PIAC, Wind Mobile, request review of CRTC decision on ‘seamless roaming’

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) have joined Wind Mobile in an appeal of a CRTC decision to determine whether mobile operators should be required to provide seamless roaming to their competitor’s subscribers. On Tuesday, the two consumer advocacy groups filed a joint request to review and vary a commission decision handed down in early June, which found that Rogers Communications Inc. had not created an “undue or unreasonable preference” by offering seamless roaming to customers using its Chatr brand but not to Wind customers who roam onto Rogers' network. Wind’s service distinguishes between Wind zones and away zones, so that subscribers can use Rogers’ network with per-minute roaming charges. The groups argue that the commission failed to properly consider whether Wind customers were unfairly disadvantaged by Rogers’ actions, which is prohibited under section 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act. “The commission is cutting extreme corners on the test they use for ,” PIAC counsel John Lawford said in an interview. “They basically said there was not even any preference, and they didn’t even move as to whether it was unjust or undue.” In its decision in June, the CRTC said Wind failed to demonstrate that a preference existed. The company had said it was disadvantaged by seamless handoffs carried out in conjunction with advertising campaigns claiming Chatr users faced “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.” The commission noted in its decision that the negotiated roaming agreement between Wind and Rogers does not require seamless roaming. Rogers had argued during the dispute that Chatr “is not a separate entity, does not have its own network, and does not own spectrum,” and that Chatr subscribers do not roam from a separate network onto that of Rogers, as Wind subscribers do, the CRTC added in its decision. But the commission focused on Rogers use of Chatr’s seamless roaming capabilities to promote its brand at Wind’s expense and failed to consider the unfair disadvantage forced upon Wind’s customers, the joint PIAC/CIC submission says. “The advantage (looked at from Chatr customer point of view) is to have a call continue with no transmission problem despite the Rogers (Chatr) customer transiting out of a all-in pricing zone to a per-minute pricing zone,” the submission reads. “A further advantage is that these zones are largely congruent with a WIND customer's all-in pricing zone, except for the major, glaring disadvantage for the WIND customer that the in-progress call will be dropped when transiting to transiting out of a all-in pricing zone to a per-minute pricing zone.” The request for a review also notes that the CRTC decision recognized the way that Wind customers are disadvantaged by the roaming arrangement just a few paragraphs before it rejected the premise of the existence of undue preference. “There was a preference there: they said so themselves in their decision,” Lawford said. “Then they said there’s no preference here, and therefore we don’t have to see if it’s unjust. They can’t do that.” Wind filed a separate request for a review of the CRTC decision on Tuesday, picking up on the PIAC/CIC argument that Rogers’ practices unfairly disadvantaged Wind customers and others. “he Commission reached its decision by considering only the impact on WIND as a competitor. It made no finding as to the impact on WIND’s subscribers or on other consumers,” the Wind submission says. “That a subsection 27(2) complaint about behaviour that impacts consumers can be dismissed without considering the impugned behaviour’s impact on consumers is a new principle that has significant negative implications for consumers.” Wind argues that it is unreasonable to use the companies’ roaming agreement—and the fact that it didn’t include seamless handoff provisions—as a reason to reject its complaint. “The mere fact that the parties failed to negotiate seamless hand-offs, but are theoretically free to do so, cannot be a basis on which to find the absence of a preference, a disadvantage or a discrimination,” the Wind submission says. “If it could, then the test for preference, disadvantage or discrimination would never be met.” In its submission, Wind said seamless roaming handoffs are becoming the preference and norm in jurisdictions such as the United States and the European Union. Lawford said it may be economically prudent for Canada to move towards legislating seamless handoffs even if it means consumers have to pay for roaming charges. “Having your call drop off while you're driving into Montreal is not anybody’s idea of productivity,” he said. A study this June found that Canadian mobile providers had some of the highest average international roaming fees among member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). At the time, Rogers joined other major providers in a rejection of the study’s findings and questioned its methodology. In an interview Wednesday, Ken Engelhart, Rogers’ senior vice-president of regulatory affairs, rejected the premise that seamless roaming was becoming a norm outside of Canada. “Seamless handoff is just not part of roaming in most parts of the world. It is the exception rather than the rule. Tt’s a rarity,” Engelhart said. He noted that it would be impractical and inefficient to offer seamless roaming to Canadian startups like Wind, which is continually expanding its network coverage. “It’s not impossible, but it’s remarkably tricky and quite expensive,” he said. “The interconnection points would have to be constantly revised.” The PIAC/CIC submission also calls on the CRTC to engage in a wholesale process of redefining roaming regulations in Canada, beginning with public consultations on the issue. “In order to stay competitive in the North American market, and to reflect the importance of roaming to consumers and as a condition of competition in wireless ... the Commission should undertake a public Notice of Consultation in relation to roaming,” the groups' submission says. nkyonka@thewirereport.ca

PIAC, Wind Mobile, request review of CRTC decision on ‘seamless roaming’

News | 08/31/2011 9:13 pm EDT

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