Telecoms say no need for additional accessibility requirements; advocates disagree

Canada’s telecommunications companies are recommending that the CRTC refrain from mandating additional accessible plans for Canadians with disabilities and discounts to wireless service providers (WSPs), arguing that a vast selection of plans already exist in the marketplace for different market segments. “Such regulatory measures do not take into account the different value propositions of low-cost brands and plans already in the marketplace, and could end up reducing choice or increasing the cost of wireless services for all consumers,” Telus Corp. wrote in its intervention filed in August. Telus instead recommended that the regulator require wireless carriers to “periodically” report on its accessibility offerings, and Rogers Communications Inc. further suggested that the commission issue mandatory orders to individual WSPs when it concludes they have not met the requirements. The CRTC issued a call for comments on the accessibility of “Mobile wireless service plans that meet the needs of Canadians with various disabilities” in June 2020, after a report found “a certain level of dissatisfaction and concern from Canadians with disabilities regarding the accessible wireless plans currently available.” In a joint intervention, the Deaf Wireless Canada Consultative Committee (DWCC) , and several other groups representing the deaf, deaf-blind and hard of hearing (DDBHH), recommended that the commission make “all aspects of mobile services accessible for all DDBHH consumers by enshrining an accessibility package.” It defined the package to have unlimited data plan with a minimum of 22 GB; no throttling; zero rating for use of video relay service; free voice calls or voice minutes instead of voice plans; and unlimited texting. Rogers claimed to the CRTC in its intervention that “no additional regulatory measures are required since accessibility plans are widely available among WSPs” arguing that its plans were developed in consultation with people with disabilities and widely promoted its offerings. “While some deaf and hard of hearing consumers stated on the record of earlier CRTC proceedings that they do not want to pay for voice minutes, that opinion was not shared by all DHH consumers with whom we consulted. Another learning was the growing importance of access to data among participating groups as it facilitates access to information and services which empower people with disabilities to fully participate in society,” Rogers wrote in its submission. The CNIB Foundation, a non-profit for people with sight loss, told the CRTC that only BCE Inc. “seems to have adopted a methodology through which they are actively engaging their customers with sight loss” while analyzing each company's promotional materials. The foundation suggested carriers adopt Bell’s approach. CNIB also found that Telus’ offerings were “well thought through” and Rogers “offers a package that is closest to being in-line” with the commission’s mandate for accessibility, however, it noted that both companies’ flanker brands do not provide those services. Bell, along with Quebecor Inc., and Shaw Communications Inc. told the commission that it is unnecessary to mandate the current requirements to offer and promote accessible wireless plans to flanker brands or prepaid offerings. “Our various wireless plans, along with the available accessibility discounts and data add-ons, act as competitive differentiators between brands. This flexibility and range of offerings allows each brand to target different base audiences with different sets of needs,” Bell wrote. Quebecor further elaborated on the point, noting that Fizz’s business model differs from that of Videotron’s main brand. It said Fizz is designed to appeal to customers who are comfortable communicating only on a digital platform, as it has no call center, resulting in prices lower than Videotron's main brand. Customers can also design their own packages by adding or removing voice or SMS services, and data on a monthly basis. “These savings have already been shared with our customers in the form of extremely competitive rates,” it wrote in its submission according to a translation. “A more aggressive pricing policy stemming from a lower cost structure, as well as more discretion available to customers to build their own packages - means that the Fizz brand has much less leeway than the main brand, Videotron, when it comes to offering privileged packages to customers with disabilities.” DWCC outlined some other barriers in its intervention such as a “lack of professional and standard training especially with the employees in both brick and mortar stores and through telephone” including a lack of American sign language (ASL) or Langue des signes du Québec (LSQ) videos for customers and a lack of knowledge in-store employees have on accessibility offerings. It also noted that consumers with accessibility needs often make less income and do not always make use of the full services available, and shared family plans are often limited to only one accessibility plan. -- Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

Telecoms say no need for additional accessibility requirements; advocates disagree

News | September 3, 2021

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

Telecoms say no need for additional accessibility requirements; advocates disagree

News | September 3, 2021

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telecoms testing their networks for the future of quantum connectivity

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us