Telecom complaints body appealed by founding members

Some founding members of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services' (CCTS) have appealed a CRTC ruling that officially sanctioned the telecom complaints body. In two separate Part VII applications filed on February 4, the telcos and cablecos claim the commission erred when it set the scope and mandate of the CCTS. In a decision last December, the commission accepted a proposal by some of the country's largest telcos and cable companies to create the CCTS to handle complaints from individuals and small businesses for deregulated telecom services such as local telephony, wireless and Internet services. But the CRTC made some modifications to the scope and mandate of the CCTS. For example, the commission ruled that limitations of liability (LoLs) in customer contracts - usually a maximum amount of monetary damages a service provider has to pay to a customer in the case of legal action - would no longer apply. The CRTC upped the maximum award amount to $5,000 from the levels contained in Bell Mobility's customer contracts which is $20 or for Sympatico $100. The CRTC also determined that all telecommunications service providers with annual revenue above $10 million had to become members to the complaints body. The CCTS would also have to accept complaints from groups or complaints submitted on behalf of consumers' associations. The telco appeal, which is quite narrow in scope, was launched by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Bell Canada, Northwestel Inc. and Télébec. The companies argue the commission didn't have the right to order the complaints body to ignore LoLs in customer contracts in cases where the client wins an award of damages against a service provider. Bell et al. suggest in their appeal that the since the commission had previously deregulated limitations of liability provisions in customer contracts, it can't decide to regulate them in this case. As well, the companies note that the government order requiring the creation of the CCTS, didn't give the CRTC the right to tell the telecom complaints body to ignore customer contract provisions. Since the commission has already deregulated the aspect of policing customer contracts, it "no longer has authority in respect of the companies' LoLs, more specifically, LoLs are no longer up to the commission's approval and the commission does not have the authority to declare such provisions unenforceable, as it purported to do so in Decision 2007-130," reads the telcos' application. "Furthermore, the commission certainly cannot delegate to the CCTS powers that the commission itself lacks." The telcos also suggest that by removing LoLs in awarding damages, the CRTC effectively turns service providers into insurers required to guarantee service levels. "The commission is in effect attempting to impose upon the companies risks such as those that would ordinarily be taken into account in the determination of what insurance policy premiums would be applicable to a policy which covered a customer for any and all damages (including economic or consequential damages) up the competition limit set by the commission in its decision," Bell et al. state. Just as the telcos want the new LoLs provision removed, so do the cable companies. But Bragg Communications Inc. (EastLink), Cogeco Cable Inc., Quebecor Media Inc. (Vidéotron ltée), Rogers Communications Inc. and Shaw Communications Inc. also want mandatory membership in the CCTS and collective complaints provisions to be eliminated from the CCTS's mandate and scope. The cableco application indicates that Shaw, which has yet to join the complaints body, may be interested in doing so, "but not on the terms set out by the commission in the decision." With respect to mandatory membership, the cable companies point to a number of previous CRTC decisions as well as higher court rulings as evidence that the commission doesn't have the right to require membership in the CCTS. Besides, they say, there wasn't any evidence presented during the process to suggest that deregulation in wireless, Internet and other services hasn't worked in disciplining service providers' market behaviour. "Indeed, the only evidence before the commission was that market forces have protected the interests of consumers and promoted the achievement of the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives absent mandatory membership in an independent consumer complaints agency," reads the cablecos' Part VII. Collective complaints also raise issues with the cable companies. They note that the CCTS doesn't have the capacity to address procedural complexities usually associated with collective complaints. The cable companies also note that the OiC gave the body the mandate to resolve complaints from "individual and small business retail customers."

Telecom complaints body appealed by founding members

News | 02/15/2008 7:39 pm EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us