Two different indicators of telecom customer service excellence came across the wires this morning – unrelated companies releasing data that point to the same conclusion: it pays to invest in customer service.

Data point number one: TELUS released its quarterly financials, which included an objective key performance indicator of customer satisfaction: churn. What percentage of customers cancel their service each month? This past quarter, TELUS achieved a 0.99% churn among its post-paid wireless customers, an improvement of 12 basis points. Contrast this with Bell’s reported 1.24% (an improvement of 1 basis point) and Rogers’ reporting of 1.20% (an improvement of 2 basis points).

Data point number two was the release of The 2014 Canadian Wireless Total Ownership Experience Study from JD Power. JD Power ranked customer satisfation highest at Sasktel, for the second year in a row. Among the major 3 carriers, TELUS scored 717, compared to Bell at 688 and Rogers with 674.

Does it pay to invest in customer service? The National Post report on TELUS financials carried a headline of “Telus Corp captured almost 60% of net new cellphone contracts in Q1“.

When pricing for many basic plans appears to be similar, customer service can be a significant competitive differentiator.

There will be a session looking at Customer Experience Management at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit, exploring these issues and more.

It is an outstanding panel with leaders who are delivering excellence in customer service.

The Canadian Telecom Summit takes place June 16-18 in Toronto. Register before May 15 and save more than $250.

A new report was released last week by the World Economic Forum, written in collaboration with The Boston Consulting Group, “Delivering Digital Infrastructure: Advancing the Internet Economy” [pdf, 6.3MB]. The report is said to be the first to undertake a comprehensive examination of the present threats to digital infrastructure, with input from representatives of government representatives, NGOs, communications services providers, content and digital-services companies, and hardware manufacturers active in the U.S., Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

The World Economic Forum’s “Delivering on Digital Infrastructure” initiative “sets the basis for a new vision for digital infrastructure by providing recommendations for policy-makers and industry participants to create a healthier environment for investment and innovation, and offer consumers a digital infrastructure on which they can rely.”

At a time when some people are looking to shape Canadian digital services markets to follow a European model, the report is sharply critical of Europe’s digital health, saying that Europe has gone from digital leader to laggard in less than a decade. “Current industry economics constrain investment in telecommunications infrastructure; consumers pay less for connectivity than in some other countries, but they are missing out on advanced services.”

In the report, policy-makers are urged to improve the infrastructure investment environment by allowing targeted consolidation and the report calls on operators to adapt business models to grow digital services. At the same time, policy-makers are told to encourage innovations taking place in “the last mile” to heighten competition and investment.

How does Canadian policy stack up against these recommendations? What measures do we need to take for Canada to lead in a global digital economy?

A number of sessions will explore these issues at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit, June 16-18, in Toronto. Save more than $250 by registering before May 15.

Ottawa is harming consumers of telecommunications services by encouraging artificial competition. That is the key finding of a research paper [pdf, 6.7MB] being released today by the Montreal Economic Institute that looks at “The State of Competition in Canada’s Telecommunications Industry”.

The last paragraph of the Executive Summary captures the essence of the paper:

The federal government has lost sight of the ultimate goal of promoting the development of a dynamic, efficient industry. It should set up fair rules for all that would allow fourth players to emerge if the market could support them. This would have the effect of actually encouraging sustainable competition in Canada’s telecommunications industry and consolidating the dynamism of this industry, to the great benefit of consumers across the country.

“Contrary to popular belief, with three national wireless players, and several regional ones, Canada is far from being an aberration among developed countries,” says Martin Masse, a former political advisor to Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, who co-authored the study with Paul Beaudry, who was a senior policy advisor to Minister Bernier. The authors say Europe’s wireless sector shows that high levels of government regulation and competition may bring down prices, but the European model discourages investment and innovation.

“The State of Competition in Canada’s Telecommunications Industry – 2014” is a 60-page report that provides data to counter a perception of “dismal performance” in the Canadian telecommunications sector. The authors explore the federal government’s attempts to fostering the emergence of a fourth wireless player and the results achieved in the wireline sector through mandatory network sharing policies. The authors conclude with proposals to further liberalize Canada’s foreign investment regime in the telecommunications sector (including broadcasting) and recommend relaxing restrictions in its new spectrum licence transfer rules.

Cultural nationalists are often quick to point out that eliminating foreign ownership restrictions in the broadcasting sector would lead to the elimination of Canadian content requirements. Such fears are unjustified. There is no reason why Canadian content requirements could not survive in a liberalized broadcasting market. Foreign-owned firms operate in many other sectors of Canada’s economy and must abide by the same laws and regulations as Canadian-owned firms. There is no evidence that foreign-owned firms are less likely to comply with Canadian laws and regulations than Canadian-owned firms.

The Montreal Economic Institute paper asks “how does one analyze competition in an industry like telecommunications?” This is precisely the question being explored in a special breakout session at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit, being presented in cooperation with the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University on the morning of June 16. The session, “Competition in Canadian Telecom” will be moderated by Dvai Ghose of Canaccord Genuity and will feature:

• Robert Crandall [Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute]
• John Mayo [Professor, Georgetown University]
• Eli Noam [Professor, Columbia University]
• Roger Ware [Professor, Queens University]
• Len Waverman [Dean, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University]

If you are involved in policy development or regulation, you won’t want to miss this session. The Canadian Telecom Summit takes place June 16-18 at the Toronto Congress Centre. Save $250 by registering before May 14.

Pierre Dion, the new President and CEO of Quebecor, will be the closing speaker at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit on Wednesday June 18. It will be his first major appearance since being named as chief of the Québec cable, media and telecom giant earlier this week.

Quebecor is a communications industry leader with subsidiaries that include: Videotron; Sun Media; TVA; Canoe Inc.; TVA Publishing; Quebecor Media Book Group; and Nurun.

For the past nine years, Mr. Dion has been the head of TVA Group within Quebecor. TVA is the largest French language network in North America, including 8 specialty services: LCN, addikTV, MOI&cie, Argent, Prise 2, CASA, YOOPA and TVA Sports.  TVA Group also has interest in Canal Évasion and Sun News. A subsidiary is the largest publisher of French-language magazines in Québec and its TVA Films subsidiary distributes films and television products in Canada’s English- and French-language markets.

Earlier in his career, Pierre was VP sales and Marketing at Videoway Multimédia, a division of Le Groupe Vidéotron ltée and previously, he had been at Vidéotron Plus.

Videotron has been one of the strongest new entrant mobile wireless players to emerge from the 2008 AWS auction. The company surprised many industry observers with the geographic reach of its spectrum purchases in the most recent 700 MHz auction, acquiring licenses in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario as well as its home territory.

As the new leader of Quebecor, Mr. Dion will exert significant influence on the evolution of Canada’s telecommunications landscape. We look forward to his closing keynote address at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Have you registered yet?

By the way, we have been advised that lawyers who need Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits are able to claim time spent attending “substantive” sessions at The 2014 Canadian Telecom Summit as “Substantive Hours” toward the Law Society’s CPD requirements.

The CRTC issued a statement on losing a procedural motion at the Federal Court of Appeal in the case of the implementation timing for Wireless Code described in my posts from last summer – here and here.

It was a strange statement from the CRTC. Did losing a procedural motion merit a press release? Why would the CRTC try to appeal to the public, highlighting this ruling? As any law student, or viewer of court room drama on TV would know, a regulator or judge can’t show up at the appeal court to advocate in favour of its decision. The ruling needs to stand on its own merit.

Here is what the judge said in ruling against the CRTC:

A statutory appeal, or an application for judicial review is not an occasion for the tribunal to improve upon its reasons in light of the objections made to them by the litigants.

So the Federal Court of Appeal struck 60 paragraphs from the CRTC’s memorandum.

The case before the Court of Appeal is fundamentally about the extent of legal powers of the CRTC. The first question is whether limiting termination fees in older mobile contracts is a form of retroactive rate-making. In the past, the courts have already held that the CRTC does not have retroactive rate-making powers. Alternatively, are there other proscriptive powers that might allow the CRTC to override existing contracts?

This is the heart of the case being heard by the Federal Court of Appeal. It is an important test of the extent and limits of CRTC legal powers.