CRTC seeks feedback: Is a national code for wireless necessary?

[pjw918]

CRTC News Release

OTTAWA-GATINEAU, April 4, 2012 — Today, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced that it is seeking views on whether the wireless market has changed enough to warrant its intervention in the development of a national code for wireless services. The CRTC recently received several applications suggesting that one be established.

In 1994, the CRTC decided it would not regulate the wireless sector. It was convinced that there was enough competition in the marketplace to guide the industry’s growth and provide Canadian consumers with a choice of innovative services.

“Our practice has been to rely on market forces as long as we are convinced that the interests of consumers will be looked after,” said Leonard Katz, the CRTC’s Acting Chairman. “In this case, we are seeking evidence that our intervention is necessary before considering the development of a national wireless code.”

Those who wish to participate in the CRTC’s proceeding are invited to submit their comments by May 3, 2012. Comments may be submitted by completing the online form, by writing to the Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, or by fax at 819-994-0218.

CRTC online submission - deadline May 3

--
sourced via mobilesyrup, April 4

[droidacolyte]

The state of wireless in Canada is much better than it used to be. Who would have thought back in say 2008 that you could get an unlimited provincial talk plan for as little as $19/month and unlimited provincial talk + Canada/US SMS/MMS for as little as $25/month? And not that long ago Mobilicity had unlimited local talk, Canada/US SMS/MMS and data for $25/month and Public had unlimited provincial talk for $15/month (but they had to raise the price to boost the ARPU).

There is a lot of room for improvement. A lot of room for improvement. Outside of the metropolitan areas, the best you can do is $50-55/month for unlimited talk and text (no "Canadian long distance" charges or roaming charges in Canada though at that price). WIND Mobile's expansion will help. They have enough spectrum to deploy 3G on an almost nation-wide level (Southern Quebec went to Videotron pretty much. Public Mobile gets Greater Montreal. And I think Tony said something about not having enough spectrum to fill in rural areas?) And the new entrants face a lot of growing pains and challenges.

Hopefully things improve further. Canada lags behind much of the world still in wireless. But at the same time it should be acknowledged that it's more affordable than ever to own a mobile phone, the new entrants have served a demographic that has been neglected for a long time by the incumbents, lots of people who never owned a mobile phone before now own one, etc. The new entrant experiment has been a success in many ways but this new industry minister (Mr. Jabba the Hutt) doesn't seem as interested in improving competition in wireless as Tony Clement was.

Telecom needs to improve in general though. It's amazing how much Rogers, Bell, Telus, Shaw, Videotron, etc. are ripping us off when you compare the prices in Europe and even the United States.

[pjw918]

This is a rare opportunity for the wireless consumer to have input and possibly impact at the national level on the regulation of the Canadian industry.

The Globe and Mail coverage helps put the CRTC's call in perspective:

CRTC weighs national code for wireless firms

Canada’s telecommunications regulator is weighing whether to take a more interventionist role in the $17-billion cellular sector by developing a national code for wireless services.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced Wednesday that it will hold a consultation to probe the state of wireless competition

Its overarching goal is to determine whether this country’s mobile market has changed enough for it to resume active regulation of the terms and conditions for wireless service contracts – a practice that it largely abandoned almost 20 years ago. A decision is expected later this year.

“Our practice has been to rely on market forces as long as we are convinced that the interests of consumers will be looked after,” said acting chairman Leonard Katz in a release.

“In this case, we are seeking evidence that our intervention is necessary before considering the development of a national wireless code.”

The CRTC had originally decided against regulating the wireless sector in 1994, opting instead to allow market forces to steer the industry’s growth. At the time, it stressed there was sufficient competition in the market to justify that hands-off approach.

Those dormant regulatory powers, though, still remain in the Telecommunications Act, meaning the CRTC can still exercise its authority over such matters if it chooses.

Its decision to hold a consultation comes after at least two major wireless carriers, in addition to the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, urged it reconsider its stance and implement a national consumer protection code.

In February, Telus Corp. asked the CRTC to hold a public consultation and determine what national standards should apply to wireless contracts to improve transparency.

That was followed by a similar request by Rogers Communications Inc. last month. As part of its application, Rogers took the extra step of providing a draft consumer code that it hopes will serve as a starting point for discussion.

Although those companies purport to champion the interests of consumers in their applications to the regulator, their main concern is the growing patchwork of provincial regulations for wireless services.

Provincial governments are increasingly trying to fill the regulatory vacuum left by the CRTC by toughening up consumer protection legislation amid a growing public outcry over irritants such as opaque contract language and cancellation fees.

Quebec’s Bill 60, which took effect in 2010, caps the fees that consumers must pay for early cancellation of their wireless contracts.

Manitoba, meanwhile, is on the brink of proclaiming legislation into law that bans unreasonable cancellation fees among other measures. In Ontario, a private member’s bill, that also proposes to put a ceiling on cancellation fees and make cellphone contracts more understandable, passed second reading in December.
...


Do we want the providers to determine what the CRTC should regulate?

--
The CBC coverage is helpful as well.

Tamir Israel, staff lawyer at CIPPIC, said in light of those existing provincial rules, it would be good to have a national standard. He added that before such a standard is developed, there should be a public discussion of what should be included, including some issues that Rogers did not bring up, such as digital locks on phones.
...
Consumer complaints to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services more than doubled in 2010-11, compared to the previous year, and 62.3 per cent of complaints were related to wireless services. Most involved alleged billing errors and contract disputes.

[xtachx]

I am thinking that we should submit something on behalf of all hofo members, listing out things like $8 caller ID, 1month dead air fees on porting etc

Sent from my Nexus One using HowardForums

[SharpieFiend]

So, Canadians tell the CRTC that the state of competition sucks, and the Conservative spin doctors tell everyone that competition is working and hands more power to the Big 3. Sounds good to me...

Let's face it, the only way anything is going to be done in the mobile space is at the provincial level because the CRTC is a toothless tiger. The only reason why anything was done about usage based billing is because it was a rare example of Canadian citizens being outraged and voicing their opinion. To paraphrase Pink Floyd: "Quiet desperation is the Canadian way."

[xtachx]

No, if this is anything like the UBB debate, then it won't be like what you said

Sent from my Nexus One using HowardForums

[Mr Mystery]

I am thinking that we should submit something on behalf of all hofo members, listing out things like $8 caller ID, 1month dead air fees on porting etc

Sent from my Nexus One using HowardForums

Good idea, compile something based on everyones thoughts, then send it signed by the members here.

[Demon_Twinz]

good idea moderator xtachx

i will sign it ... pitch forks and fire batons

[pjw918]

Can a wireless ‘code of conduct’ cure CRTC’s poor record on competition? - Globe and Mail, April 9

In its notice, the CRTC wondered aloud about whether its reliance on competition to the maximum extent possible in wireless, and its decision way back in 1994 to not regulate the sector, might be misguided in light of stubbornly low levels of competition.
...
And if does intervene, what can we expect? Not real regulation, but rather a “national code for wireless services” designed by and mostly for the industry.

So, have things changed? Well, yes, of course: 2G, 3G, now 4G and LTE. Smartphones are increasingly making their ways into the palms of Canadians across the land. The Internet of devices is highly WiFi dependent, and mobile data and video use is growing fast. The industry has also grown from revenues of $3.7-billion in 1996 to $18-billion in 2010.

However, one thing that has stayed constant is the fact that the wireless services have never been truly competitive and likely never will be. Nor, however, is it necessary that we expect them to be. But the CRTC said that it would need evidence to indicate that market forces are not working before it would act.

Let me introduce two such indicators: one, the empirical evidence on the state of competition and concentration in the wireless sector between 2000 and 2011 and, two, some indicators of price and quality drawn from relevant global standards
...
While there’s room for interpretation, the bottom line is that the wireless sector is and always has been highly concentrated. It is less competitive now than it was in 2000, when “market forces” peaked. The CRTC is right that after this length of time, and in the face of the immovable reality of high levels of concentration, yes, maybe it is time to temper the “maximum reliance on market forces” mantra. A code may just be in order, although one might go even stronger and ask for proper regulation, that is, for the CRTC to do its job versus playing overseer to an industry-developed code.
...
The upshot of all this: wireless will likely never be competitive. Nevertheless the CRTC needs to regulate versus oversee an industry-developed code.

[nuclearbroccoli]

Let me introduce two such indicators: one, the empirical evidence on the state of competition and concentration in the wireless sector between 2000 and 2011 and, two, some indicators of price and quality drawn from relevant global standards [/I]

How about just simple logic to prove that there isn't enough competition?

Wind and Mobilicity offer service for much less than the established providers, yet their debts are higher due to the cost of building new networks from scratch.

The providers who built the majority of their networks long ago, are charging substantially more for their service.

Do the math.
If there was enough competition, then the process would be lower, as the above points prove that they could be lower, yet still be profitable.

At least that's the way I see it.

from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

[droidacolyte]

Market forces my butt. The government gave the incumbents spectrum back in the 1980s to build the networks. And now you're going to tell the new entrants that they have to "compete". The government should take some of the spectrum that Rogers, Bell and TELUS have and put it up for auction for the new entrants to bid on. Bellus own the most spectrum in the world. And Rogers is right behind them at #2. There's no reason for the incumbents to need more spectrum than the Big Three in the United States.

[pjw918]

Ontario to adopt consumer cellphone protection plan - Globe and Mail, April 12

Premier Dalton McGuinty’s minority government announced Thursday it plans to beef up consumer protection by, among other measures, allowing cellphone users to cancel their contracts at any time, while placing a ceiling on penalties.

In doing so, Ontario becomes the fourth province after Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador to step into the vacuum left by the federal telecommunications regulator, which decided against active regulation of wireless contracts almost two decades ago...

Ontario feels compelled to act, [Orazietti] said, because the federal government has demonstrated an “unwillingness” to protect consumers.


MPP David Orazietti has sponsored previous wireless consumer legislation (most recently Bill 5). In the CBC coverage, he is quoted at the press conference:

"I say to the federal government the voluntary code of conduct is a farce, it's insulting to consumers and it does not address the competition issue and the costs that consumers need to bear," he said.

"It gets back to a belief federally that there's adequate competition. Clearly there's not."

--
The CBC article includes audio and video in which Orazietti details the key provisions.

The new bill is titled The Wireless Services Agreement Act, and supersedes Orazietti's Bill 5, which passed 2nd reading back in December(!).

[delineate]

No one seems to be talking about the "Wireless Services Agreement Act" today!
I'm not sure if the provisions really change anything.

For instance:

Fixed-term contracts that cannot be renewed, extended or amended without your express consent

Isn't that already the case? My understanding was that when this happened it's because the customer upgraded the phone or something w/o really understanding what they were doing. The law doesn't mean people will suddenly start paying attention!

[pjw918]

I'm not sure if the provisions really change anything.

There are some interesting things in this proposed legislation, but it's not going to be world changing.

The repugnant 3 year contracts will seem much less of a stranglehold to people if the maximum liability is widely known to be the pro-rated phone subsidy (or a maximum $50 on non-subsidized contracts, think data plans), for all providers. What would be clever of the bill drafters is to require the subsidy to reflect the length of the contract, but that's not going to happen. The 2 year subsidies are usually very nominal, to push people to sign for three.

If you watch or listen to Orazietti's comments, it sounds as though an opinion was received that the provincial government's legislation be focused on contractual issues, and to defer to the federal level for regulation beyond those, which might be part of the explanation for a new bill to supersede Orazietti's Bill 5 which passed 2nd reading back in December (electoral value being the primary reason I'd guess). We're not likely to see mandatory phone unlocking addressed in this new bill. We'll see contract related costs addressed, but not the carrier's business practice of offering 3 year contracts. There's expressed intention to tackle misleading advertising, but I think that's only as much as it relates to service agreement cost. The requirement of an "all-inclusive advertised price" can't really prevent add-on inflation, I don't think. The proposed changes allow for immediate cancellation "if not on a fixed term contract", eliminating those bogus 30-day notice requirements.

Requiring notification of the user when they 'could' incur additional charges due to roaming is significant; Orazietti acknowledged challenges in implementation.

Giving a complainant the right to sue for three times the amount billed in an dispute will give the carrier more motivation to resolve sooner rather than later.

At least for Ontario, we're seeing here carrier accountability being pushed in the right direction. I think Ontario's announcement puts added pressure on the CRTC (and federal government) to admit the wireless consumer has been neglected.

[pjw918]

The deadline for submissions is 8pm Eastern, tomorrow May 3, should anyone care to make their voice heard.

Look for Notice 2012-206 on the CRTC's Telecom Proceedings Open for Comment