Wind Mobile files CRTC complaint on Rogers’ advertising, roaming hand offs

Wind Mobile has filed a complaint with the CRTC accusing Rogers Communications Inc. of refusing to offer Wind “seamless roaming” services while advertising that Rogers’ discount Chatr brand is offering “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.” The complaint, dated Oct. 12, is filed under section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act, which says that no carrier can provide telecom services that “unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference” toward itself, others, or “subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.” Wind is arguing Rogers failure to offer seamless roaming—resulting in dropped calls when Wind customers leave its network and connect to Rogers—demonstrates that Rogers is showing “an undue preference upon itself” and subjecting Wind to “an unreasonable disadvantage” under the act. In the complaint, filed under Part VII of the CRTC’s telecom procedural rules, Wind asks the commission to direct Rogers to offer the company the same seamless call hand offs that it provides to Rogers customers, including services provided under Rogers’ Chatr and Fido brands. Wind is also asking the commission to order Rogers to “not confer an undue preference on itself or an undue disadvantage to others in marketing its services to consumers.” Wind, a new wireless entrant, is not the first company asking regulators to wade into a more competitive wireless landscape. New wireless entrant Mobilicity and Wind have also filed complaints with the Competition Bureau over Rogers’ new discount brand, Chatr, which launched this summer to compete with new entrants offering discount mobile phone services in urban markets. In wireless zones outside of its network footprint, Wind charges customers 25 cents per minute for roaming. “However, Rogers has refused to offer a seamless roaming service to WIND,” Wind wrote in its complaint. “As a result, when a WIND subscriber roams from a WIND Zone to an Away Zone and, therefore from the WIND network to the Rogers Network, any call underway—whether a social call, business call, or E9-1-1 emergency call—degrades until it is dropped, for reasons unknown to the subscriber.” Wind said it is within the CRTC’s jurisdiction to determine whether seamless hand offs for some brands and dropped hand offs for others is consistent with section 27(2) of the Telecom Act. The company adds Rogers’ Chatr brand, launched in July, is misleading customers into believing it is a “new entrant.” Wind said Chatr describes itself as delivering “real change” as opposed to “other new wireless companies,” and that Chatr advertising says the service offers “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.” Wind also submitted to the CRTC that Chatr does not provide any mailing address information on its website connecting it to Rogers. “We have been unable to find any information about the relationship between Chatr and any other service in its advertising or on its website. In fact the mailing address listed on its website appears to be the same address as a Mail Boxes Etc. outlet which rents out post office boxes,” Wind wrote. In an interview, Rogers’ senior vice-president of regulatory affairs, Ken Engelhart, said Wind’s holding company, Globalive Communications Corp., knew about Industry Canada’s decision not to regulate roaming hand offs before the company bought spectrum in the 2008 wireless auction. “Globalive went into the auction knowing they weren’t going to get seamless hand offs,” Engelhart said. He added that roaming is not within the CRTC’s jurisdiction and that Wind is “in the wrong court.” It would set a significant precedent, he said, if the commission waded into a voluntary contractual agreement between two companies on roaming. Engelhart added that Rogers does not provide seamless hand offs to Chatr because it operates on the Rogers network and does not require hand offs. “There’s no undue discrimination because there’s no discrimination,” he said. Wind also asked for a shortened reply period—so that Rogers is given only 10 days to reply—but in an interim reply filed with the CRTC on Oct. 14, Rogers argued for the normal reply period of 30 days. Rogers said in the comment that “Industry Canada has already ruled on this issue against WIND’s position” and that the allegations and legal questions require gathering factual evidence that will take more than 10 days. “A case in point is the technical feasibility and cost of developing the type of service envisaged by WIND as well as the fact that the service requested is not generally available from competing wireless carriers,” Rogers wrote. “The seamless hand-off of inter-carrier roaming calls is not a common feature of roaming arrangements and would require considerable time and expense to develop.” Rogers added that Wind has failed to provide any evidence that its customers are being harmed by a lack of seamless hand offs. Wind said that when it began building its network, it could not arrange a roaming arrangement any other company than Rogers, and that Rogers was not willing to enter into an agreement with seamless hand offs. But Engelhart said he is not aware of any jurisdictions that require roaming agreements with seamless hand offs. Under CRTC procedural rules, interested parties can file comments on the complaint within 30 days of the original application. Wind will then have another 10 days to issue a final reply. The commission is expected to issue a decision on the complaint within 90 days of the consultation period unless it involves other parties, in which case a decision can take up to six months. sdoyle@thewirereport.ca

Wind Mobile files CRTC complaint on Rogers’ advertising, roaming hand offs

News | October 15, 2010

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