As the CRTC begins its “Review of basic telecommunications services“, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has a warning that should be considered. Writing in the National Review, he warns that a “fraud-friendly” Lifeline service has led to rising taxes and fees on consumer phone bills:

In 1993, humorist P. J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” More than 20 years later, a similar thought comes to mind in looking at the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program.

Commissioner Pai hails from my home town of Parsons, Kansas (a previously unrecognized spawning ground for telecom policy professionals) and he writes waste, fraud, and abuse that plague the current Lifeline program in the US, “known in some circles as ‘Obamaphone'”.

Commissioner Pai makes some recommendations for fixing Lifeline, which he says “must go hand in hand with any decision to begin providing broadband subsidies through Lifeline.”

Lifeline needs to be placed on a budget. It is now the only FCC program of its kind without a cap on spending. A Lifeline budget will increase incentives to eliminate fraud and prevent future out-of-control spending.

We should also prohibit carriers from giving away free phone service to Lifeline recipients. When the program was created 30 years ago, it offered low-income Americans discounted service, not free service. But recently, the program has lost its way. Requiring recipients to have some skin in the game will not only discourage waste, fraud, and abuse. It will also restore the program to its original purpose: providing a hand up, not a handout.

Commissioner Pai warns against expanding the current “broken program” to include broadband service, without first fixing the problems that burden consumers with wasteful costs.

As Canada prepares to consider expanding the definition of basic service to include broadband, any subsidy scheme should consider the experience in other jurisdictions. Start by reading the article, “What Those Rising Taxes on Your Phone Bill Pay For: A Fraud-Friendly ‘Obamaphone’ Program.”

Would you consider features that are sold as part of a bundle to be “free”?

In the past month, twice I have told that a feature that isn’t working was free, perhaps to dissuade claims that a refund was in order.

In the first instance, a bug in my anti-virus software (bundled with my internet services) was forcing me to reinstall it every time I rebooted the computer. Having had an open trouble ticket for 3 months, I suggested that I wasn’t getting a resolution because I was continuing to pay my full monthly bill. I was told by the service representative that their bundled software was free so it had no value.

In the second instance, a billing system “enhancement” meant that my wireless bill no longer included call detail, despite “Billed Usage-Invoice Details” being listed as the first feature of the bundle to which my lines are subscribed. Apparently, someone thinks that it is an “enhancement” to take the extra pages out of my e-bill PDF file and instead I am supposed to do a couple of clicks on the website, find each wireless line, download a separate CSV file, import each line’s CSV file separately into Excel, save as a pdf and merge it into my bill summary, all while facing east under a full moon singing the national anthem in both official languages. This is an “enhancement.” I was told by a representative “It was a free feature given to you. We have not removed it just changed the way you get the info.” I disagree. To me, “Invoice details” means that I get details on the invoice.

I don’t think that a capability that is listed as part of the service can be taken away at the service provider’s sole discretion.

When I bought my last set of tires, Costco included a bunch of “Lifetime services”, such as inflation pressure checks, tire balancing, tire rotations, and flat repairs. Those were part of the offer that I accepted when I paid for Costco to perform the installation. Were they free and could Costco unilaterally decide that they were no longer going to rotate my tires and balance them? If this fall, Costco handed me a pressure gauge and told me to check the pressure myself, is that satisfying their promise for lifetime inflation pressure checks?

Once again, I have to wonder if executives are buying their company’s services and getting bills the same way their customers do. Let me suggest that executives in the telecom industry should be dealing with the front line representatives the same way you and I do. I have no problem with executives getting all their services for free, but they should buy them from a regular store, get a bill each month and deal with the same customer service, repair and tech support people. Don’t get a staff member to take care of their personal services. Call the number listed on the bill.

I wonder how quickly we would see changes to the issues customers have to endure every month.

I seem to be the person my family goes to to check out suspicious emails or websites or news items shared on social media. Anytime a story or email smells a little bit “off”, it gets sent to Uncle Mark to check it out.

I want to talk today about “Phishing.”

Phishing is defined by the RCMP as e-mails, text messages and websites sent by criminals that designed to look like they come from well-known and trusted businesses and government agencies in an attempt to collect personal, financial and sensitive information. I figure that it can’t be that profitable. Or if it is, it could be a lot more profitable.

It just seems so easy to spot most phishing attempts. Why wouldn’t the perpetrators hire a proofreader to make their email more believable?

Let’s look at the subject lines of some actual pieces I have received over the past week:

• Congratulation’s!! [from “MICROSOFT® (UK. Regional Office)”]
• Please update your Apple ID is disabled for security reasons. [from “Apple Helpdesk”]
• Recent suspicions activity on your online account [from “Wells Fargo”]

Some get the “Subject” line right, but fail on the body:

• Dear Bell Customer, We are sending this email to let you know that your credit card has been expired.
• Please check and forward this email to all employee’s [with zip file attached]
• Please check this documents and let me know your thoughts [with zip file attached]
• Royal Bank Of Canada: Dear Valued Customer/Client , Our records show your banking profile informations are inconsistent or outdated to this end we request you to kindly verify or update your banking informations to ensure service stability.

Those are a few examples of why I figure phishing can’t be that profitable. Just imagine how much more convincing they would be if the crooks could actually gain some literacy skills. Or how much less successful they would be if the victims were able to spot the grammatical errors.

Or maybe the bad guys are consciously targeting people who just weren’t paying attention during their spelling and grammar classes. Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Phishing is a serious scourge that reduces trust in e-commerce and digital communications. As the RCMP website suggests,

• Be suspicious of any e-mail or text message containing urgent requests for personal or financial information (financial institutions and credit card companies normally will not use e-mail to confirm an existing client’s information).
• Contact the organization by using a telephone number from a credible source such as a phone book or a bill.
• Never e-mail personal or financial information.
• Avoid embedded links in an e-mail claiming to bring you to a secure site.
• Get in the habit of looking at a website’s address line and verify if it displays something different from the address mentioned in the email.
• Regularly update your computer protection with anti-virus software, spyware filters, e-mail filters and firewall programs.
• A number of legitimate companies and financial institutions that have been targeted by phishing schemes have published contact information for reporting possible phishing e-mails as well as online notices about how their customers can recognize and protect themselves from phishing.
• Regularly check your bank, credit and debit card statements to ensure that all transactions are legitimate.

As an industry, we need to do more

In an article in the Globe and Mail, “Court case over harassment probe details deep rift between CRTC chairman, commissioner,” Christine Dobby describes positions that have emerged from documents filed in a legal action over workplace tensions at the CRTC, Canada’s broadcast and telecom regulator. Cartt.ca also has an article on the same subject: “Commission in turmoil. Court documents reveal deep schisms atop the CRTC“.

In such cases, there tend to be at least 3 sides to the story: the truth is somewhere between that which each side portrays.

Beyond voyeuristic curiousity, what should matter to Canadians is whether dysfunctional relationships at the Commission impact its ability to render the best possible decisions and lead the transition to a digital economy.

Over the past few years, the CRTC has actively solicited greater participation by individual Canadians in its regulatory processes. The communications industry regulator has been actively communicating with the public, engaging in a dialog in its Talk TV file, Message Relay Services, a review of the CCTS, and next year’s review of basic telecommunications services.

Commissioners are supposed to bring a range of viewpoints and experiences to the decision-making process, including their role as representatives of different regions.

As it seeks more open dialog with the public, one might have hoped for the CRTC to demonstrate greater collegiality in its decision making processes.

Shouldn’t Canadians have a right to expect a fully functioning regulator, drawing on the experience and regional diversity of its Commissioners, as it guides the implementation of our national digital strategy?

One of the most important messages I heard at The Canadian Telecom Summit last week was the need to change our national focus on the digital economy from supply to demand.

By Canada’s sesquicentennial in 2017, every Canadian will have access to 25 megabit per second broadband at a price point comparable to offers that are in our urban centres today. Almost all Canadians will have access to speeds in excess of that. What that means, is that the 5 Mbps objective set out in the Digital Canada 150 strategy papers can now be seen as a minimum target for entry level broadband. Many Canadians will choose speeds far in excess of the 5 Mbps minimum, but a wide range of speeds (from 5Mbps through gigabit rates) needs to be an important component of our strategy. Choice helps drive digital adoption. Choice of service providers, choice in services: both are indicators of competition, lead to increased investment and better customer service.

The challenge for policy leaders is in developing a better understanding of the factors that keep nearly one in five Canadian households from subscribing to a broadband service. As I said in my opening remarks last week, we have historically had government programs that spent money based on where people lived, without considering the individual financial needs.

Too many low income households are without computers. I have been especially concerned about what FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel calls the Homework Gap – the inability of kids to complete their classroom requirements because they don’t have adequate tools at home. That ends up holding our educational efforts back for all of our kids.

We need to find ways to increase adoption among all Canadians, young and old, urban and rural, across the full economic spectrum.

My opening remarks included 5 points that should be part of campaign platforms going into the election this fall. Each of those points calls for increased adoption: increasing digital literacy and connectivity in low income households; eliminating the Homework Gap; increase ICT adoption in business; increase digital delivery of government services; increase consumer confidence in digital security and privacy.

Our focus needs to turn to driving increased adoption, moving faster to 100% of households online, engaging with each other, with businesses and with government, especially in improving the quality and efficiency of health care delivery.

As Canada approaches its 150th birthday, targeting 100% adoption should be the main objective for our digital strategy. Driving demand will help ensure investment continues on the supply side and improve the efficiency of delivery of government services.

My vision for Digital Canada 150 is getting to one hundred percent digital adoption: 100% for 150.

What do you think?