Competitor quality of service (CQOS) metrics have taken on greater significance as a key to unlocking the gates to forbearance from regulation of local phone services.
As a result, the CRTC launched a proceeding a few weeks ago to examine whether any exceptions should apply to a rigid interpretation of fulfillment of the CQOS standards. Exceptions like strikes, fires, natural disasters, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Over the past week or so, the CRTC issued rulings on the applicability of certain exceptions for paying service quality rebates – at a retail level. Specifically, TELUS had asked for, and has now received, waivers on customer service outages in BC dating back to late 2003: a particularly bad forest fire season in the summer, flooding in the fall, and a major (10,000 copper pair) cable cut. A matching decision was issued to address flooding in Alberta in 2005.
Last week, the CRTC reversed itself on earlier determinations with Bell Aliant and has now ruled that its 2005 labour dispute also qualified for an exemption from consideration for the purposes of the rebate plan.
Besides the possible implications for the CQoS considerations, there are two other interesting observations.
The first is a statement that
The Commission will, in the near future, initiate a public proceeding to consider whether, for the purposes of consideration of exclusions from the calculation of rate rebates for failure to meet prescribed retail and competitor Q of S standards, natural disasters, acts of terrorism and labour disruptions should be considered as adverse events without the necessity of making that determination on a case-by-case basis.
The other observation is the dissenting opinion on the TELUS rulings filed by Vice Chair Richard French with concurrence from Commissioners Arpin and Noel. The essence of their dissent is that there is questionable value in issuing insignificant rebates to the entire current customer base, up to 4 years after the service disruptions.
The retail rebate plan needs an overhaul and the scope of the upcoming public notice should allow an examination of the concerns expressed in the dissenting opinions.
Rather than using the current rebate plan, we see an urgent need for that C-5 consumer agency.