Consumer groups criticize TSPs proposal for complaints commissioner

Consumer groups have panned the telecommunications service providers' Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS), saying it falls short of what the government called for and won't lead to better consumer protection for telecom services. The comments are part of a CRTC proceeding to determine whether the CCTS in its current form will best serve Canadian consumers and small businesses. The Public Internet Advocacy Centre (PIAC) tells the commission in its October 1 comments that the proposed structure, limited scope for complaints and voluntary membership are three elements of the CCTS that need to be changed. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) agrees with PIAC regarding the limited scope and structure of the CCTS. Other groups such as the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Union des consommateurs express the same concerns as PIAC and CIPPIC. PIAC succinctly highlights in its submission the importance of an independent and effective dispute resolution mechanism. It writes that if the commission isn't successful in creating such a body, some telecommunication service providers "will have received the grand prize of deregulation while consumers receive only the booby prize of a place to do little more than vent frustrations (and given the proposed narrow scope of the CCTS, maybe not even a chance to vent).". The consumer advocacy groups are particularly harsh on the CCTS when it comes to the independence of the complaints commission. According to the original proposal, independence from industry influence would be maintained through a board structure consisting of a majority of non-telecommunications industry representatives. Three members would be appointed by the industry while four would be independent directors. In certain cases, a double majority would be required to pass changes: two-thirds of both industry and independent members. PIAC states this is wholly inadequate and to continue under the proposed model "would be to completely ignore the mandate set forth in the Order in Council, to the eventual detriment of the Canadian consumer." The consumer advocacy group contends that, in fact, the proposal ensures the CCTS is controlled by industry members. To ensure this doesn't happen, PIAC suggests that there should be an equal number of consumer and industry representatives on the board with an independent CEO/director to serve as the tie-breaker in votes. Independence of the CCTS from industry influence is also undermined by the industry members' retention of a "super-majority" on important decisions such as changing a procedure or firing the commissioner, according to PIAC. "Under this ‘Extraordinary Resolution' rule a majority of the industry directors would be required to pass any motion on these key subjects. This means the industry has a veto over these key subjects and therefore retains control of the CCTS. This means the CCTS is clearly not ‘independent from industry,'" states the consumer advocacy group. CIPPIC complains that the limited scope of complaints under the CCTS's purview won't adequately serve consumers. It writes in its comments that due to already unsatisfactory legal redress mechanisms, the failure of government to act on misleading advertising and the growing number of services for which consumers have no redress except to switch providers requires the CCTS to have a much broader mandate than what has been proposed. CIPPIC suggests that the commissioner should have the authority to resolve complaints regarding both forborne and regulated telephony services, misleading advertising, non-voice applications, privacy issues not covered in PIPEDA as well as television services. The Internet policy group suggests that the CCTS lacks the power to investigate what it describes as "systemic issues." CIPPIC points to the Order in Council which indicates that the telecommunications consumer agency (TCA) should be able to identify "issues or trends that may warrant further attention" by either the government or the commission. "This is a critical component of the TCA's mandate, in CIPPIC's view. Without such powers, the agency may be effective in resolving individual complaints, but will have little if any value in identifying and resolving systemic issues so as to ensure a fair and effective telecommunications marketplace," writes CIPPIC. PIAC, CIPPIC and the other consumer advocacy organizations believe that membership of this agency should be mandatory. They say that all telecommunications consumers should be protected, not just those of the agency's members. The CCTS's members believe this is unnecessary, pointing out that other agencies such as the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council are working just fine on a voluntary basis. "If the ombudsman scheme is not made mandatory, certain carriers (and perhaps all, once a few go) would drop out or never join. This would be unfair to their customers and would contradict the principle that the ombudsman scheme is an integral part of telecommunications deregulation," PIAC writes. Network Letter will continue to monitor this proceeding closely as additional comments are due October 15. A public consultation is scheduled for November 14.

Consumer groups criticize TSPs proposal for complaints commissioner

News | October 5, 2007

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us