Infolink Communications Ltd. agrees with Rogers Wireless that voicecasting to deliver unsolicited messages to wireless users’ voicemail boxes for marketing purposes should be prohibited by the CRTC. But the company notes that this should only happen when users are levied charges to access their voicemail or text message inboxes. The following is an edited excerpt of Infolink’s January 16 submission to the CRTC.  Infolink’s position is based on the following:Currently, the prevailing practice among wireless carriers, including Rogers Wireless, is to impose per-minute usage charges on subscribers when subscribers access their wireless voicemail boxes to retrieve messages; and It is unfair to subscribers that they should be charged to access unsolicited voicemail messages deposited for the purpose of solicitation. Furthermore, Infolink submits that to the extent that wireless text-messaging subscribers also incur usage-based fees to retrieve wireless text messages, there should be a similar prohibition on sending unsolicited text messages for the purpose of solicitation. However, Infolink’s basic agreement with the Rogers Wireless application is subject to the proviso that the prohibition is only appropriate where subscribers do indeed incur per-minute or usage-based charges for accessing wireless voicemail or text messages. Only in such circumstances would the legal criteria of undue inconvenience or nuisance required by section 41 of the Telecommunications Act be met. Indeed, the evidence submitted by Rogers Wireless in its application clearly identifies additional charged incurred by its wireless subscribers as being the principal rationale behind the requested relief.  Although Rogers Wireless appears to argue that other forms of inconvenience or nuisance arise from voicecasting to wireless subscribers, Infolink notes that Rogers Wireless’ evidence in these other regards in not convincing and in any event, falls well short of establishing the standards of undueness.  In particular, Infolinks notes the following:Of the voicecasting complaints recorded by Rogers Wireless in the three months between March and May 2005, Rogers Wireless provides no information as to the nature of the complaints that were received. For example, it is not known whether the complaints were primarily attributable to additional charges having been incurred by reason of Rogers Wireless’s current billing practices or whether it was the content or frequency of the messages that triggered the complaint; Rogers Wireless invites the commission to make a linear extrapolation from the voicecasting complaints that between 2% and 5% of its customer service representatives recorded between March and May 2005. However, unless the recorded complaints constitute a representative sample in the statistical sense, extrapolating in the manner suggested by Rogers Wireless would lead to a highly unreliable conclusion; Rogers Wireless states that it has observed an increase in customer complaints respecting voicecasting whenever a new campaign in launched, but it has provided no evidence for this bald statement; and Rogers Wireless states that unlike voicemail messages deposited in wireline voice mailboxes, wireless handsets ring or chime after a voicemail is deposited. Infolink notes that the type of notification given by a handset is entirely customizable. Second, in terms of the potential to interrupt a customer’s activities in real time, there is no difference in the degree of disruption (or lack thereof) caused to a wireless subscriber by a voicemail notification as to a wireline subscriber, who is notified of a voicemail message by a flashing light or some other form of notification on his or her wireline handset. Infolink submits that where wireless subscribers are not charged usage-based fees for accessing voicemail or text messages, there should be no prohibition on voicecasting to such subscribers.  In conclusion, to the extent that wireless subscribers incur usage-based charges to access their voice mailboxes, Infolink submits that the relief requested by Rogers Wireless is appropriate. In addition, Infolink submits that to the extent that wireless subscribers incur usage-based charges to receive text messages, the prohibition on sending unsolicited messages for the purpose of solicitation should be extended to text messages to sent to wireless devices.  Infolink notes that that part of the orders sought by Rogers Wireless that seeks to require local exchange carriers to enforce their tariff provisions respecting termination of service goes beyond any orders previously made by the commission pursuant to its jurisdiction to oversee telemarketing activities.