October saw two irregular process letters from the CRTC that reek of political interference.
On October 7, a letter was sent to Bell, Rogers and TELUS, “calling on Canada’s large cellphone companies to take immediate action to reduce roaming fees.”
The Commission expects Bell Mobility Inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc., and TELUS Communications Inc. to report back by 4 November 2024 on the concrete steps they are taking to respond to these concerns. If the Commission finds that sufficient action is not taken, it will launch a formal public proceeding.
Another letter dated October 30 was sent to Bell, Cogeco, Eastlink, Northwestel, Rogers, Quebecor, Sasktel, Telebec, and TELUS saying, “It has come to my attention that customers have recently reported being surprised by increases in fees related to their services during their commitment periods and are frustrated at the situation.”
If the actions of service providers negatively impact the price certainty that customers deserve and that the Consumer Protection Codes are designed to ensure, as the Vice President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy of the CRTC, I will be directing CRTC Staff to determine what regulatory processes need to be launched to create safeguards that will limit these actions on a going forward basis.
Hold on.
In each case, the CRTC reminds the service providers that there are Codes in place that provide certain consumer protections to address the concerns. Yet, the form of the letter is somewhat coercive, threatening new regulatory processes if the service providers don’t fall into line. But, if there is a code of conduct already in place, why send these letters?
Let’s face it. The last thing the CRTC wants to do is launch a substantial regulatory process. The Commission has long recognized the trouble it has with its internal processes.
A year ago, the CRTC’s Action Plan committed to “Make faster and more transparent decisions”. This year’s Strategic Plan is less ambitious on that point, saying instead, “The CRTC will continue to: Issue timely and clear decisions; address the historical backlog of Part 1 applications and post new ones as they are received; and inform Broadband Fund applicants of the status of their application once a decision has been made.”
Look at an example of the CRTC’s Review of the Broadband Fund. The consultation opened more than a year and a half ago. A CRTC director recently was quoted in an industry newsletter: “We hope to have a decision come out probably in the next year or so”. That adds up to three or more years.
With the international roaming letter, the CRTC is seeking a solution for an issue that is no longer a problem. The marketplace has already provided a wide range of options. As I described a few weeks ago, consumers already have access to plans that include roaming to many of the most popular destinations. Freedom Mobile has plans available that include data as well as unlimited talk and text for roaming in 92 countries. There are add-on passes that provide similar access for up to 101 countries for as little as $30 for 30 days.
Both of the October letters refer to consumer Codes put in place by the CRTC. As noted in the October 30 letter, “The Consumer Protection Codes are designed to rebalance the relationship between customers and their service providers – to empower them in these relationships.”
Is the CRTC now saying that these Codes have been ineffective?
The CRTC established the CCTS – the Commission for the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services to deal with violations. Has CCTS been unable to deal with Code violations? If not, what motivated the irregular process letters?
Was the press release issued late in the day on November 5 supposed to make us think consumers just don’t know about the CCTS?
As a quasi-judicial body, the CRTC has to adhere to the rule of law, “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private … are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated.” As the Supreme Court of Canada has written, “At its most basic level, the rule of law vouchsafes to the citizens and residents of the country a stable, predictable and ordered society in which to conduct their affairs. It provides a shield for individuals from arbitrary state action.”
The not-so-veiled threats in the Commission letters appear to be opening an irregular process to deal with political concerns. There are Codes already in place, and there are established offices and processes to deal with violations. If the CRTC is seeking to modify those Codes, it must conduct a public review through its consultation process.
The tone, and the approach, in the two October CRTC letters struck me as unusual for a body that describes itself as “an administrative tribunal that operates at arm’s length from the federal government”.
Lately, the length of those arms seem to be a lot shorter.