review of the structure and mandate of the commissioner ... · 9/11/2015 · with their reply...

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

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


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


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


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


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


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.

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2015/044-14-e/report.html





CRTC BTNC 2015-239


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. 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


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


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


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






Union des consommateurs (2015). Submission to CRTC Notice of Consultation 2015-239. Para 19.

CRTC BTNC 2015-239


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



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


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


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


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


SC 1993, c 38.

CRTC BTNC 2015-239


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


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


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


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


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 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


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***

review of the structure and mandate of the commissioner ... · 9/11/2015 · with their reply...

Documents