Consumer broadband labels
Should the CRTC mandate consumer broadband labels to help make comparisons between service providers?
That is the subject of an oral hearing beginning this week in the nation’s capital region. Telecom Notice of Consultation 2024-318 (“Making it easier for consumers to shop for Internet services”) was triggered by the passage of amendments to the Telecom Act that were made last year by the unanimous approval of a Private Members Bill (C-288), introduced by Manitoba Conservative Dan Mazier.
Section 24.2 of the Telecom Act now reads:
- In this section, fixed broadband service means any high-speed data transmission service provided to a fixed location using cable, fibre optics, wireless access, satellite or any similar transmission system.
- A Canadian carrier that offers fixed broadband services shall make the following information available to the public, in the form and manner specified by the Commission:
- service quality metrics during peak periods;
- typical download and upload speeds during peak periods; and
- any other information required by the Commission that is in the public’s interest.
- For the purposes of subsection (2), the Commission shall hold public hearings to determine the following:
- the service quality metrics that are to be measured and the manner in which they will be measured, as well as the methodology that is to be used to ensure that those metrics are representative of the different fixed broadband services packages offered in different regions across Canada;
- the methodology that is to be used to determine what constitutes typical download and upload speeds for different fixed broadband services packages offered in different regions across Canada;
- the periods that are to be considered peak periods;
- the types of Canadian carriers, if any, that should be excluded, in whole or in part, from the application of subsection (2);
- the types of transmission systems in respect of which the information referred to in subsection (2) is to be provided;
- the form and manner in which the information referred to in subsection (2) is to be provided to the public to ensure that it is easily available, accessible and simple to understand; and
- the measures that are to be taken, including in respect of compliance monitoring and enforcement, to ensure that the fixed broadband services provided by Canadian carriers reflect the information made available under subsection (2).
So, we have enshrined in the Telecom Act a one-time order to the CRTC to hold this week’s hearing. As an aside, can we all agree there has to be a better way for Parliament to get the CRTC to hold a hearing on a subject?
But, here we are.
Now, the first witness at the CRTC hearing will be Dan Mazier, the MP who drafted the legislation. In his CRTC intervention, he states: “The question of whether Internet service providers should be required to display information in a standardized label is nonnegotiable. The consultation the Commission is legally required to undertake in response to Bill C-288 is not to determine if, but how Internet service providers display specific service quality metrics to consumers. This criterion is explicitly outlined in Bill C-288. I find it concerning that I must state this, but I will for clarity—the CRTC is legally obligated to enforce Bill C-288.” [emphasis his]
Funny thing. The term “standardized” doesn’t appear in the legislation. I reproduced the section above so you can see for yourself. There is nothing close to a requirement for the CRTC to define a standardized label. Yes, the CRTC is legally obligated to enforce Bill C-288. What is surprising to me is that the MP who drafted the legislation (and received unanimous approval for his legislation), doesn’t seem to understand what the legislation actually requires of the CRTC and the industry. Fortunately, his submission to the CRTC includes transcripts of his testimony before the Bill was passed. During Parliamentary Committee consideration of the Bill, Mr. Mazier stated “When the CRTC actually launches these hearing processes, that’s where there is an opportunity to be flexible as well. There’s lots of latitude in this. It is a discovery process to figure out how Internet service providers are going to display or transmit their services for Canadians.”
As Mr. Mazier said, I find it concerning that I must state this, but I will for clarity. There is an opportunity to be flexible. There’s lots of latitude.
When you read the Parliamentary transcripts, the amendment to the Telecom Act was predicated on a belief that internet service providers in Canada were misleading consumers in the way broadband speeds are advertised. However, the CRTC already studies this. In its March 2016 preliminary report, the CRTC found “performance was largely consistent across all regions, with the vast majority achieving between 104% and 110% of advertised download speed”. In November 2016, the CRTC found the majority of ISPs were delivering speeds above those advertised, including during peak periods, across all access technologies. In its 2020 review (Measuring Broadband Canada), the CRTC found “all major Canadian ISPs are delivering users with average download speeds that exceed maximum advertised rates.”
And a year ago, the CRTC released an update of Measuring Broadband Canada focusing on Fixed Wireless Services. The result? “On average, both the advertised download and upload speeds were achieved across a 24-hour period.”
So what is the problem this hearing is trying to fix? It should be said that general purpose advertising laws are already in place to protect consumers from misleading advertising.
The CRTC conducted some public opinion research [pdf, 1.1MB] that appears to be driving some of the preliminary views of the Commission. The Commission will point out that 84% of consumers said a standardized label would be helpful. But you have to look at how the question was phrased. “Would you support or oppose something like this being available to consumers when
shopping for any broadband (Internet) service in Canada?” Asked that way, I am surprised only 84% said it would be helpful.
I wonder if responses would have been different if the cost of implementation was part of the equation. More importantly, when asked “how satisfied or dissatisfied would you say you are with the information you are able to find when shopping for [consumer broadband service]?”, only 13% indicated dissatisfaction.
Question 57 of the survey asked “When shopping for home Internet services and/or trying to decide what Internet service provider to use or what Internet option to purchase, is there any particular kind of information that you find particularly hard to find or difficult to understand?” I thought it was significant that no response attracted more than 2%: Speed (upload and download); Cost / Cost including fees/charges; Service / Customer service; Network / Reliability of network; Extra fees / Hidden costs/charges (service, cancellation, transfer, connection etc.); Difficult to compare / price compare; Amount of data / Data usage; Contract / Terms and conditions.
Again, I have to wonder, what is the consumer broadband problem the CRTC is trying to solve?