The CRTC issued a policy decision last week (2008-27) dealing with access to telecom services by credit challenged subscribers.
Under a pilot plan, for customers seeking reconnection, a debt repayment schedule would be established; no interest would be charged on the amounts owing; security deposits would be waived; and the reconnection fees would be spread over six months. The CRTC has dispensed with this arrangement, since the pilot program did not seem to deliver better levels of default on debt than non-regulated plans.
At the end of the day, the Commission is going to rely on a clause in each of the ILECs’ Terms of Service that prohibits them from disconnecting or threatening to disconnect, for non-payment, any of a customer’s tariffed services if that customer (a) has made partial payments; and/or (b) is willing to enter into and honour a reasonable deferred payment agreement.
According to the consumers groups, not all of the ILECs have been as reasonable as others in structuring deferred payment plans.
However, in the interest of lessened regulation, the CRTC is going to migrate monitoring of such issues to the Commissioner for Complaints:
the Commission requests that the CCTS track and monitor complaints related to (a) credit management issues and (b) the reconnection policies of its telecommunications service provider members with a view to determining whether further action, for example, the development of an industry code, is required.
The Commission noted that the average debt for involuntarily disconnected consumers ranged from $400-$500, with certain debts exceeding $3,300.
Will the CCTS order telcos to write off some of the bad debt in cases where the ILEC was less than reasonable in defining a repayment plan?