this result would be contrary to the purpose of a code
which informs, protects and empowers consumers—and whose creation the
Commission had considered necessary “to address consumer concerns that a
competitive market cannot resolve.”40
32. Third, Rogers’ and TELUS’ request would pose important practical challenges to
CCTS’ complaints resolution process. The Wireless Code establishes several
rules concerning contracts, including the clarity and content of contracts,
amendments to contracts, and termination of contracts. Thus, these rules go to the
heart of a wireless customer’s contractual relationship with his or her WSP. It
would be both impractical and unreasonable for CCTS, as administrator of the
Wireless Code, to limit its investigation to the specific description provided by an
original complaint if, for instance, a change to the customer’s contract had been
invalid in the first place. The inherent results of this course of action would be: (1)
the exclusion of information which directly pertained to the facts of a complaint,
and (2) the possible denial of a fair and proper outcome merited by the customer.
These results would undermine the entire purpose of establishing codes of
conduct to protect and empower consumers.
33. Finally, Rogers has argued that CCTS, by actively investigating breaches of the
Wireless Code, denies service providers “the opportunity to first address the issue
with the customer.”41 However, compliance with a code of conduct (and the
Wireless Code in particular) is required as a condition of offering and providing a
telecommunications service under section 24 of the Telecommunications Act.42 It
is therefore a service provider’s obligation to adhere to a mandatory code—and
CCTS’ responsibility to report on breaches it has identified. The notion that service
40
Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-556 at para. 26. 41
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Rogers Communications Partnership (25 August 2015) at para 12. 42
SC 1993, c 38.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 15 of 20
providers ought to be given an opportunity to “first address” non-compliance with a
condition of service with their customers would constitute serious obstruction to
public transparency and accountability of WSP compliance with mandatory codes.
34. Thus, CCTS should not (and, practically speaking, could not) be required to restrict
its investigations to “the scope of the original complaint.”
3.2 Interpretation of codes
35. Interveners such as Rogers,43 TELUS44 and Cogeco45 have also generally
challenged CCTS’ mandate to “interpret” codes and argued that the ombudsman
should be restricted to “administering codes of conduct as they are written.”
36. NPF-COSCO-PIAC submit that CCTS must be granted a reasonable scope of
discretion in applying codes of conduct to individual complaints. As each complaint
has its own set of facts, every case requires a certain level of interpretation of
applicable codes. To prohibit the CCTS from issuing any interpretations of
mandatory codes which it has been charged to administer could seriously hinder
its ability to effectively resolve complaints—particularly where it is required to
constantly seek clarification from the Commission.
37. CCTS’ latest Performance Report shows that 96.4% of complaints were concluded
at the Pre-Investigation stage within 40 days in the 2014-2015 year.46 A longer
complaints resolution process could result in greater hardship imposed on the
complainant.
38. NPF-COSCO-PIAC further note that it is always open to TSPs to file an application
seeking guidance and interpretation from the Commission. However, the
Commission currently by no means requires interested parties to have the
Commission issue interpretations of codes. Rather, the Commission has already
directed parties to, where it is unclear how the terms of the Code or the contract
are to be applied, interpret the Code and the contract “in a manner that is
favourable to the consumer.”47
43
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Rogers Communications Partnership (25 August 2015) at paras 10-11. 44
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of TELUS (25 August 2015) at paras 12-15. 45
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Cogeco Cable Inc (25 August 2015) at para 9. 46
CCTS, CCTS Performance Report (August 1, 2014 through July 31, 2015) (August 2015), online: CCTS <http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/about/ccts-performance-report>. 47
See: Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2013-271 at paras 378-379.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 16 of 20
39. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-PIAC submit CCTS must be granted a reasonable scope
of discretion to interpret codes and determine the manner in which they apply to
individual cases in order to effectively resolve complaints.
4. Complaints Resolution Process
40. NPF-COSCO-PIAC highlight that when customers wish to file a complaint with
CCTS, they are required to describe the steps they have taken to resolve the
complaint with their service provider first before approaching CCTS.48 Therefore,
service providers have already had an opportunity to resolve a complaint with a
customer before the customer engages CCTS. Furthermore, where a customer is
unaware of the role and existence of CCTS, he or she has likely spoken to three
levels of a service provider’s customer service representatives before being
informed of the option to file a complaint with CCTS.49
41. Therefore, requests by interveners such as Rogers50 and SaskTel51 that customers
must either first exhaust a service provider’s internal complaints-handling process,
or that CCTS should refer a complaint back to a service provider to resolve before
initiating its complaints process, are unreasonable and should be rejected.
Although SaskTel cites the Ombudsman Saskatchewan office, Ombudsman
Saskatchewan’s complaints process52 is in effect similar to CCTS’ existing practice
of having complainants attempt to resolve their complaint with their service
provider first before filing a complaint with CCTS.
42. When a customer approaches CCTS, the service provider has already had an
opportunity to address the complaint. Moreover, in NPF-COSCO-PIAC’s view,
service providers should do their utmost to ensure customer complaints can be
effectively resolved at the first point of contact with customer service
representatives – not merely after several escalations. There is no reason why a
customer’s complaint ought to be subjected to several levels of escalation before it
is open to the customer to file a complaint with CCTS. In fact, NPF-COSCO-PIAC
48
CCTS Procedural Code (18 January 2012), s 6.1(e). 49
According to CCTS’ public awareness plan, Developing Public Awareness of CCTS, Participating Service Providers must inform customers of their right to recourse to CCTS if they have not resolved a complaint at “the second level of escalation.” See: CCTS, Developing Public Awareness of CCTS – Updated (April 2012), online: CCTS <http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/documents/public-awareness#_ftn3>. 50
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Rogers Communications Partnership (25 August 2015) at paras 6-7. 51
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of SaskTel (25 August 2015) at paras. 7-8. 52
Ombudsman Saskatchewan, Complaint Flowchart, online: Ombudsman Saskatchewan <https://www.ombudsman.sk.ca/uploads/document/files/complaint-flowchart-en.pdf> (accessed 1 September 2015).
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 17 of 20
are concerned that such a process would disincentivize service providers from
ensuring that all levels of customer service – not merely management or executive
office levels – continually improve in their ability to resolve customer complaints.
43. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-PIAC submit that CCTS’ existing practice – in which
customers must attempt to resolve the complaint directly with their service provider
first before filing a complaint – is sufficient and appropriate to ensure what CCTS
was originally designed to do, that is, to give the service provider in question a fair
chance (but not to require complainants to run an unlimited gauntlet) to resolve a
consumer issue.
5. Disabilities Rights Office
44. NPF-COSCO-PIAC note that MAC has expressed the need for an independent
“Disabilities Rights Office” (DRO) which, in the context of this proceeding, would
assist customers with a disability in the dispute resolution process, and which in
the broader communications regulatory context could serve as an advisory body
for accessibility policy.53
45. NPF-COSCO-PIAC appreciate the unique challenges encountered by consumers
with disabilities in attempting to resolve a dispute with their service provider. NPF-
COSCO-PIAC support the concept of establishing a DRO although, in their view,
this office should not be housed within CCTS. Given that the DRO, as envisioned
in MAC’s proposal, would participate in both advocacy and policy making as well
as supporting individual complainants, it would likely be able to operate more
effectively if established outside of CCTS. An external DRO would also be less
likely to conflict with CCTS’ role as an independent ombudsman.
46. Nonetheless, NPF-COSCO-PIAC agree that CCTS must be responsive to the
needs of complainants with disabilities. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-PIAC propose
that, separate from the concept of establishing a DRO, CCTS should also be
required (and be provided sufficient funding) to hire an accessibility coordinator or
liaison officer to ensure that the accessibility needs of complainants are met.
53
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Media Access Canada (25 August 2015) at paras 6-7.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 18 of 20
6. Other Issues
6.1 Customer survey
47. NPF-COSCO-PIAC generally support specific recommendations made by Bell,
TELUS and Union des consommateurs to improve the current customer surveys.
48. Specifically, Bell noted the utility of obtaining an overall measure of satisfaction as
part of the CCTS customer survey54 by suggesting questions such as, "Overall,
how satisfied were you with the service provided by the CCTS," and inquiring as to
the likelihood that they would use the CCTS's complaint resolution process again
or recommend it to a friend.55 NPF-COSCO-PIAC concur with these suggestions,
along with the Bell proposal that questions concerning satisfaction with the CCTS's
website content, navigation, and general usefulness be posed as part of the CCTS
customer survey.56
49. TELUS also proposed that the results obtained via the surveys should be made
available to the public and to Participating Service Providers, at least upon
request.57 As pointed out in their intervention, NPF-COSCO-PIAC submits the
Commission consider going even further by instructing CCTS to make the entire
CCTS customer survey public.
50. NPF-COSCO-PIAC also support TELUS’ suggestion that the surveys and their
associated results should direct the CCTS’ focus for improvement.58 The
Commission should instruct the CCTS to make clear in its annual reports what
actions to improve its service it has taken as a result of the survey data.
51. The proposal submitted by Union des consommateurs to add other measurements
to be disclosed by the CCTS is worth consideration.59 For instance, including the
average time for handling complaints, as well as tracking if a remedy proposed by
the Participating Service Providers been executed after the file is closed by the
CCTS, would be useful data used to signify systemic issues by stakeholders.
6.2 OTT participation
54
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Bell Canada (25 August 2015) at para 18. 55
Ibid. 56
Ibid at para 19. 57
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of TELUS (25 August 2015) at para 26. 58
Ibid at para 28. 59
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Union des consommateurs (25 August 2015) at para 13.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 19 of 20
52. Interveners such as Bell60 and Rogers61 have raised the issue of the participation
of online services such as Digital Media Broadcasting Undertakings (DMBUs) and
Over-The-Top (OTT) services providing telecommunications services to
Canadians for a fee.
53. NPF-COSCO-PIAC have already proposed that CCTS’ mandate should include all
goods or services that are bundled or sold with a communications service (except
customer-provided equipment). In regard to OTT services which are not sold with
a communications service, NPF-COSCO-PIAC would support the inclusion of
DMBUs and OTT services which provide telecommunications services to
Canadians (for a fee) in mandatory CCTS participation.
54. Although Bell states that the “financial risk of using a DMBU's service is low while
the ease of discontinuing the service or switching service providers is high,”62
NPF-COSCO-PIAC would argue this is not always the case. Rogers’ NHL
GameCentre Live, for instance, charged users $199.99 for a full season
subscription during the 2014-2015 year.63
55. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-PIAC would support CCTS participation of DMBUs and
OTT services which provide telecommunications services to Canadians for a fee.
6.3 Third party service providers
56. TekSavvy has argued that most of the complaints filed against it relate to service
delivery issues caused by third-party wholesale access providers, not TekSavvy.
Therefore, TekSavvy requests that CCTS be authorized to request and be
provided information from third-party service providers. TekSavvy also proposes
that CCTS refer determinations on the service provider responsible for an issue to
the Commission.
57. While NPF-COSCO-PIAC are not opposed to the concept of requesting
information from third parties, they are concerned about the efficiency and
effectiveness of CCTS’ complaints resolution process. Any delay and referral to
the Commission to determine responsibility for a complaint, for instance, would
only heighten the potential harm suffered by the complainant.
60
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Bell Canada (25 August 2015) at paras 38-42. 61
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Rogers Communications Partnership (25 August 2015) at para 22. 62
Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239, Intervention of Bell Canada (25 August 2015) at para 39. 63
Sportsnet, “Rogers NHL GameCentre LIVE lifts more blackouts” (3 September 2014), online: Sportsnet <http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/rogers-nhl-gamecentre-live-lifts-more-blackouts/>.
CRTC BTNC 2015-239
NPF-COSCO-PIAC Reply 11 September 2015
Page 20 of 20
58. Therefore, NPF-COSCO-PIAC would be more likely to support a data collection
and reporting mechanism whereby CCTS would report in detail on metrics such
as: (i) breakdown of complaint issues by Participating Service Provider, and (ii)
complaint issues related to wholesale service issues. In that case, retail service
providers such as TekSavvy would have the ability to file their own applications for
relief to the Commission based on data reported by CCTS.
7. Conclusion
59. In sum, contrary to arguments made by some interveners in this proceeding,
measurement and promotion of public awareness of CCTS are critical and current
initiatives are, in NPF-COSCO-PIAC’s view, insufficient.
60. NPF-COSCO-PIAC also submit that CCTS must be granted a reasonable scope of
discretion in administering and interpreting binding codes of conduct—and, in
particular, that the onus not rest solely on consumers to identify the rules which
apply to their relationship with their providers.
61. Ultimately, CCTS must be empowered to operate as a transparent and effective
ombudsman readily available to assist communications customers. Its role in the
communications sector should not be diminished or overlooked but harnessed so
as to strengthen the ability of the communications market to serve Canadian
users.
62. NPF-COSCO-PIAC are pleased to submit to the Commission the reply comments
provided above. Failure to address any particular arguments raised by other
parties does not indicate agreement with those positions.
***End of document***