Yesterday, the CRTC expanded the role of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) to include TV services. As the CRTC said in its press release: “Canadians to benefit from single point of contact for complaints about their bundled communication services“.

As a result of the decision, “if a Canadian cannot resolve a complaint with a communications service provider – regardless if it is a television service provider, Internet service provider, wireless service provider or telephone service provider – the CCTS will become the single point of contact for obtaining a resolution.”

You can read about the highlights of the decision in the CRTC press release or stories in mainstream media. I’ll make just a few observations.

The CRTC wants the CCTS to increase its use of “naming and shaming”, embarrassing companies into compliance with their obligations. At paragraphs 72 and 73 of the Decision:

With regard to naming and shaming, the Commission is not convinced that the CCTS’s efforts have been sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool. … Information about non-compliance with the CCTS participation obligations should be regularly included in the CCTS’s Annual Report. In addition, while the CCTS has published a list of non-compliant providers on its website, the list could be given more prominence.
…
the Commission expects…the CCTS to publish in a more prominent manner the names of companies that are non-compliant with participation obligations related to promotion, paying fees to the CCTS, implementing CCTS decisions, and participating in the CCTS, as both part of the “name and shame” approach to enforcement and to ensure that consumers have more information when choosing service providers.

Frankly, given the pathetic state of the CRTC’s own website, the Commission is in no position to provide any advice to the CCTS on how to give the list of non-compliant service providers greater prominence.

It seems to me that the idea of an independent arbitrator for communications services makes sense in an environment where the markets are not considered to be competitive. But in fact, the CCTS only has jurisdiction on services that have been de-tariffed and are forborne. So by definition, the markets have been found to be competitive.

It seems paradoxical that the CRTC is adding layers of oversight to markets that, thanks to internet disruption, face greater competitive forces than ever before.

The CCTS is a way of outsourcing some of the functions that were being performed by the CRTC itself. A story in the Canadian Press indicated that hundreds of complaints were received by the Commission in the first two weeks after the launch of the CRTC’s “new era of choice for TV viewers” known as “Skinny Basic”. The CCTS itself says that it received thousands of complaints each year for TV services, and that was before such services were within its scope.

The CCTS will now be fielding complaints that were formerly handled by the CRTC, but using a separate budget funded by the carriers (ultimately showing up in consumer rates). What kind of budget reduction should we expect from the CRTC in recognizing this outsourcing of functions? Its budget is also paid for by fees assessed on service providers which get passed on to consumers.

At the end of the day, consumers have choices. By virtue of its forbearance decisions, the CRTC has determined these markets are competitive.

At what point will we treat competitive communications services like any other consumer product?

As we prepare for the CRTC’s Review of basic telecommunications services, it is remarkable to see the number of communities that are scheduled to speak. Ninety different groups will be heard over 14 hearing days, from April 11-28.

A couple months ago, I wrote “Should broadband be part of basic service” that tries to summarize the core issues being reviewed. As I wrote at that time:

As my frequent readers know, I am not a fan of subsidies based on geography rather than financial need. I have stated before that the CRTC should have started by looking at “who” doesn’t subscribe to broadband, not perpetuating and potentially extending the system of telecommunications subsidies based on “where” you are located, regardless of your ability to pay.

Many of the parties are from rural and remote communities, seeking subsidies for broadband infrastructure expansion within their territories. But, I have also written that “Affordable broadband isn’t just a rural issue.”

When last produced, Statistics Canada showed that more than a quarter of households in Montreal had no internet use from home; the same was true for 1 in six households in Toronto and Vancouver; 1 in 5 in Regina.

Providing subsidies to rural and remote communities will require funding through increased telecommunications costs for other users. What evidence do we have that Canadians will be willing to pay more in order to subsidize others?

A subsidy for some homes has to come from other rate payers. Will the groups that come to the CRTC with their hands out provide evidence of how big a “broadband tax” Canadians are willing to pay?

When so many Canadians are looking for lower communications services prices, how will they respond to a regulatory imposed price increase?

It is hard to tell what actions (or failures to act) I found most disappointing from the past government. There are so many to choose from, as frequent readers can attest.

CASL – Canada’s Anti-Spam Law – ranks right up there among the most anti-business acts by a conservative government. Once named in an Orwellian fashion as the Electronic Commerce Protection Act, for some reason CASL was given immunity from the government’s red-tape reduction provisions that, among other provisions, dictate “When a new or amended regulation increases the administrative burden on business, regulators are required to offset – from their existing regulations – an equal amount of administrative burden cost on business.”

But, even worse than CASL was the complete failure by three successive Industry Ministers to develop and articulate a national digital strategy that is a root cause of CASL’s over-reach, among so many other problems. It was a failure to demonstrate real digital leadership.

Tuesday’s Toronto Star cited an internal report prepared for the Treasury Board that says “Fifteen years ago, Canada placed first worldwide in e-government services; today the UN e-government survey ranks Canada as 11th.” According to the Star’s report, in 2013 the Auditor General found access to government online services had not significantly expanded since 2005.

It was in 2010 that then Industry Minister (and future head of the Treasury Board) Tony Clement launched a consultation on the digital economy. It took 4 years for the government to pull together a document that was little more than a campaign pamphlet. The digital economy was left “drifting aimlessly” as I wrote in late 2013. That blog post details the missed deadlines and failures to demonstrate meaningful digital economy leadership by successive Industry Ministers. It is a depressing read.

It is encouraging that the new Treasury Board President, Scott Brison, is reviewing the digital delivery of government services. We need a more comprehensive digital strategy with policy directions to guide administrative and regulatory bodies that oversee the telecommunications and broadcasting industries and issues of privacy and intellectual property rights.

In December, I wrote:

Do Governments really get power of disruptive global apps? Should regulators forbear to allow legacy industries to adapt? Do markets work?

— Mark Goldberg (@Mark_Goldberg) December 14, 2015

In earlier tweets, I connected the current news of a battle between Toronto taxi drivers, Quebec’s law to order the blocking of gambling websites by internet service providers and the financial woes of CHCH television. In each case, a heavily regulated legacy industry is facing disruption from large multi-national internet-based applications. I ask the question of whether the three levels of government are responding appropriately. Are the legacy businesses being given the appropriate freedoms to respond to what is an asymmetric market?

As I have been writing for years, we are long overdue for a review of telecom policy and legislation. As a result, the CRTC continues to insist that it has the authority (even though it lacks the ability) to regulate Netflix and YouTube.

At the time he was appointed as Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Navdeep Bains received a mandate letter that included as one of his key objectives “Increase high-speed broadband coverage and work to support competition, choice and availability of services, and foster a strong investment environment for telecommunications services to keep Canada at the leading edge of the digital economy.”

At the time, I asked:

How does the instruction to “foster a strong investment environment for telecommunications services to keep Canada at the leading edge of the digital economy” apply to the appeals in front of Cabinet and the CRTC that I described last week in “Does CRTC policy inhibit investment?” with its “Wholesale inconsistency“?

What signals will Cabinet be sending to the private and public sectors as it deals with the Bell fibre appeal?

How will this government begin to demonstrate its digital leadership?

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains announced a $1.25M one time cash injection to the Computers for Schools program to provide 7,500 refurbished computers and technical support to Syrian refugees.

Computers for Success Canada—Ordinateurs pour l’excellence Canada (CFSC-OPEC), through the Computers for Schools (CFS) program, makes available refurbished computers at little or no cost to those who may not otherwise have access to technology and opportunities to learn digital skills.

It is great to see the Minister investing in digital literacy skills for people who are disadvantaged, a theme about which I have written a few times in the past – maybe more than a few times [such as here, and here and here and here, among others].

All the low-cost broadband in the world won’t help a family that can’t afford the up-front cost of a computer. Recall my opening comments from The 2015 Canadian Telecom Summit last June:

I will repeat what I said last year: “Kids need computers at home to do homework.”

Six weeks ago, south of the border, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel wrote:

Students who lack broadband access at home are unable to complete basic schoolwork. They have trouble keeping up in the classroom. More than that, they are holding our educational efforts back.
…
The homework gap is the cruelest part of the digital divide. But we can take steps now to tackle it — steps that will help students get their schoolwork done, help expand access to the Internet, and help grow our digital economy.

Canada’s Digital Strategy, follows the politically attractive path that continues (and expands) the subsidy systems based on geography. Hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed to subsidize rural and remote regions without regard to the actual financial needs of consumers.

It is great to see the Minister targeting aid on the basis of need. As I have written before, too often, government programs have looked at providing cash on the basis of geography without focusing specifically on those who need help, regardless of where they live. It is an important message for the CRTC as it prepares for the opening of its Review of basic telecommunications services hearing next month.

The 2016 Canadian Telecom Summit will include a session looking at “Strengthening Canada’s Digital Advantage in a Hyper-connected Global Economy”, hosted by Namir Anani of the Information & Communications Technology Council (ICTC). (ICTC has just released a national digital talent strategy paper.)

The Canadian Telecom Summit takes place this year from June 6-8 in Toronto. Have you registered yet??

In his first [and only] address to The Canadian Telecom Summit in June 2013, then new CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais told the gathered ICT executives that “factoring in the needs of your customers—Canadian citizens, creators and consumers—should be a critical factor in your business planning” and “responding to the constantly-changing needs of Canadians should be front and centre in your thinking as you define your place in the digital world.”

I recall remarking at the time that it was a good thing that we had Ottawa helping remind us of consumer focus, as though information and communications technology and services leaders needed such guidance.

Quoting Mary Kay Ash, Chairman Blais told The Canadian Telecom Summit:

“Everyone has an invisible sign hanging from their neck saying, ‘Make me feel important.’ Never forget this message when working with people.”

Mary Kay understood that paying close attention to customers’ interests and making them feel valued builds loyalty. She recognized, too, that focusing solely on quarter-to-quarter profits might mean missing the big picture. Maybe losing out on long-term trends.

When Chairman Blais was appointed, he was given a mandate letter. Among other things, he was told:

Over the years, I have watched the broadcasting activities of the CRTC and believe that the Commission could do a better job to ensure consumer participation at the Commission and focus on its core duties. I would like to see the Commission comprehensively address consumer affordability and service complaints, ensure consumers are aware of and able to participate in broadcasting proceedings, and regulate broadcasting undertakings only to the extent necessary.

The CRTC has tried to reach out to Canadians, trying evening sessions (acknowledged by the Chair to be “a flop”). For major hearings, like the “Talk TV” and “Talk Broadband”, the CRTC has tried to engage with average Canadians through Twitter and Facebook campaigns.

These are like trying to meet short term objectives, without investing for the long term. Take a look at the “online tool” listing Communication Service Providers in Canada, so proudly announced by the CRTC a few weeks ago. Seriously, try it out and please tell me if you consider the tool to be consumer friendly.

The private sector (being consumer focused since their paycheques actually depend on it) might have asked consumers to enter a postal code and then get presented the service options. Or, consumers may have been offered to make use of layers on a mapping application. That would be a consumer-centric approach.

The same lack of attention to an easy user interface can be found when looking at the CRTC’s file system for regulatory proceedings. I would love to know if Commissioners have tried to find files themselves on the Commission’s website, or if they have a team of taxpayer-funded employees who navigate through the murky site for them.

The CRTC should take the Chairman’s advice: “responding to the constantly-changing needs of Canadians should be front and centre in your thinking”. For Canadians consumers to participate at the Commission, the CRTC doesn’t need its self promotional spending on social media and glitzy Discoverability events. Rather, it should heed its own advice and make investments for the long term, understanding that it too recognizes that the “constantly-changing needs of Canadians should be front and centre in your thinking as you define your place in the digital world”.

It is long overdue for the CRTC to invest in a more mundane project to make its website more accessible.