Industry players say they should develop their own code of conduct

GATINEAU—Industry players say that they, not the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS), should be called upon to develop an industry code of conduct that would provide clarity for consumer complaints. “Establishing codes without industry buy-in is regulation. If the commission purported to give CCTS the power to impose codes without industry consent, that would be an illegal sub-delegation of a statutory power,” William Abbott, Bell Canada’s senior counsel for regulatory law, told the commission Monday. “What the CCTS should not, and cannot do, is develop codes and impose them on the industry without the industry’s consent.” On Wednesday the CRTC closed a three-day mandatory review of the CCTS’s role and mandate. The CCTS is a third-party complaint resolution agency for telecom services. The public hearing also explored whether the agency should play a role in developing and implementing industry codes and standards. A code of conduct would set new minimum, industry-wide standards for market conduct and define expectations for consumers and the CCTS. In 2007, the commission said the CCTS’ mandate included either creating or approving an industry code of conduct, but providers appearing at the hearing this week said developing a code is best left to the industry. On Tuesday Telus Corp. suggested that the development of a mandatory code of conduct should be done through public consultations with the CRTC, not by the CCTS. “The CCTS is not a policymaking body nor does it have the institutional make-up to conduct proceedings that require input from multiple public stakeholders,” Ted Woodhead, Telus’ vice-president of telecom policy and regulatory affairs, said. Telus added that an alternative could be for industry players to develop a voluntary code of conduct. Although Bell and Bell Aliant said the CCTS lacks the resources, expertise or statutory mandate to act as a regulator and create an industry code of conduct, they said the agency could, under specific circumstances, pass an extraordinary resolution to resolve complaints that are not addressed in contracts. The company said it did not want to close the door on the agency developing codes in the future. MTS Allstream and cable companies appearing at the hearing also argued that the CCTS could play a role in developing a code if one is deemed necessary. Cogeco Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Quebecor Media Inc. and Shaw Communications Inc., said Tuesday that the CCTS should only adopt an industry standard if there is general consensus among members. But without consensus there should be no standard, Patrick Désy, senior analyst of regulatory affairs for telecommunications at Quebecor, said. The CCTS does not play "a regulatory role," he said. MTS said Wednesday that the CCTS could potentially facilitate the development of codes and standards by industry. The company said that requiring two-thirds of the agency’s directors to approve a new code is a sufficient safeguard to ensure standards are supported by all stakeholders and that they do not lead to the “re-regulation” of unregulated services. CCTS commissioner Howard Maker said Wednesday there appears to be consensus among stakeholders that the development of a code should be led by industry, not the agency. He suggested that the CCTS participate in discussions and provide comments on draft codes. Maker said Monday that an industry code could go a long way to help the agency resolve complaints. “For the CCTS, codes can provide useful benchmarks against which we can measure the conduct of a provider in a given situation, in order to determine the appropriate resolution of a complaint,” he said. Maker added that requiring CCTS approval of the code could be problematic because it would require consensus from two-thirds of industry and independent directors under its current by-laws. Maker also pointed out that the agency has limited experience in the development of industry codes and standards. “I think it makes a lot of sense for the industry to have the lead role in drafting these codes in the sense that they have the expertise that CCTS doesn’t have in terms of how they do business,” he said. In July 2009, the CRTC directed the CCTS to develop an industry code for telecom disconnections and deposits, but the agency said its efforts were unsuccessful. Maker said there are many models for developing a code, but the CCTS should participate in the process because it has access to complaint information. Presenting at the hearing Monday, consumer group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said that if the commission gives the CCTS responsibility for developing a code, it should ensure consumers and consumer groups provide input in the process. “The ombudsman for banking services and investments recently created a consumer advisory committee,” PIAC counsel John Lawford said. “Perhaps this sort of committee could assist with such consumer consultation should the CCTS, its members, and the CRTC, see the value in consumer inclusion in these activities.” PIAC said the CCTS has failed to develop a draft code because the voting threshold for directors is too high. Lawford suggested only a simple majority vote be required to develop a draft code. On Wednesday the commission questioned interveners on the possibility of creating a CRTC interconnection steering committee (CISC) to develop a code of conduct. The idea was first advanced by SaskTel, which did not appear at the hearing, in July. A CISC is a working group made up of industry and commission members that develop guidelines, procedures and standards under CRTC oversight. SaskTel suggested that once a guideline is developed by the CISC and approved by the commission, it could be handed over to the CCTS for implementation and management. But industry players seemed reluctant to create a CISC. Bell told the commission CISCs are usually struck to resolve technical, not policy, issues, and may not be the best arena to establish an industry code. But the company wasn’t opposed to the idea, and suggested it would be better than changing the governance or structure of the CCTS. Ken Engelhart, Rogers’ senior vice-president of regulatory affairs said creating a CISC to create an industry code “does not seem appropriate to us,” but later said it could not prevent the CCTS from participating in the CISC. Lawford said PIAC supports creating a CISC made up of industry players, the CCTS and consumer groups. CISCs are traditionally open to anyone who wants to participate. “If the CISC committee strategy is not taken, we doubt the CCTS will be an effective code-making or approving body,” he said. “The present voting structure, unless changed on this point, will result only in approval of largely window-dressing codes … or the rejection of any code with real consumer protection.” kfournier@thewirereport.ca

Industry players say they should develop their own code of conduct

News | 12/01/2010 11:38 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