www.ccts-cprst.ca | [email protected] | 1-888-221-1687

www.ccts-cprst.ca | [email protected] | 1-888-221-1687
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TableofContents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
one
Message from the Chair of the Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
two
Message from the Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
three
Who We Are and What We Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
OurMandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
OurComplaintsProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
four
2009–2010 Highlights – The Year in Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
FinancialHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
five
Participating Service Providers (as of 31 July 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
six
Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
HowConsumersContactedUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
AggregateData(August1,2009–July31,2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Contacts–ParticipatingServiceProviders–OutsideofMandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Contacts–Non-ParticipatingServiceProviders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
NatureofComplaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
ComplaintsbyTypeofService . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
SummaryofComplaintsbyServiceProvider(2009–2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
NatureofComplaintsbyServiceProvider(2009–2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
CCTSWebsiteTraffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
ComplaintsbyProvinceandTerritory(2009–2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
seven
Topics and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
UnderstandYourTelecomContract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
CaseStudy#1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
CaseStudy#2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
CaseStudy#3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
NumberPortability–SometimesNotasEasyasitLooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
CaseStudy#1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
CaseStudy#2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
NumberPortability–There’sACatch! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
PremiumTextMessages(ShortCodes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
eight
Our Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
IndependentDirectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
IndustryDirectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
nine
Director Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
ten
How to Contact Us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
2
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
MessagefromtheChairoftheBoardofDirectors
3
ONE
MESSAgE FROM THE CHAiR
OF THE BOARD OF DiRECTORS,
MARY M. gUSELLA
On behalf of the Board of Directors, Iampleasedto
presentthethirdannualreportofCCTS,anagencythat
providesconsumersoftelecommunicationsservicesin
Canadawithrecoursefortheindependentresolutionof
theircomplaints .Thisreportcoversthesecondyearsince
theappointmentofthepermanentBoardofDirectorsin
June2008 .
Asoutlinedinthisreport,thenumberofcommunications
fromconsumershasrisen150%overthepastyear .The
numberofcomplaintsreceivedandresolvedhasalso
increasedsubstantially .Thepublicawarenesscampaign
launchedincooperationwithparticipatingservice
providersishelpingconsumerstolearnaboutCCTS
andhowtocontactus,especiallywhentheydiscovera
problemorconcern .Weintendtocontinueoureffortsto
achievegreaterconsumerawarenessofourorganization .
describestherightsandresponsibilitiesofprovidersand
customersinrelationtodepositsanddisconnections .
Despiteconsiderableworkandconsultationswith
consumergroupsandindustryparticipants,itwas
notpossibletoachieveagreementonsuchaCode .
Nevertheless,theexerciseprovedavaluableonein
assessingCCTS’scapacitytoundertakethisnewkind
ofrole,inadditiontoitscentraldisputeresolutionrole .
Finally,whenCCTSwascreatedbyCRTCDecisionin
December2007,theCommissionpromiseda“three-year
review,”whichisnowuponus .OnApril30,2010,the
Commissioncommencedapublicproceedingtoreview
allaspectsofCCTSoperations,includinganassessment
oftheeffectivenessofCCTSandadeterminationof
whethertocontinuetherequirementformandatory
membershipofcertainserviceproviders .InJunea
numberofinterestedpartiesprovidedwrittencomments,
AttheoutsettheBoardrecognizedthattheProcedural
includingprovidersandconsumergroups .Despitethe
Coderequiredreforminordertopromotetimely,
widelydivergentviewsamongstakeholdersaboutso
effectiveresolutionofcomplaints,
manytelecommunications
andsolaunchedaBoard-led
issues,wewerepleased
reviewoftheCodetoidentify
thatthecommentswere
opportunitiesforstreamliningits
weintendtocontinue
supportiveoftheeffectiveness
complainthandlingprocesses .
ofCCTSinitsmainareaof
oureffortstoachieve
RevisionstotheProceduralCode
operations:disputeresolution .
greaterconsumer
wereapprovedbytheBoardin
Apublichearingwillbeheldin
April2010andwentintoeffect
awarenessofour
November2010withadecision
June1,2010 .
expectedinlateDecember .
organization.
Thiswillbeaseminalmoment
CCTSrepresentsanewdispute
inourbriefhistory .
resolutionmodelthatoperatesin
thepublicinterestyetoutsidegovernmentprocessesand Weareproudofourachievementstodate,andwe
withoutgovernmentfunding .Thegovernanceofsucha
arealsomindfuloftheamountofworkthatliesahead .
stakeholder-ledandindustry-fundedorganizationisvital
Asnotedabove,theBoardofDirectorsapproveda
toitssuccess .Accordingly,theCCTSBoardestablished
formalexpressionofourMission,VisionandValues .
aGovernanceCommitteethathasbeenworkingoverthe
OurMissionistoprovideoutstandingdisputeresolution
pastyeartoconstructitsgovernanceinfrastructure .The
servicestoCanadianconsumersandtelecomproviders,
BoardofDirectorsalsoconductedastrategicplanning
andwehopetocontinuetopursuethisgoalwithvigour
exerciseand,inDecember2009,confirmedCCTS’s
andprofessionalism .
Mission,VisionandValues .
OtherhighlightsoftheyearincludetheBoard’s
acceptanceinFebruary2010ofarequestfromthe
CanadianRadio-televisionandTelecommunications
Commission(CRTC)toworkwithitsparticipatingservice
providerstodevelopanindustryCodeofConductthat
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Messagefromthe
Commissioner
4
TWO
MESSAgE FROM THE COMMiSSiONER,
HOWARD MAkER
in the year just concluded,wefocusedontwospecific
objectives:toimprovetheserviceweprovidetoconsumers
andserviceproviders,andtobroadenconsumer
awarenessabouttheavailabilityofourservice .We
succeededthisyearonbothcounts .Itistemptingtosay
thatwe“accomplished”theseobjectives .Butthesearenot
objectivesthatcanbe“accomplished .”Thattermimplies
agoalthatcanbecompletedandtickedoffthelist .These
objectivesdonotfitthatcategory .Wecan(andshould)
alwaysstrivetoimprovewhatwedoandhowwedoit .
Likewise,organizationslikeoursfaceuniquechallenges
inensuringthatconsumersknowaboutusandhowwe
canhelpthem .ButIampleasedtosaythatwehavemade
greatstridestowardsmeetingtheseobjectives .
Inearly2010welaunchedournewwebsite,completewith
ournewlogoandnewtagline,“Let’sTalkSolutions .”Our
focusoncomplaintresolutionwheneverpossiblehasmet
withaverypositiveresponsefrombothcustomersand
serviceproviders .Ithasalsoallowedustoresolvemore
complaints,andtodosomorequickly .In2009–2010we
received3,747complaints(16%morethanlastyear)and
processed3,522ofthem—anincreaseofover500from
theyearbefore .Thismeansthatwecompleted94%of
theworkthatcametous,anenviablerate .Ofthe3,522
fileswehandledtoconclusion,weachievedaresolution
satisfactorytobothpartiesin84%ofcases,ofwhich
roughly65%tookplacewithin30days .
Weredesignedourwebsitetoallowconsumerstolearn
moreaboutus .Werewroteallofthecontent,andadded
newcontent,inanefforttoprovideconsumerswith
relevantinformationaboutus .Wealsoimprovedouronline
complaintform,tomakeiteveneasierforcustomerstofile
theircomplaints .
Ourparticipatingserviceprovidersarealsodoingtheirpart
toraiseourpublicprofile .Themosteffectivemeasurehas
beenthebiannualbillmessagesthattheprovidersare
usingtoinformtheircustomersaboutCCTS .Largespikes
inthenumberofcallsreceivedbyourcallcentrecoincided
withtheissuanceofthesemessagesbythelarger
providers .Althoughnotallofthesecallershadacomplaint
tomake,ineverycasewetooktheopportunitytoinform
themaboutourrole .Inadditiontothebillmessages,the
providersagreedtomakeprescribedinformationaboutus,
includingourcontactinformation,availabletocustomers
ontheirwebsitesandintheir“whitepages”directories .
InordertofurtherenhanceconsumeraccessibilitytoCCTS,
effectiveJune1,2010ourBoardofDirectorsadoptedsome
amendmentstoourProceduralCode,thedocumentthat
describesourmandateandtheextentofourauthorityto
resolvedisputes .Weclarifiedsomelanguageandmade
somechangesdesignedtoenhancethereadabilityof
theCode,itsinclusivenessanditstone .Inparticular,we
amendedthestandardofreviewtoprovideCCTSwithsome
additionaltoolstoassistusindealingwithcomplaints .
Forthefirsttime,overhalfofthecomplaintsweaccepted
dealtwithonelineofbusiness:wirelessservices .We
receivedmorethantwiceasmanycomplaintsabout
wirelessaswedidforanyotherlineofbusiness .This
shouldnotreallybeasurprise .Thewirelessbusinesshas
thehighestrateofgrowth,thegreatestpaceofchange,and
thegreatestdegreeofcomplexity–atleastataretaillevel .
Withtherecentlaunchofnewwirelessserviceproviders,
andtheanticipatedentryofevenmorecarriersinthenear
future,wecanexpectthistrendtocontinue .
WeareheadingintoareviewbytheCanadianRadiotelevisionandTelecommunicationsCommission(CRTC)
thisfall .WearehopefulthattheCRTCwillagreethatwe
arefulfillingtheobjectivesdescribedfirstinthereport
oftheTelecommunicationsPolicyReviewPanel,thenin
anOrder-In-Council(P .C .2007-533),andfinallyintwo
CRTCDecisions(2007-130and2008-46)–specifically
tobringindependent,impartialandeffectivedispute
resolutionservicestoconsumersintheunregulated
telecommunicationssector .
IoffermysincerethankstothemembersofourBoardof
Directors,andinparticularourChair,MaryGusella,for
theirconsistentandunwaveringsupport .AndIconclude
withanoteaboutourstaff .Weinsistthatouremployees
bringspecialattributestotheorganization—aninterestin
telecom,adesiretoworkwithpeople,andapassionfor
fairness .Icansaywithoutfearofcontradictionthatthe
membersofourstaffhavedistinguishedthemselvesthis
yearbyprovidingsuperbservicetoour customers .Itistheir
efforts,aboveall,towhichthesuccessofCCTSthisyear
shouldbecredited .Thankyouforallofyourworkonbehalf
ofourcustomers .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
WhoWeAreandWhatWeDo
5
ThrEE
WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO
CCTS is an independent organizationdedicatedtoworkingwithconsumerandsmallbusinesscustomersand
participatingCanadiantelecommunicationserviceproviderstoresolvecomplaintsrelatingtomostderegulatedretail
telecommunicationsservices .Westrivetoassistcustomersandserviceprovidersinanindependent,fair,effective
andefficientmanner,afterdirectcommunicationbetweenacustomerandaserviceproviderhasprovenineffective .
OUR MANDATE
Weareabletoassistcustomerswithawiderangeofcomplaintsaboutproductsandservicesofferedinthe
telecommunicationssectorincluding:
Home Telephone
Long Distance telephone services
(including prepaid calling cards)
Wired and wireless internet
access services
Wireless services
(including voice, data, and text)
White page directories, Directory
assistance, and Operator services
Weareabletoassistwithmosttypesofproblemsthatcanarisebetweenacustomerandhisorherserviceprovider,
including:
Compliance with contract terms and commitments – for example, complaints about whether there
is a contract, what is included in a contract or how the contract should be interpreted, or whether
the provider’s conduct meets its contractual obligations, or misunderstandings about the particulars of a contract or term;
Billing disputes and errors – for example, complaints about customers having agreed to one price
and subsequently being charged more, being overcharged due to either a billing system error or a
price that is different than advertised, or being billed for per-use services that they claim they did
not use;
Service delivery – for example, complaints about the installation, repair or disconnection of
service, including the quality of the service or unreasonable interruptions to service;
Credit management – for example, complaints about security deposits, payment arrangements and
collections treatment of customer accounts; and,
Unauthorized transfer of service (“slamming”) – for example, complaints about a customer’s
service being transferred from one provider to another without the customer’s consent.
Afewservicesandissuesareexcludedfromourmandate .
Pleaseseewww .ccts-cprst .ca/en/complaints/mandateforfulldetails .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
WhoWeAreandWhatWeDo
6
OUR COMPLAiNTS PROCESS
wearealwaysexaminingourcomplainthandling
processtoensurethatitisthorough,fairand
efficient.ourprocessworkslikethis:
1
Assessment
Whenwereceiveacomplaint,wereviewittodetermine
whetheritfallswithinourmandate .Ifso,weforward
acopytotheserviceprovider .Weaskittoattemptto
resolvethematterwiththecustomerandreportbackto
uswithin30days .
Whentheserviceproviderresponds,weevaluatethe
responseanddeterminewhetherthecomplainthasbeen
resolvedtothesatisfactionofthecustomer .Thisisthe
stageatwhichthemajorityofcomplaintsareresolved .
Whenacomplaintremainsunresolvedwewillassessits
complexity,theamountofadditionalinformationthatmay
berequired,andthelikelihoodofsuccessfullyresolving
thematterinformally .
2
resolution
Complaintsthatappeartobeamenabletoinformal
resolutionareassignedtoamemberofourstaffwhowill
workwiththecustomerandtheserviceprovidertoarrive
atapromptresolutionofthedispute .Wewillnormally
requestadditionalinformationanddocumentationfrom
bothpartiestoeffectively“mediate”aresolution .Manyof
thesecomplaintsareresolvedtothesatisfactionofboth
partiesatthisstage .
3
investigation
Complaintsthatraiseparticularlychallengingissuesor
areotherwiseespeciallycomplexwillbeinvestigated .
Duringaninvestigation,wewillrequestadditional
informationordocumentationfromoneorbothpartiesto
helpdeterminewhethertheserviceproviderreasonably
performeditsobligationspursuanttothetermsofthe
contractbetweenitandthecustomer .Throughoutthe
investigation,wemayalsoattempttoinformallymediate
aresolutionofthedispute .
Acomplaintcanberejectedordismissedatanystage
oftheinvestigation/resolutionprocessshouldwe
determinethattheprovideractedreasonablyinfulfilling
itsobligationsunderthecontract,orthatithastaken
reasonablestepstoresolvethecomplaint,evenifthis
resolutionisnotacceptabletothecustomer .
4
recommendation
Uponcompletinganinvestigation,wecanmakeawritten
Recommendationfortheresolutionofthecomplaint,
basedonouranalysisofitsmerits .Wemayrecommend
thattheserviceprovidertakesomeactionorrefrainfrom
takingsomeaction(forexample,correctionofabilling
error,connectionordisconnectionofservice,waiver
ofcharges,collectionsactivity) .Orperhapssomething
simple,likeanapologyoranexplanation,mayprovide
thenecessaryredress .Wemayalsorecommendthat
theserviceprovidermakeapaymenttothecustomer
ascompensationforanyloss,damageorinconvenience
sufferedbythecustomerarisingdirectlyfromthefacts
disclosedbythecomplaint(toamaximumof$5,000) .
Ourprocessprovidesboththecustomerandtheservice
providerwithsometimetoconsidertheRecommendation
anddeterminewhethertoacceptorrejectit .
5
Decision
Ifeitherthecustomerortheserviceproviderrejects
theRecommendation,weaskthemtoexplainwhyso
thatwecanreconsidertheRecommendationinlight
oftheircontinuingconcerns .Wewillconsiderthe
reasonsforrejectingtheRecommendation,andthen
issueaDecision .IntheDecision,theCommissioner
maymaintaintheRecommendation,ormaymodifyor
changeitifheconcludesthatthereissubstantialdoubt
astothecorrectnessoftheoriginalRecommendation .
IftheDecisionisacceptedbythecustomer,it
becomesbindingontheserviceproviderandmustbe
implemented .However,thecustomerisentitledto
rejecttheDecision .Ifthecustomerdoesso,theservice
providerisnotrequiredtocarryitout,andthecustomer
retainsalloftheusuallegalrightsandremediesandis
freetopursuethem .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
WhoWeAreandWhatWeDo
7
COMPLAiNT PROCESS FLOW CHART
Theflowchartbelowshowsthestagesofourcomplaint-handlingprocess .
CustomersubmitsComplAint
insufficient information
Key information missing from
complaint, file on hold until
customer responds.
Complaint Resolved
Complaint resolved between
customer and provider after
CCTS involvement.
Complaint Resolved
CCTS successfully “mediates”
an informal resolution.
ASSESSMENT
CCTS determines whether complaint is in mandate.
Complaint Accepted
Complaint forwarded to the provider which has
30 days to respond.
RESOLUTiON
Complaint remains unresolved. CCTS collects
information from both parties and attempts
informal resolution.
iNVESTigATiON
Complaint Resolved
Analysis of evidence facilitates
resolution of complaint.
Complaint remains unresolved. CCTS analyzes
evidence provided.
Recommendation Accepted
Both customer and
service provider accept
recommendation.
Complaint cannot be resolved and no basis for
closure. CCTS issues recommendation to parties
proposing resolution.
Decision accepted
Customer accepts Decision
and service provider is bound
to implement its terms.
Complaint Out of Scope
Complaint outside of mandate
and referred to appropriate
organization where possible.
Complaint Closed
Service provider made a
reasonable offer or clear that
provider met its obligations
to the customer.
Complaint Closed
Analysis of evidence
demonstrates provider met
its obligation or reasonable
offer is made.
RECOMMENDATiON
DECiSiON
One or both parties rejects the recommendation.
CCTS issues a Decision.
Decision rejected
Customer rejects Decision
and is free to pursue other
remedies. Service provider
released from Decision.
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
2009–2010Highlights–TheYearinReview
8
FOUr
2009–2010 HigHLigHTS –
THE YEAR iN REViEW
successfulimplementationofpublicawarenessplan,
includingournewandimprovedwebsiteandonlinecomplainttool
Thisyearweputintoplaceapublicawarenessprogram
designedtoinformconsumersaboutCCTSandmake
iteasiertocommunicatewithus .Tothatend,we
completelyrebuiltourwebsite .Werewrotetheexisting
contentandaddednewcontent,designedtooffer
informationtoconsumersaboutallaspectsofCCTS .
Weimprovedouronlinecomplaintformandprocess
sothatcustomerscaneasilygettheircomplaintsand
relateddocumentationtousquicklyandsecurely .And
wecompletelyre-styledthesitetomakeitmorevisually
appealinganduser-friendly .
Wearealsoattemptingtoincreaseawarenessby
providingCCTSinformationtootherpartiestowhich
consumersmayturnwithtelecommunications
complaints .Wecreatedabrochureanddelivereditboth
electronicallyandinhardcopytoeverysittingmemberof
federal,provincialandterritoriallegislatures,aswellas
toServiceCanadaandtheOfficeofConsumerAffairs .
Ourparticipatingserviceprovidershaveplaced
prescribedinformationaboutCCTSintheir“whitepages”
directories,biannuallyontheircustomerbills,andalso
ontheirwebsites,describingtheavailabilityofCCTSand
howwecanbereached .Theyhavealsoplacedontheir
sitesthedetailsoftheirinternalcomplaint-handling
processes,inorderthatcustomerscanfollowthe
progressoftheircomplaintwithinthecompany .
Raisingpublicawarenessisafull-timejob,and
wearecommittedtocontinuingoureffortsinthis
importantobjective .
moreconsumerscanaccessCCtsservice—over90serviceprovidersand
brandsnowparticipate
ThisyearwehaveseenadditionalprovidersjoinCCTS .
Welistonourwebsiteallofthenamesandbrands
theyusetodeliverproductsandservicestoCanadians
(www .ccts-cprst .ca/en/complaints/service-providers) .
ThenumberofCanadianconsumerswhohaveaccessto
ourservicescontinuestogrow .
ourstatisticsdemonstratetheeffectivenessofourpublicawareness
initiativesandtheefficiencyofourprocesses
• Thenumberofpubliccontactswereceivedincreased
byover150%—thisislargelyaresultoftheproviders’
billmessages,whichcausedadramaticincreaseinthe
numberoftelephonecallsreceivedfromconsumers .
• Thenumberofcomplaintsweacceptedincreased
byover16%—wedidnotexpandourmandate,so
thisrepresentsmorecustomersmakinguseof
theprocess .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
2009–2010Highlights–TheYearinReview
• Thenumberofcomplaintswehandledintheyear
increasedbyover17% .
• 94%ofcomplaintswereceivedwerefullyprocessedthis
year .Improvementsintheefficiencyofourprocesses
andtheadditionofstaffhaveallowedustohandlemore
complaintsthanlastyearandtomorepromptlyprocess
complaintsreceived .
• Ofthe3,522complaintsprocessed,84%wereresolved
betweenthepartiesafterthecomplaintcametoCCTS .
Over65%wereresolvedpromptlyatthefirststage,
usuallywithin30days .
9
• Ofthosecompletedlaterintheprocessatthe
“Investigation”stage,over66%wereinformally
resolvedtothesatisfactionofthecustomerand
providerthroughtheeffortsofCCTSstaff .
• Ofthe22formalRecommendationsweissued,18(82%)
wereacceptedbybothparties .Wewererequiredto
issueonly4Decisions .Thisrateofacceptanceofour
Recommendationsshowsthatconsumersandproviders
respectthefairnessandindependenceoftheprocess
andtheoutcomes .
CCtsstaffgrowsinordertoaccommodatetheincreasedvolumeofcallsand
complaints–leasedadditionalofficespace
Thisyearweadded4callcentreagentsandtwo
ComplaintsResolutionOfficerstoourstaff .In
mid-yearwewerepresentedwiththeopportunitytolease
dditionalofficespacecontiguoustoourexistingspace,
a
andourBoardauthorizedtheexpenditure .
AmendedproceduralCode
OurProceduralCodegovernsthewayinwhichwedeal
withcomplaints .EffectiveJune1,2010wemadea
numberofchangestotheCodedesignedtomakeitmore
inclusiveandaccessibletoconsumers,tomakeitmore
balancedintoneandcontent,tosimplifycertaintimelines
andtoclarifyanddefinethemeaningofcertainterms .
Thisisaveryimportantaccomplishment .
Amongthemostnoteworthychangesare:
• TheamendmentsnowformallyreflectthatCCTS
willuseinformalresolutionprocessestoaddress
complaints,whileretainingthemoreformalprocedures
forthoseexceptionalcasesthatrequirethem .
• The“standardofreview”thatweapplywhen
investigatingcomplaintsiswhethertheservice
providerreasonablyperformeditsobligationsunder
thecontractwiththecustomer .However,amendments
havebeenmadetospecificallyauthorizeCCTSto
considerwhethertheserviceproviderfollowed
itsusualpoliciesandoperatingproceduresinits
dealingswiththecustomer .Inaddition,incasesin
whichwedeterminethatnocontractualagreement
wasreached,orthecontractissilent,unclearor
ambiguous,CCTSisnowspecificallyauthorizedto
considergeneralprinciplesoflaw,goodindustry
practice,relevantcodesofconductorpractice,and
“whatisfairandreasonableinthecircumstancesof
thecomplaint .”
CustomizedADrtraining
Weretainedawell-respectedfirmwithexpertisein
alternativedisputeresolutiontocustomizeanddeliver
atrainingprogramtoallCCTSstaff .Theobjectivewas
toprovideourstaffwiththetoolsandresourcestodeal
withtheircomplaint-handlinganddisputeresolution
rolesmosteffectively,efficientlyandprofessionally .The
programwasdeliveredover2daysinMay2010,andwas
extremelywell-received .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
2009–2010Highlights–TheYearinReview
10
Casemanagementsystemupgrade
Ourcurrentcasemanagementsystempreventsusfrom
performingthekindofstatisticalanalysisthatwewould
liketodo .Webelievethatoureffectivenesswouldbe
enhancedbybeingabletoprovidemorespecificdata
aboutthedifferentservices,andtheuniquecomplaint
issuesthatarisewithrespecttoeachofthem,aswellas
theonesthatarecommontoallofthem .
WearecurrentlynegotiatingwithITvendorstoperform
anupgradeofoursystemtoenhanceitscapacities .We
arehopefulthatthiswillbecompletebythetimeofour
nextAnnualReport .
newfundingformula
Startinginthethirdquarterof2009–2010,wemodified
theformulabywhichtheparticipatingserviceproviders
fundouroperations .Wehaveputinplaceanew“hybrid”
formulathatincludesboth:
a . afeebasedontherevenuesgeneratedbyeach
providerfromderegulatedretailtelecommunications
services(asaproportionoftherevenuesgeneratedby
allparticipatingserviceproviders);and
Themainobjectiveofthischangeistorequirethe
providersthatgeneratemostofthecomplaintstofund
mostoftheoperations .Wearehopefulthatthiswill
havetheeffectofencouragingproviderstoresolvemore
oftheircomplaints“inhouse”inhopesofavoidingthe
additionalcostofhavingthemcometoCCTS .
b . afeewhicheachproviderpaysbasedonthenumber
ofcomplaintsCCTSreceivesfromitscustomers .
FiNANCiAL HigHLigHTS
TheCCTSbudgetfor2009–2010wasapproximately
$2 .1million,comparedtothe$1 .9millioncollectedfrom
participatingserviceprovidersin2008–2009 .Inadditionto
ournormaloperatingandgovernanceexpenses,specific
budgetaryallocationsweremadeforprojectsthatour
BoardofDirectorsfelttobeofprimaryimportance:
• ourpublicawarenessactivities,includingtheredesign
ofourwebsiteandonlinecomplainttool,andthe
widedistributionofourcommunicationsmaterials
toindividualsandorganizationstowhomdissatisfied
consumersmightreachout,includingelectedofficials
andgovernment;
• theexpansionofourofficespacetoaccommodatethe
staffgrowthmadenecessarybytheincreasednumber
ofcontactsandcomplaints;
• customizedtrainingforourstaffintechniquesof
alternativedisputeresolution;and
• consultingfeesrelatedtotheformalizationofour
humanresourcesinfrastructureandourfinance
functions,andrelatedtooureffortstodevelopa
CodeofConductfordepositsanddisconnections,
asrequestedbytheCRTC .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
ParticipatingServiceProviders(asof31July2010)
11
FIVE
PARTiCiPATiNg SERViCE PROViDERS
(AS OF 31 JULY 2010)
Belowisanalphabeticallistofourparticipatingserviceprovidersandthemanybrandnamesbywhichtheyareknown .
Complaintsaboutservicesprovidedunderanyofthesenamesareeligibleforourcomplaintservice .
1010580
DeltaCable
Phonetime
3Web
Distributel
PremiereConferencingCanada
450Tel
DrydenMobility
PremiereGlobalServices
768812OntarioInc .
Eastlink
Primus
Àdimensionhumaine
ENMAX
QuinteLongDistance
AccessCommunications
Envision
Rogers
AllCommunicationsNetworkof
Canada(ACNCanada)
ExaTEL
SaskTel
Execulink
SearsConnect
AmericaTel
Fido
Shaw
Amtelecom
Galilée
SimcoeCountyLongDistance
AtriaNetworks
GlobalCrossingTelecommunications
Canada
Sogetel
BayCommunications
BellAliant
GlobaliveCommunications
SpeakTelecom
BellCanada
Globalstar
Startec
BlinkCommunications
GlobilityCommunications
StraightofCansoCable
BMIInternet
GroupofGoldLine
TataCommunications
BraggCommunications
HalifaxCablevision
TBayTel
BruceMunicipalTelephoneSystem
K-RightCommunications
Télébec
BruceTelecom
Koodo
Telehop
CablevisiondunordduQuébec
Lepigeonvoyageur
Telizon
CallSelect
LooneyCall
TELUS
CanadaDirect
LuckyCall
TeraGoNetworks
CanadaPayphoneCorporation
MCICanada
Uniserve
Canopco
MountainCablevision
VancouverTelephoneCompany
Caztel
MTSAllstream
VerizonCanada
CDTel
NetReach
VianetInternetSolutions
Cheetah
NorthernTel
VideotronLtd .
CityfoneTelecommunications
Northwestel
VirginMobileCanada
CoastCable
OneConnectServices
VonageCanada
Cogeco
Ontera
Win-tel
CogecoDataServices
OpcomHospitalitySolutions
WINDMobile
CogentCanada
People’sTelGP
YakCommunications
CybersurfInternetAccess
PersonaCommunications
Solo
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
12
SIx
STATiSTiCS
We are pleased to present our statistics for 2009–2010,providedbelowonanaggregatebasisaswellasona
provider-specificbasis .
DEFiNiTiONS
inordertofullyunderstandthedatabeingprovided,familiaritywiththeterminologythatweuseis
essential.inparticular,itisimportanttounderstandhowwedefine“Contact,”“Complaint,”“resolved,”
“Closed,”“recommendation,”and“Decision.”thesetermsarepresentedintheorderinwhichthey
ariseduringourprocessandtheorderinwhichtheyappearinourstatistics.
Contact
AcontactisanycommunicationbyamemberofthepublicwithCCTSbyphone,fax,mail,
emailorwebform,aslongasthecommunicationdoesnotrelatetoacomplaintthatwehave
alreadyaccepted .Acontactthatescalatesintoacomplaintisstillconsideredacontact .
Complaint
Acomplaintthatwehavereceived,reviewedandfoundtobewithinourmandate .
Resolved
hecomplaintwasinformallyresolvedwiththeassistanceofaCCTSteammembertothe
T
satisfactionofboththecustomerandtheparticipatingserviceprovider .
Closed
hecomplaintwasfullyinvestigatedandsubsequentlyclosed .Acomplaintmaybeclosed
T
fordifferentreasons,including:
• T
heserviceproviderhascorrectedtheproblemand/orprovidedthecustomerwithsome
formofredressorcompensation;
• T
heserviceproviderhasmadeanoffertoresolvethecomplaintthatwethinkisfairand
reasonableinlightofthespecificcircumstancesofthecomplaint;
• Thecomplaintwasfoundtobewithoutmerit;or
• Thecomplaintshouldmoreproperlybebroughtbeforeanotheragency,tribunalorcourt .
Recommendation
Thecomplaintwasfullyinvestigated .Often,theserviceproviderhasnotmadeanofferto
informallyresolvethecomplaint,ortheofferisnotfoundtobereasonableandfairinthe
lightofthespecificcircumstancesofthecomplaint .Assuch,CCTSwillmakeawritten
Recommendationthattheprovidertakespecificstepstoresolvethematter .
Decision
Decisionisissuedifeitherthecustomerortheserviceproviderrejectsthe
A
Recommendation .ThepartyrejectingtheRecommendationmustsetoutitsreasons
andtheCommissionerwillreconsidertheRecommendationandissueaDecision .
TheCommissionermayconfirmtheoriginalRecommendationor,iftheCommissioner
concludesthatthereissubstantialdoubtastoitscorrectness,hemaymodifythe
Recommendationasappropriate .ADecisionisbindingontheserviceprovider,butnot
onthecustomer .Thecustomermayrejectitandpursueotherremedies .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
13
How ConSumeRS ConTACTed uS
In2009–2010,customersoftenchosetocontactusby
telephone(74.4%),frequentlytodiscussCCTS’smandate,
toobtaininformationortodiscussapossiblecomplaint.
Althoughmanycustomerscontactedusbytelephone,
thevastmajorityofcomplaintswerereceivedinwriting.
Wecantakecomplaintsbytelephone,inparticular
fromcustomerswhorequirethisservice.However,it
isgenerallymoreeffective,forallparties,tosubmita
complaintinwritingasitensuresthatwecaptureallof
therequiredinformation.
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
Webform 16.5%
1,000
0
9
.0
g
Au
t.
p
Se
09
t.
Oc
9
09
.0
ov
N
9
.0
c
De
n.
Ja
10
0
.1
b
Fe
Phone
74.4%
Mail
1.6%
Fax
0.3%
Email
7.1%
0
0
0
10
10
.1
.1
.1
e.
ly.
pr
ar
ay
n
u
A
M
J
M
Ju
TESTIMONIAL “Keepupthegoodwork.Weneedanorganizationlikeyoursespeciallyforanordinaryconsumerlikeme.”
—R.P.,AlongdISTAnCeCuSTomeR
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
AggREgATE DATA
14
(AUgUST 1, 2009 – JUly 31, 2010)
Thefollowingtableshowsthenumberofcontactswereceivedandthenumberofcomplaintsthatweaccepted,aswell
asthenumberwedealtwithatthevariousstagesofourcomplaintprocess .Thetablealsobreaksdownthenumberof
complaintshandledthisyear,thestageatwhichtheywerecompleted,andthenatureoftheirdisposition .
2008–2009
2009–2010
numberofnewContACts
17,407
43,609
3,214
3,747
1,968
2,297
239
225
1,004
1,151
ComplaintsresolvedatInvestigation
427
663
ComplaintsclosedatInvestigation
321
312
numberofComplAintsopeneD
pre-investigAtionDispositions
ComplaintsresolvedfollowingCCTSinvolvement
Complaintsclosedbeforeinvestigationlevel
investigAtions
ComplaintsmovedtoInvestigation
reCommenDAtions
Recommendationsissued
48
25
Recommendationsaccepted
31
18
Recommendationsrejected
6
4
Decisionsissued
6
4
Decisionsaccepted
5
4
Decisionsrejected
1
0
DeCisions
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
15
CONTACTS – PArTICIPATINg SErVICE PrOVIDErS – OUTSIDE OF MANDATE
Ofthe43,609contactswereceivedin2009–2010,9,320contactsaboutparticipatingserviceproviderswere
determinedtobeoutsideofourmandatebecausethesubjectmatterofthecomplaintisexcludedbyourProcedural
Code .Becausetheywereoutofmandate,theycouldnotbecomecomplaints .Theybreakdownasfollows:
Customer service
610
Misleading advertisement
60
Outsourcing of calls
25
Pricing
382
Service out of scope (e.g. television)
828
Telemarketing
335
Service provider’s general policies
848
Other
totAloutofmAnDAte
6,232
9,320
CONTACTS – NON-PArTICIPATINg SErVICE PrOVIDErS
Ofthe43,609contactswereceivedin2009–2010,1,621contactswereaboutserviceprovidersthatdidnotparticipate
inCCTS .Wetrackthesestatisticsinordertoprovidestakeholderswithasenseofthenumberofconsumerswecould
notassistbecausetheirserviceproviderdoesnotparticipateinCCTS .Belowisasummaryoftheissuesraisedin
thesecontacts .
ContACts
subjeCtmAtterwithinmAnDAte
%oftotAl
ContACts
177
10.9%
Billing error
83
5.1%
Contract dispute
30
1.9%
Service delivery (installation, repair and maintenance)
34
2.1%
2
0.1%
28
1.7%
subjeCtmAtteroutsiDeofmAnDAte
824
50.9%
subjeCtmAtternotproviDeD
620
38.2%
1,621
100%
Unauthorized transfer of service (slamming)
Other: in scope
totAl
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
16
NATURE OF COMPLAiNTS
Almost80%ofthecomplaintsthatweacceptedin2009–2010wereeitheraboutacontractdisputeorabillingerror .
The3,747complaintsthatweacceptedthisyearfallintothefollowingcategories:
Billing error
44%
Contract dispute
35%
Service delivery (installation, repair and maintenance)
18%
Unauthorized transfer of service (slamming)
totAl
3%
100%
natureofComplaints
Unauthorized transfer
of service (slamming)
Billing error
44%
3%
Service delivery
(installation, repair
and maintenance)
18%
Contract dispute
35%
testimoniAl“Thankyouverymuch .IdonotknowwhatIwouldhavedonewithoutyouthemediatorbecausenothingIdid
myselfmadeanydifference .”—A .R .,ANINTERNETCUSTOMER
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
17
COMPLAiNTS BY TYPE OF SERViCE
Thereweresignificantlymorecomplaintsregardingwirelessservicesthisyearthanin2008–2009 .
serviCetype
2008–2009
2009–2010
Wireless services
38.01%
51.7%
local exchange and VOIP
23.74%
23.7%
Internet access
16.52%
15.2%
long distance
16.38%
8.3%
5.35%
1.1%
100.00%
100.0%
Other
totAl
Complaintsbytypeofservice
Wireless services
51.7%
Directory assistance 0.1%
White page directories 0.2%
Operator 0.8%
long distance
8.3%
Other 1.1%
Internet access
15.2%
local exchange
and VOIP 23.7%
testimoniAl“CCTSwasextremelyhelpful,andIamextremelygrateful .Ifitweren’tforCCTSthisproblemwouldstillbe
ongoing .”—J .A .,AHOMEPHONECUSTOMER
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
18
SUMMARY OF COMPLAiNTS BY SERViCE PROViDER (2009–2010)
preinvestigations
provider
investigations
recommendations
Decisions rejected
Decisions Accepted
Decisions Issued
recommendations
rejected
recommendations
Accepted
recommendations
Issued
Closed
resolved
Moved to Investigation
Closed
resolved
Complaints Accepted
In2008–2009,wereportedcomplaintsbythe“TSP(TelecommunicationsServiceProvider)Member”towhichthey
wereattributable .Manyserviceprovidersofferservicesundermultiplebrandnames .Thisyear,wehavechosento
reportthenumberofcomplaintsthatwereceivedusingthecompanynameasselectedbythecustomer,andwehave
expandedthelisttoincludeallofthebrandnamesunderwhichourparticipatingprovidersofferservices .
Decisions
1010580
6
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3Web
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
450Tel
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
768812 Ontario Inc.
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
À dimension humaine
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Access Communications Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ACN Canada
56
15
1
24
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Americatel
6
1
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amtelecom Telco gP Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Atria Networks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bay Communications Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bell Aliant regional Communications lP
46
23
1
18
8
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
1,428
808
72
544
242
170
17
11
2
2
2
0
Blink Communications
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BMI Internet
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bragg Communications Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bruce Municipal Telephone System
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bruce Telecom
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cablevision du nord du Québec
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Call Select
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Canada Direct
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Canada Payphone Corporation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Canopco
18
5
1
12
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Caztel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CD Tel
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cheetah
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cityfone
3
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bell Canada
Coast Cable
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cogeco
20
14
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cogeco Data Services
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cogent Canada
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cybersurf Internet Access
6
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
preinvestigations
provider
investigations
Decisions Accepted
Decisions Issued
recommendations
rejected
recommendations
Decisions rejected
19
recommendations
Accepted
recommendations
Issued
Closed
resolved
Moved to Investigation
Closed
resolved
Statistics
Complaints Accepted
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Decisions
Delta Cable
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Distributel Communications
13
6
0
4
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dryden Mobility
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eastlink
6
2
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
ENMAx
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Envision
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ExaTEl Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Execulink
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fido
242
177
17
46
41
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
galilée
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
global Crossing Telecommunications Canada ltd
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
globalive Communications Corp.
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
globalstar
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
globility Communications Corp.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
group of gold line
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
halifax Cablevision ltd.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
K-right Communications Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Koodo
59
43
1
19
6
4
1
0
1
1
1
0
le pigeon voyageur
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
looneyCall
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
luckyCall
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MCI Canada
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mountain Cablevision limited
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MTS Allstream Inc.
28
16
1
4
5
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
Net reach
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Northern Tel
2
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Northwestel
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OneConnect Services Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ontera
9
1
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opcom hospitality Solutions Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
People’s Tel gP Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Persona Communications
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phonetime
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Premiere Conferencing Canada ltd.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
183
8
32
69
16
2
2
0
0
0
0
Premiere global Services
Primus
Quinte long Distance
rogers Communications Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
540
348
46
142
65
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
preinvestigations
provider
Sasktel
4
2
0
investigations
1
1
1
1
0
Decisions rejected
Decisions Accepted
Decisions Issued
recommendations
rejected
recommendations
0
20
recommendations
Accepted
recommendations
Issued
Closed
resolved
Moved to Investigation
Closed
resolved
Statistics
Complaints Accepted
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Decisions
0
0
0
Sears Connect
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shaw
23
10
2
9
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Simcoe County long Distance
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sogetel
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Solo
6
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Speak Telecom
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Startec
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Straight of Canso Cable T.V. ltd.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tata Communications
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TBayTel
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Télébec
8
4
1
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Telehop
4
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Telizon
TElUS Communications Company
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
657
435
40
133
77
28
2
3
0
0
0
0
Terago Networks Inc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Uniserve
3
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vancouver Telephone Company
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Verizon
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vianet Internet Solutions
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Videotron ltd.
88
56
4
33
15
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
Virgin Mobile Canada
227
119
14
65
39
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vonage Canada Corporation
17
8
2
9
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Win-tel
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wind Mobile
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
yak Communications Corp.
23
7
2
23
36
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,747
2,297
225
1,151
663
312
25
18
4
4
4
0
TOTAL
testimoniAl“ItwasnotuntilIfiledacomplaintwithCCTSthatIwasabletospeakwithsomeonewillingtoinvestigate
ourissuethoroughly .Ihavenodoubtitwouldnothavebeenresolvedasquicklyorwithoutsignificantcost .
Thankyou .”—A .H .,AHOMEPHONECUSTOMER
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
21
NATURE OF COMPLAiNTS BY SERViCE PROViDER (2009–2010)
Billing error
Contract dispute
Service Delivery
Slamming
provider
Complaints Accepted
Thefollowingtableshowsthecategoriesofthecomplaintsacceptedin2009–2010,brokendownbyparticipating
serviceprovider .
1010580
6
80.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
3Web
4
25.0%
50.0%
25.0%
0.0%
450Tel
1
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
768812 Ontario Inc.
1
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
A dimension humaine
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Access Communications Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ACN Canada
56
41.8%
25.5%
25.5%
7.3%
Americatel
6
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
Amtelecom Telco gP Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Atria Networks
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bay Communications Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bell Aliant regional Communications lP
46
53.2%
31.9%
12.8%
2.1%
Bell Canada
1,428
42.8%
38.6%
15.5%
3.1%
Blink
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
BMI Internet
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bragg Communications Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bruce Municipal Telephone System
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Bruce Telecom
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cablevision du nord du Québec
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Call Select
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Canada Direct
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Canada Payphone Corporation
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Canopco
18
94.4%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
Caztel
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CD Tel
1
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cheetah
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cityfone
3
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Coast Cable
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cogeco
20
44.4%
5.6%
50.0%
0.0%
Cogeco Data Services
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cogent Canada
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cybersurf Internet Access
6
66.7%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
Delta Cable
2
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
Distributel Communications
13
33.3%
16.7%
50.0%
0.0%
Dryden Mobility
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22
Service Delivery
Slamming
Contract dispute
Billing error
Statistics
provider
Complaints Accepted
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Eastlink
6
33.3%
0.0%
66.7%
0.0%
ENMAx
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Envision
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ExaTEl Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Execulink
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Fido
242
56.3%
30.4%
11.6%
1.8%
galilée
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
global Crossing Telecommunications Canada ltd
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
globalive Communications Corp.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
globalstar
1
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
globility Communications Corp.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
group of gold line
1
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
halifax Cablevision ltd.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
K-right Communications Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Koodo
59
73.2%
12.5%
14.3%
0.0%
le pigeon voyageur
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
looneyCall
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
luckyCall
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MCI Canada
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Mountain Cablevision limited
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MTS Allstream Inc.
28
29.6%
37.0%
29.6%
3.7%
Net reach
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Northern Tel
2
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Northwestel
2
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
OneConnect Services Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Ontera
9
22.2%
66.7%
11.1%
0.0%
Opcom hospitality Solutions Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
People’s Tel gP Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Persona Communications
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Phonetime
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Premiere Conferencing Canada ltd.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Premiere global Services
Primus
Quinte long Distance
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
174
43.2%
17.3%
28.1%
11.4%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
540
39.5%
43.8%
15.3%
1.5%
Sasktel
4
40.0%
20.0%
40.0%
0.0%
Sears Connect
2
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
Shaw
23
40.9%
9.1%
31.8%
18.2%
Simcoe County long Distance
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Sogetel
1
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
rogers Communications Inc.
23
Service Delivery
Slamming
Contract dispute
Billing error
Statistics
Complaints Accepted
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Solo
6
83.3%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
Speak Telecom
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Startec
5
60.0%
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
Straight of Canso Cable T.V. ltd.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Tata Communications
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
TBayTel
1
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
Télébec
8
22.2%
66.7%
11.1%
0.0%
Telehop
4
50.0%
16.7%
33.3%
0.0%
Telizon
1
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
provider
TElUS Communications Company
657
35.4%
39.1%
24.0%
Terago Networks Inc.
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Uniserve
3
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
Vancouver Telephone Company
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Verizon
1
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
Vianet Internet Solutions
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Videotron ltd.
88
45.6%
36.7%
15.6%
2.2%
Virgin Mobile Canada
227
57.3%
22.3%
20.4%
0.0%
Vonage Canada Corporation
17
47.1%
5.9%
47.1%
0.0%
Win-tel
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Wind Mobile
1
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
yak Communications Corp.
23
44.0%
28.0%
8.0%
20.0%
3,747
43.5%
35.0%
18.5%
3.0%
AggREgATE
testimoniAl“Itisparamountforsuchanorganizationtoexistandtohaveenoughauthority .Thankyouforyourhard
work!”—J .D .,AWIRELESSCUSTOMER
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
24
CCTS WEBSiTE TRAFFiC (2009–2010)
In2009–2010,weupgradedourwebsiteandonlinecomplaintform .ThiswascompletedinFebruary2010 .Afterthis
date,thenumberofuniquevisitors*tooursiteincreasedby84%overthe2008–2009average .
month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
uniquevisitors2008–2009
uniquevisitors2009–2010
Changefrompreviousyear
2,552
3,413
34%
3,056
3,681
20%
2,680
3,107
16%
2,463
3,348
36%
2,296
3,368
47%
2,787
3,140
13%
2,905
**
**
3,302
5,692
72%
2,654
4,757
79%
2,553
4,527
77%
2,558
5,821
128%
2,916
4,318
48%
Average unique visitors per month in 2008–2009:
Average unique visitors per month after February 2010:
2,727
5,023
*“Uniquevisitors”isthenumberofpeoplewhovisitedwww .ccts-cprst .caoneormoretimes
throughoutthemonth .
**RedesignedwebsitewentliveonFebruary1,2010 .Duetoatechnicalerror,dataisunavailablefor
themonthofFebruary2010 .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
Statistics
25
COMPLAiNTS BY PROViNCE AND TERRiTORY (2009–2010)
Thefollowingtableshowsthegeographicoriginsofthecomplaintsweacceptedin2009-2010 .
month
Complaints
population1
Alberta
306
8.2%
3,687.7
10.9%
BritishColumbia
495
13.2%
4,455.2
13.2%
Manitoba
79
2.1%
1,222.0
3.6%
NewBrunswick
32
0.9%
749.5
2.2%
Newfoundland
31
0.8%
508.9
1.5%
NorthwestTerritories
3
0.1%
43.4
0.1%
NovaScotia
70
1.9%
938.2
2.8%
Nunavut
2
0.1%
32.2
0.1%
Ontario
1,633
43.6%
13,069.2
38.7%
9
0.2%
141.0
0.4%
1,051
28.0%
7,828.9
23.2%
31
0.8%
1,030.1
3.1%
PrinceEdwardIsland
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Yukon
Total
5
3
5
0.1%
33.7
0.1%
3,747
100.0%
33,740.0
100.0%
2
31
495
306
31
1,051
79
32
1,633
anada,StatisticsCanada,Population by year, by province and territory(Ottawa,CANSIM,2009)at
C
http://www40 .statcan .gc .ca/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng .htm .
1
9
70
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TopicsandTrends
26
SEVEN
TOPiCS AND TRENDS
UNDERSTAND YOUR TELECOM CONTRACT
Complaintsaboutcontract-relatedissuescontinueto
increaseatasignificantrate .Inour2008–2009Annual
Report,wenotedthat27%ofallcomplaintsacceptedthat
yearwerecontract-related .Thisyear,35%ofaccepted
complaintsfellintothiscategory .Becausecontractrelatedcomplaintsareontherise,wefeelthatit’s
importanttorevisitthisissueandtodiscusssomeofthe
complaintsthatweseeandhowwearehandlingthem .
Aparticipatingserviceprovider’sTermsofService
(Terms)setouttherightsandresponsibilitiesofeach
partyrelatedtotheservicebeingprovided .TheTerms,
togetherwithanyotherwrittendocumentthatsetsout
thespecificsoftheproductsandservicesbeingprovided
andtheircost,constitutetheservice“contract”(these
specificscouldalsobethesubjectofanoralagreement) .
Whenweinvestigatecomplaints,wereview,interpret
andapplythecontractinordertodeterminewhether
theprovider“reasonablyperformeditsobligations
pursuanttotheapplicablecontractandfolloweditsusual
policiesandoperatingproceduresinitsdealingswiththe
Customer”(section4 .1ofourProceduralCode) .Whenwe
concludethatthereisnocontractualagreementinplace,
orwhenthecontractissilent,unclearorambiguous,we
canalsoconsider:
• generalprinciplesoflaw;
• goodindustrypractice;
• anyrelevantcodesofconductorpractice;and
• whatisfairandreasonableinthecircumstancesofthe
complaint(ProceduralCodesection4 .2) .
Wecontinuetoreceivecomplaintsfromcustomerswho
tellusthattheyhavenotbeenmadeawarebytheir
provideroftheexistenceoftheTermsoracontract .
Insomecases,theproviderisabletodemonstrateto
usthatithadindeedinformedthecustomeraboutthe
applicableTermsandthatthecustomeragreedtothem .
Inothercases,itisunabletodoso .Wealsocontinue
toreceivecomplaintsinwhichthecustomerandthe
provideragreethatthereisacontractinplaceforthe
deliveryofservice,butdisagreeaboutsomeaspectofthe
detailsofthecontractorwhatshouldbedeliveredunder
it .Thishappensmostfrequentlyinthecaseofcontracts
agreedtoorally(usuallybyphone),butitcanalsoarise
inthecaseofwrittenagreements .Sometimes,neither
partyhasretainedacopyofthedocumentationspecifying
thedetailsofthearrangement .Othertimes,whatthe
contractsaysisclearbutthemeaningofaparticular
provisionisambiguous .
Inmostofthesecaseswewillbeabletoreviewthe
provider’sTermsofService .Butmanyofthecomplaints
turnonthespecificservicesbeingprovidedtothe
customer,andtheconditionsunderwhichtheyarebeing
provided .Thecasesinwhichthereisnoproofofthe
agreementbetweentheserviceproviderandcustomer
ontheseimportantdetailsareextremelydifficultfor
us .These“hesaid/shesaid”casesrequireustomake
inferencesbasedonothercircumstances,ortodetermine
thecredibilityoftheparties .Ourpreference,ofcourse,
istorelyonevidence .Thuswecontinuetostrongly
encourageproviderstoensurethattheircustomers
arefullyawareofallthedetailsofthecontractpriorto
enteringintoanagreementormakingachangetotheir
service .Wealsostrongly recommendthatproviders
retainarecordthatcapturesthecustomer’sagreement
toacontractortoanychangetotheirservice(suchas
asignedagreement,arecordingofaphonecall,orany
othermethodthatreasonablycapturesthecustomer’s
agreement)foratleastaslongasthecustomer’sservice
remainswiththeprovider .Providershavetoldusthatitis
challengingforthemtodosogivenprivacylegislation,or
becauseofthehighcostofrecordsstorage .Wefindthese
argumentsunpersuasive .Providersthatfailtomaintain
thismaterialruntheveryrealriskthatthesecomplaints
maybedecidedagainstthem .
Ofcourse,thisisnotaone-waystreet .Consumersshould
makesurethattheprovidergivesthemthefulldetails
ofthecontract(includingtheTerms) .Theyshouldreview
thecontractanddotheirbesttounderstanditpriorto
agreeingtoobtainservice .Iftheydonotagreewiththe
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TopicsandTrends
Terms,theyshouldnotagreetoobtaintheservice .In
somecases,theymaybeabletoobtaintheserviceunder
differenttermsfromadifferentprovider .Consumers
shouldalsoretainrelevantdocumentationshoulditbe
neededinfuture .
Bothprovidersandcustomershaverightsand
responsibilitiesunderthecontract .Consumersoften
complaintousthattheTermsare“biased”orslantedin
favouroftheprovider .Thethingswehearmostoftenare
consumerfrustrationabouttherightthattheTermsoften
giveproviderstoimposeadditionalfeesoncustomers
whoterminateservicepriortotheendoftheircontract
term .WealsohearfrustrationaboutTermsthatallowthe
providertomakechangestotheTermsinthemiddleof
acontract .Itisnotsurprisingthatabusinessthatdrafts
thecontractwilldosoinamannerthatisfavourableto
itself .AtCCTS,ourmandateistoapplythecontractthat
isinplace,andtoprovideredressforconsumerswhen
theproviderhasnotfollowedthecontract .Itisnotour
roletodeterminewhetheritisfairforaprovidertobe
abletodraftacontractthatfavoursitself .Thisisapolicy
issue .Governmenttelecommunicationspolicyisthat
inthederegulatedtelecommunicationsmarketplace,
vigorouscompetitionshouldredresstheseinequities,i .e .
providerswilldrafttheirTermstobemorecustomerfriendlyinordertowincustomers .Itisalsoexpected
thatindustryCodesofConductwillbedevelopedto
ensurefairnessoftreatmentforcustomers .Consumers
dissatisfiedwiththisshouldrecognizethatitisapolicy
issue,notadispute-resolutionissue,andshouldmake
theirconcernsknowntotheirelectedrepresentatives .
Thecasestudiesbelowfurtherdescribesomeofthe
scenarioswesawthisyear,andthewaywedealtwith
thosecomplaints .
1
Casestudy#1
Thecustomerhadpreviouslyagreedtoobtainwireless
servicefromherproviderunderaone-yearcontract .
Attheendofthatyear,shecalledtheproviderwith
theintentionofcancellingherservice .However,inan
attempttoretainherbusiness,theproviderofferedhera
newplanthatwassimilartoheroldplanbutatalower
monthlyprice .Sheagreedtoremainacustomerofthe
providerandacceptthenewplan .Sometimelater,the
customerdecidedtoterminateherserviceandwas
chargedearlycancellationfees(ECF) .Thecustomer
statesthatwhensheacceptedthenewplanshedid
notagreetoanewcontractwithafixedend-date .She
believedthatshewasobtainingserviceonamonth-
27
to-monthbasisandthatshewasofferedtherebateas
ameanstoretainherbusiness .Shethereforedidnot
believethatsheshouldhavetopaytheECF .
Theproviderconfirmedthatitstelephoneagenthad
offeredheranewplaninordertoretainherbusiness .
However,itstatedthatthisofferwascontingentonthe
customeragreeingtoanewtwo-yearcontract .Sincethe
customerterminatedherservicepriortotheexpiryofthe
contract,itbilledherECFinaccordancewithitsTerms
ofService .Theproviderstatedthatitsentanemailtothe
customeraftershehadagreedtothecontract,inorder
toconfirmthedetails,butthatitcouldnotlocateacopy
tosendtoCCTS .Thecustomerdidnothaveacopyofthe
emailwhichtheproviderclaimedtohavesent .
Wefoundthattheprovidercouldhaveavoidedany
uncertaintybyspecificallydocumentingthearrangement
betweenitanditscustomerbutthatitcouldnot
demonstratethatithaddoneso .Therewasnoother
evidenceonwhichwecouldconcludethattheoffertothe
customerincludedatwo-yearterm .Sincetheprovider
couldnotdemonstratethatthecustomeragreedto
continuetoreceiveserviceunderanewcontract,wedid
notbelievethatitshouldbeallowedtobillherECF .
Message:InorderforaprovidertoenforceitsTerms,
itmustdemonstratethatthecustomerwasprovided
withthedetailsofthecontract,includingtheassociated
Terms,andthat(s)heagreedtobeboundbythem .
2
Casestudy#2
ThecustomeragreedtoobtainInternetservicefromhis
providerunderathree-yearcontract .Afterapproximately
sixmonthsofusingtheservice,thecustomerreceiveda
billthatwasmuchhigherthanexpected .Uponreviewing
hisbill,hefoundthathewaschargedadditionalfeesfor
“bandwidthconsumption .”HecalledhisInternetservice
provider,whichinformedhimthathisInternetplan
providedhimwithupto25GBofbandwidthusageper
monthandthat,sincehehadexceededthisallotment,he
wasbilledfortheadditionalusage .Thecustomerstated
thathehadnotbeeninformedofthebandwidthlimitand
thereforedidnotbelievethatheshouldhavetopaythe
additionalfees .Healsostatedthathehadnoideawhata
“GB”representsandthereforedidnotknowtheextentto
whichhecouldmakeuseofhisservice .
TheproviderreliedonitsTermsofServiceaswellas
itsagreementwiththecustomerinordertobillhimthe
additionalbandwidthusagecharges .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TopicsandTrends
Duringourinvestigation,theprovidersentusacopyof
thecontractthatwassignedbythecustomerandthat
clearlydemonstratedthathehadindeedagreedtoobtain
Internetserviceandtobeboundbytheprovider’sTerms .
Wealsofoundthatthecontractprovidedthecustomer
withallofthedetailsrelatedtohisservice,includingthe
25GBbandwidthallotment,aswellasawebsitelinkto
theprovider’sfullTerms .
TheTermsstatedclearlythatanadditionalchargewould
applyforbandwidthusagethatexceededthemonthly
allotmentandthatitwasthecustomer’sresponsibility
toverifyhisusageregularly .Awebsitelinktoatoolthat
allowedhimtoviewhisusagewasalsoprovided .
Wethereforefoundthatsincetheproviderclearly
demonstratedthatthecustomeragreedtobeboundby
theTerms,hewasresponsibleforpayingtheadditional
bandwidthusagecharges .
message:Itisimportantthatcustomersreadand
understandtheTermsbeforeagreeingtobebound
bythem .Ifwefindthatacustomerhasagreedtothe
Terms,wewillapplythoseTermsinanefforttoresolve
thecomplaint .
3
Casestudy#3
Thecustomerhadagreedtoobtainwirelessserviceon
whathebelievedtobeamonth-to-monthbasis .After
approximatelyayearandahalf,thecustomercalled
theprovidertocanceltheservice,butwastoldthathe
hadconsentedtoathree-yearcontract .Sincehewas
terminatinghisservicepriortothecontract’sexpiry,
hewouldbebilledanearlycancellationfee(ECF) .The
customerconfirmedthathedidsignadocumentbut
thattheagreementwastoobtainwirelessserviceona
month-to-monthbasis,forafixedpricepermonth .He
statedthathedidnotagreetokeeptheserviceforthree
yearsandthereforedidnotbelievethatheshouldbe
requiredtopaytheECF .
Theprovidersentusacopyofthecontractthatthe
customerhadsigned .Wefoundthatthecontract
providedthedetailsofthecustomer’srateplanbutdid
notstatethattheservicewastobeprovidedundera
three-yearcontract .Rather,thedocumentcontained
afootnote,insmallprint,thatindicatedgenerallythat
acustomerwouldbesubjecttoECFifthecustomer
cancelledhisservicepriortotheexpiryofhis12,24or
36monthagreement .
28
Theprovideralsosentuscopiesofthecustomer’s
monthlyinvoiceswhich,itclaimed,clearlyinformedhim
thathewasonathree-yearcontract .However,upon
reviewoftheinvoices,wedidnotfindaclearstatement
thattheservicewasbeingprovidedunderathree-year
contract .Allwecouldfindwastheappearanceof“36M”
nexttothenameofhiswirelessrateplan .
Wevoicedourconcerntotheprovideraboutthe
ambiguityofthecontractaswellasthelackof
documentationtoconfirmthespecificsoftheduration
ofthecontract,ifany,agreedtobythecustomer .
Nonetheless,becausethecustomersignedthecontract,
weconcludedthathehadindeedagreedtoaminimum
contractperiod .Sincethefootnoteadvisedhimthat
theminimumwouldbeeither12,24or36months,we
foundthathehadtohaveagreedtoaminimumcontract
periodofatleast12months .Wedidnotagreewiththe
provider’scontentionthattheappearanceof“36M”on
hisinvoice,withoutadditionalcontext,wasconclusive
ofthecustomer’sagreementtoathree-yearterm .In
theabsenceofotherinformation,wedidnotfindit
reasonabletoassumethattheaveragecustomerwould
understandthistobenoticethattheservicewasbeing
deliveredunderathree-yearcommitment .
Sincetheproviderisresponsibleforensuringthatits
contractsareclearandnotambiguous,andsincethe
customerhadalreadykepthiswirelessservicefor
overoneyear,werecommendedthatthecustomerbe
permittedtoterminatehisservicewithoutpayingtheECF .
Bothpartiesacceptedthisrecommendation .
Message:Aprovider’scontracttermsmustbeclear .If
theyareambiguous,theywillbeinterpretedagainstthe
provider .InordertoapplyitsTerms,aprovidermustbe
abletoclearlydemonstratethatthecustomeragreedto
beboundbythem .Avaguenoteonamonthlyinvoiceis
notsufficienttodemonstrateacustomer’sagreementto
acontract .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TopicsandTrends
29
NUMBER PORTABiLiTY – SOMETiMES NOT AS EASY AS iT LOOkS
Weoftenreceivecomplaintsfromcustomerswhohave
askedto“port”theirtelephonenumbersfromoneservice
providertoanotherandhavesubsequentlyencountered
problemswithinaccuratebillingorwithdeliveryoftheir
services .Thissurprisesconsumersconsideringthatthe
industryheavilypromotestheabilitytochangeproviders
butkeepyourphonenumber,andtheportrayalisoneof
asimpleandsmoothprocess .
Wehavegenerallyfoundthattheprocessusedby
providerstoportlandlineandwirelessnumbersbetween
providerscanbeconfusingandthaterrorsoftenensue .
Forexample,wehaveseencasesinwhichproviders
submittedthewrongcustomerinformationorthewrong
datesontheportingorder .Somehavenotincludedall
oftheservicesthatweresupposedtobeportedwhereas
othershaveincludedservicesthatwerenotintendedto
beported .Wehavefoundotherinstancesofproviders
submittingportingorderstoprovidelandlineservice
withoutactuallyhavingthenecessaryfacilitiesavailable
todelivertheservicetothecustomer .Thesemistakes
resultindelaysindeliveringtheserviceaswellasrelated
billingerrors .Insomecases,thecustomerisbilledby
bothprovidersforthesameservice .Whentheseerrors
occur,customersareoftenconfusedanduncertainasto
howitshouldberesolvedandwhichprovidertheyshould
approach .Whenweinvestigatethesetypesofcomplaints,
wewilloftenengagebothprovidersinvolvedinorderto
sortoutthedetailsanddeterminehowandwherethe
erroroccurred .
Weunderstandthattherearecomplexitiesrelatedto
numberportability .Nonetheless,regulatoryguidelines
liketheCanadianLocalOrderingGuidelines(C-LOG)
existtodetailhowtheprocessshouldwork .Wetherefore
encourageproviderstoinvestthetimetofullyunderstand
thosecomplexitiesandensurethattheiremployees
areproperlytrainedinordertominimizetheoccurrence
oferrors .
1
Casestudy#1
Thecustomerwasreceivinglandlinetelephoneservice
fromaprovider .Sheapproachedanewserviceprovider
(thenewprovider)andrequestedthatitporthernumber
andthatitbeginprovidingherwithservice .However,on
thedatetheservicewassupposedtohavebeenported
tothenewprovider,thecustomerfoundherselfwithno
serviceatall .Shethereforecalledhernewproviderand
spentthenextfewdaystryingtosortouttheproblem .
Thenewproviderofferedadifferentexplanationeach
timetheyspoke:theoldproviderdidnotcompletethe
orderproperly;repairworkwasrequired;and,ultimately,
thatitwouldlookintothematterandcallherbackwithin
24hours .Whenthecustomerdidnotreceiveacallback,
shecomplainedtoCCTS .
Ourinvestigationrevealedthatthenewproviderleased
itslinesfromanotherproviderinordertoofferserviceto
thepublic .However,atthetimethatthenewprovider’s
representativeagreedtoportthecustomer’snumber,the
newproviderdidnothaveavailablefacilitiesinorderto
delivertheservice .Ittherefore“held”theorderuntilsuch
timeasithadavailablefacilities .Sincetheoldproviderhad
alreadyterminatedthecustomer’sservice,andsincethe
newproviderwasunabletoprovideservicerightaway,the
customerwasleftin“limbo”betweenthetwoproviders,
withoutanyserviceatall .Weworkedwiththenewprovider
toresolvethesituationbyurgingtheexpeditedinstallation
ofthenecessaryfacilities,therebyensuringthatthe
customer’sservicewasreconnectedunderheroriginal
numberandwiththeproviderofherchoice .
Message: Serviceprovidersmustensurethatthey
completeportingordersproperlyandthattheyinformthe
customerofanydelayintheprovisionofservice .
2
Casestudy#2
Thecustomerapproachedanewwirelessserviceprovider
(thenewprovider)torequestthatitporthisnumberand
providehimwithservice .Theportingwascompleted
ontherequestedduedateandthecustomerbegan
usingandpayingfortheservice .Afewweekslater,the
customerreceivedaninvoicefromhisoldwirelessservice
provider(theoldprovider)forserviceallegedlyprovided
aftertheportingwascomplete .Thecustomercalledthe
oldproviderwhichinformedhimthatitssystemindicated
thathisservicewascurrentlyactiveandassuch,itwas
billinghimforthatservice .Sincethecustomerwas
receivingservicefromthenewprovider,hedidnotbelieve
thatheshouldhavetopaytheoldprovideraswell .
Whenwereceivedthecomplaint,weworkedwithboth
providersinordertodeterminethedatethattheservice
wasportedtothenewprovider .Wefoundthattheold
providerhadindeed“released”thecustomer’snumber
tothenewprovider,ontherequestedduedate,butthatit
hadnotcancelledthebillingoftheaccount,whichisdone
throughaseparatesystem .Therefore,billswerestill
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TopicsandTrends
beingsenttothecustomer .Oncewediscoveredthis,the
oldprovideragreedtowaiveallofthechargesbilledafter
theservicewasportedtothenewprovider .
30
Message:Whencompletingrequeststoporttelephone
numbers,serviceprovidershaveanobligationtoensure
aseamlesstransitionandmustthereforeensurethatall
relatedsystemsareaccurateanduptodate .
NUMBER PORTABiLiTY – THERE’S A CATCH!
Anotherfeatureofmanyoftheportingcomplaintsthat
wereceivedin2009–2010iscustomerfrustrationabout
being“doublebilled”bybothproviders .Unlikethose
casesinwhichthedoublebillingresultedfromaporting
error(asdescribedabove),thesecomplaintsinvolve
customersbeingbilledbyboththe“new”providerand
the“old”providerforservicesduringthesameperiod
oftime .
Theabilityofcustomerstotaketheirlandlineorwireless
numberswiththemwhenchangingserviceproviders
resultedfromvariousdecisionsissuedbytheCRTC .
IntheCRTC’sDecember20th,2005newsrelease
accompanyingTelecomDecision2005-72,formerCRTC
ChairmanCharlesDalfenstatedthat“consumersshould
begiventhewidestpossiblechoiceofserviceproviders
andshouldbeabletoswitchtelephonecompanies
withoutunwarrantedcostorinconvenience .”Theability
toportanumbertoanotherproviderisseenasan
importantbenefittoCanadianconsumers .
Inpractice,however,consumersaregenerallyforcedto
incurbothneedlesscostandinconvenienceinorderto
portanumber .
Customerswhowanttoswitchprovidersandtaketheir
numberwiththemaretoldthatalltheyneedtodois
providetheseinstructionstothenewprovider,whichwill
makearrangementswiththeoldprovider .Butthingsare
notalwaysassimpleastheyappear .
Mostproviderscurrentlyrequirethatacustomerprovide
30days’noticepriortoterminatingservice,evenif
theyareonafixedtermcontractthatisexpiring .So
thecustomeralsohastolettheoldproviderknowthat
theyareterminatingtheirservice .Iftheydon’t,theold
providerwillbillthemforanadditional30daysfromthe
timethatitwasinformedofthetermination .
Theeasyanswerappearstobeforthecustomertogive
30days’noticetotheoldproviderandthenportthe
numbertothenewprovider .However,inordertoporta
numbertoanotherprovider,thenumbermustremain
active .Sothecustomercannotcancelservicewiththe
oldprovideruntilaftertheportingorderiscompleted .If
(s)hedoes,theoldproviderwillcancelthenumberand
thecustomerwillbeunabletoportit .
Sothecustomerisforcedtocontactthenewprovider
andrequestthatitportthenumber .Oncethisisdone,
theoldproviderwillreleasethecustomer’snumberto
thenewprovider .Butitwillcontinuetobillthecustomer
foranother30daysofservicesince30days’noticewas
notprovided .Thecustomerisalsobilledforserviceby
thenewproviderwhoisnowdeliveringtheservice .Asa
result,thecustomermustpaybothprovidersforservice
foraperiodof30daysif(s)hewishestoportthenumber .
Inourview,thispracticefailstoachievetheobjective
ofallowingcustomerstoswitchtelephonecompanies
without“unwarrantedcostorinconvenience .”Infact,
itaccomplishestheopposite—customersareputto
additionalinconvenienceandextracost .Thecurrent
processisunfairtocustomers .Thereisnoreasonfora
customertohavetomakemorethanonecall,ortopay
twoprovidersforthesamemonth’sservice .
Wethereforestrongly urgetheindustrytofinda
solutionthatdoesnotrequireconsumerstopaytwo
providersforthesameperiodwhenonlyoneisactually
providingtheservice .Thiswouldachievetheobjectiveof
allowingcustomerstoswitchserviceproviderswithout
“unwarrantedcostorinconvenience .”
Ourreviewofthesecomplaintsleadsustobelievethat
thereareatleasttwopossibleindustrysolutionstothis
problem .Oneoptionwouldbeforproviderstorevisit
thepolicyofrequiring30days’noticeforterminationof
servicewhenacustomerisportingtoanotherprovider .
Asecondoptioninvolves“futuredating”ofaporting
order .Wehavefoundduringthecourseofsome
investigationsthatproviderscanfuturedateaporting
orderbyupto30days .Sowhenthenewproviderreceives
arequesttoportinacustomer’snumber,itcandate
therequest30daysintothefuture .Theoldprovidercan
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TopicsandTrends
acceptthisasthecustomer’s30days’notice .During
thisperiodtheoldprovidercontinuestoprovideservice
andonlyitbillsthecustomer .Thirtydayslater,whenthe
numberisported,thenewproviderbeginstoprovidethe
serviceandonlyitbillsthecustomer .Onephonecall,one
monthlyfee .
31
Untilsuchtimeastheindustryhascreatedanother
solution,werecommendthatcustomersseekingtoport
theirnumbertoanewproviderfirstverifywhetherthey
arerequiredtoprovide30days’noticeoftermination
totheircurrentprovider .Ifsuchnoticeisrequired,we
recommendthatthecustomeraskthenewproviderto
futuredatetheportingorderby30days .
PREMiUM TExT MESSAgES (ShOrT CODES)
Premiumtextmessagesaretextsthatyoureceiveonyour
wirelessdeviceandthatarechargedata“premium”rate,
i .e .,morethanyourprovider’snormaltextmessaging
rate .Thetextsarenormallysentto/froma“shortcode”
thatis5or6digitslong .Theyaremostoftenassociated
withcontestsorlivetelevisionshowslikeCanadianIdol,
orusedonasubscriptionbasistoreceiveautomatictexts
withspecificcontentsuchassports,triviaorhoroscopes .
Thecostforthesetextscanvarygreatlyandcanbe
anywherefrom$0 .15to$10 .00pertext .
thepricingandfrequencyofdeliveryofthemessages,
contactinformationforthecontentprovider,anda
descriptionofhowthecustomercanunsubscribe(usually
bytexting“STOP”totheshortcode) .
Thesetextmessagesdonotcomefromthewireless
carrier .Theyaredelivered,andbilledfor,bythe
carrieronbehalfofathird-partycontentprovider .This
serviceisprovidedunderthetermsoftheshortcode
programdevelopedandadministeredbythewireless
carriers’industryassociation,theCanadianWireless
TelecommunicationsAssociation(CWTA) .Thecontent
providersaresubjecttoguidelinesrequiringthatthey
followadetailedprocessforsigningcustomersup,and
alsoforallowingcustomerstounsubscribe .Moredetail
abouttheprogramisavailableatwww .txt .ca .
• Beextremelycarefulaboutdisclosingyourwireless
numberonline .Becautiouswhenusingonline
applicationsthatrequestyourwirelessnumber,such
asthoseofferedthroughFacebookandothersocial
networkingsites .
Amongthemaincustomercomplaintsarethatthey
didnotsignup,orthattheydidnotknowthefrequency
andcostofthemessages,orthattheyareunableto
unsubscribe .GiventhattheShortCodesprogram
guidelinesprescriberulesthatshouldpreventallof
thesethingsfromhappening,thenumberofcomplaints
issurprising .Inorderforacustomertosubscribe,the
programrequiresa“doubleopt-in,”i .e .,aftersending
aninitialtexttotheshortcode(orsigninguponline),the
customershouldreceiveatextresponse .Thecustomer
shouldthenbeaskedtoreplyagain,usuallywithaPIN,
eitherbytextingoronline .Oncethis“doubleopt-in”
processiscomplete,thecustomerissubscribedtoa
premiumtextmessageservice .Therulesalsorequire
thatthedoubleopt-inprocessincludeinformationabout
Thegoodnewsisthatalmostallofthepremiumtext
messagecomplaintsthatcometousgetresolvedtothe
satisfactionoftheparties .However,inordertoavoidthe
problem,ortodealwithitquicklyifitarises,weoffer
someadvicetoconsumers:
• Treatyourwirelessnumberlikeyouwouldanyother
pieceofpersonalinformation .Discloseitonlywhen
youbelievethatitissafetodoso .
Ifyouarebilledforpremiumtextmessagesonyour
wirelessbillandyoudonotbelievethatyouhavesigned
upfortheservice,youshould:
1 . Immediatelytext“STOP”totheshortcodethatsent
youthetext(thisshouldappearonyourbilland,ifyou
haven’tdeletedit,onyourhandset);
2 . Checkyourpreviousbillsasthismaynotbethefirst
timethatyouhavereceivedandbeenchargedfor
premiumtextmessages;
3 . Callyourwirelesscarrierand/orthecompanythat
sentyouthepremiumtextmessagetomakea
complaint .Explainthecircumstancesandaskthemto
removethecharges;
4 . Ifyoucannotresolvethedisputedirectlywithyour
wirelesscarrier,contactus;and
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
TopicsandTrends
5 . TheCWTAisresponsiblefortheprogramandwants
toensurethatthecontentprovidersarefollowingthe
rules .Ifyoubelievethatyoudidnotsubscribetothe
serviceand/orifyouhavetexted“STOP”butcontinue
toreceivethetexts,contacttheCWTA(website:
www .cwta .ca;email:info@cwta .ca)andletitknow
aboutthecontentprovidersothatitcantakestepsto
monitorthecompliancebytheproviderwiththerules .
Wirelessprovidersarepaidforbillingandcollectingfrom
theircustomersonbehalfofthecompaniesthatsend
customersthepremiumtextmessages(thecontent
providers) .Whenwereceiveacomplaintfromacustomer
32
aboutapremiumtextmessage,weexpectthewireless
providertohavelookedintothecustomer’sallegationand
obtainedevidencefromthecontentprovidersufficientto
supporttheaccuracyofthecharges .Whenweinvestigate
suchacomplaint,wewillexpectthewirelessproviderto
providetoustheevidenceuponwhichitreliedtosupport
theaccuracyofthecharges,includingthecontent
provider’scompliancewiththeShortCodeprogram
guidelines .Inanycaseinwhichthewirelessprovideris
unabletodemonstratethatthechargesareproper,we
willrecommendthattheproviderwaivethem .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
OurBoardofDirectors
33
EIghT
OUR BOARD OF DiRECTORS
OurBoardisstructuredtoprovidefortheparticipationofallstakeholderswhileremainingindependentfromthe
telecommunicationsindustry .Itconsistsofeightdirectors,sevenofwhomarevotingdirectors:
• fourIndependentDirectors,twoofwhomarenomineesofconsumergroups;
• threeIndustryDirectors,oneeachtorepresenttheIncumbentLocalExchangeCarrier(ILEC)Members,theCable
CompanyMembers(Cablecos),andtheOtherParticipatingServiceProviderMembers;and
• theCommissioner,whoisanon-votingDirector,andisindependentofthetelecommunicationsindustry .
iNDEPENDENT DiRECTORS
TheIndependentDirectorsareintendedtorepresentadiversityofexperienceandinterests,beingindividualsknown
andrespectedonaregionalandnationalbasisandrepresentativeoftheCanadianpopulation,includinggender,
linguistic,minorityandgeographicrepresentation .
iNDUSTRY DiRECTORS
TheIndustryDirectorsrepresenteachoftheILEC,CablecoandOtherParticipatingServiceProviderMember
categories .ThecurrentappointedIndustryDirectorsareJonathanDaniels(ILEC),DennisBéland(Cableco)and
JillSchatz(Other) .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
DirectorBiographies
34
NINE
DiRECTOR BiOgRAPHiES
MARY M. gUSELLA (ChAIr)
Aftera36-yearcareerinthefederalpublicservice,
Maryretiredin2006fromthepositionofChief
CommissioneroftheCanadianHumanRights
Commissionwheresheledthetransformationof
theorganization,eliminatingachronicbacklog,
drasticallyreducingwaittimes,developingnewtools
andpartnershipsforhumanrightsprevention,and
maximizingtheuseofconflictresolutiontechniquesto
resolvecomplaintsinatimelyandeffectivemanner .
Alawyerbytraining,MarywasawardedthePrime
Minister’sOutstandingAchievementAward,thePublic
Service’shighestaward,forher“Outstandingcontribution
tothePublicServiceofCanada .”Shereceivedthe
Queen’sJubileeMedalandhasbeeninductedintothe
HonourSocietyoftheUniversityofOttawaLawSchool .
MARiE BERNARD-MEUNiER
Acareerdiplomat,MarieservedinOttawaasAssistant
DeputyMinisterforGlobalIssuesandabroadasCanada’s
AmbassadortoUNESCO,totheNetherlandsandto
Germany .ShelefttheForeignServicein2005andhas
sincepublishedextensivelyonvariouspublicpolicy
issues .ShecurrentlyservesontheBoardsofmany
publicinstitutions,includingthePublicPolicyForumand
theAuditCommitteeoftheCanadianSpaceAgency .She
holdsaMaster’sDegreeinPoliticalSciencefromthe
UniversitédeMontréal .
DiCk gATHERCOLE
DickisalawyerandformerExecutiveDirectoroftheBC
PublicInterestAdvocacyCentre .InhisvariedcareerDick
hasbeentheChairandCEOoftheBCEnergyCouncil,a
memberoftheUniversityofTorontoFacultyofLaw,and
counselwithOntario’sMinistryoftheAttorneyGeneral .
JEAN SéBASTiEN
Mr .SébastienhasaPh .D .inComparativeLiterature
andisprofessorofmediaandliteratureatCollege
deMaisonneuveinMontreal .Jeanhasalsoserved
asapolicyanalystonmattersofbroadcasting,
telecommunications,andinformationtechnologyfor
L’Uniondesconsommateursandwasamemberofthe
BoardofDirectorsoftheCanadianInternetRegistration
Authority(CIRA) .Priortothis,Mr .Sébastienspentsome
15yearsworkinginvariouscapacitiesinthemedia .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
DirectorBiographies
35
DENNiS BéLAND
DennisistheSeniorDirector,RegulatoryAffairs,
Telecommunications,QuebecorMediaInc .Dennishas
aBachelor’sDegreeinEngineeringandManagement
andaMaster’sDegreeinPublicPolicyfromtheJohnF .
KennedySchoolofGovernmentatHarvardUniversity .He
isaMemberoftheBoardofDirectorsoftheCanadian
LNPConsortiumInc .,theCanadianNumbering
AdministrationConsortiumInc .andaformerMember
oftheBoardofDirectorsoftheCanadianWireless
TelecommunicationsAssociation .
JONATHAN DANiELS
B .A .(McGill)1990,J .D .(Toronto)1994,isVicePresident
RegulatoryLawatBellCanada .Priortojoining
Bell,Mr .Danielshasservedinvariouspositionsat
Cable&WirelessbasedintheCaymanIslands,C1
Communications,CovadCommunications,Sprint
CanadaandasanassociatewiththelawfirmStikeman,
Elliott .Mr .Danielsteachestelecommunicationslawat
theUniversityofTorontoFacultyofLaw;hehasalso
taughttelecommunicationsmarketdynamicsatRyerson
Universityandhaspublishedanumberofarticlesinthe
telecommunicationsandbroadcastingfields .
JiLL SCHATz
JilljoinedPrimusCanadain2008asGeneralCounsel
andVPLawandhasoverallresponsibilityforthelegal
requirementsofthecompany .Jillhasextensivein-house
experienceinvariouspublicandprivatecorporationsand
hasheldseniorlegal,corporatesecretarialandexecutive
rolesintheITandTelecommunicationsindustriessince
2000withMomentumAdvancedSolutionsInc .(formerly
OnXEnterpriseSolutionsInc .)andCybersurfCorp .Prior
to2000sheheldin-housepositionswithICICanadaInc .
(formerlyC-I-LInc .)andTransCanadaPipeLinesLimited .
Jillisactiveinthecorporatecounselcommunityandis
apast-President,Vice-PresidentandTreasurerofthe
CanadianCorporateCounselAssociation(CCCA) .She
servesontheExecutivesoftheITandE-Commerce
SectionoftheOntarioBarAssociationandtheToronto
ChapteroftheCCCA .JillholdsaJurisDoctorate(J .D .)
andMBA(FinanceMajor),bothfromtheUniversity
ofTorontoaswellasaMastersinLaw(International
Trade&CompetitionLaw)fromOsgoodeHall
LawSchool .
CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010
HowtoContactUs
TEN
HOW TO CONTACT US
By Email
response@ccts-cprst .ca
By Telephone
TollFree:1-888-221-1687
TTY:1-877-782-2384
By Fax
TollFree:1-877-782-2924
By Mail
P .O .Box81088
Ottawa,ONK1P1B1
36