There is a clear trend toward simplicity in wireless plans from the big carriers. A few weeks ago, TELUS got rid of activation fees; Rogers has simplified its voice/data plans. Recent moves by two of the biggest service providers to make it easier for customers to have clarity and simplicity for their monthly bills.

There are a lot of factors at play here. Some will say that these moves are being driven by the CRTC’s consultation to develop a uniform wireless code. That is an overly simplistic eplanation for the drive to simplicity. After all, the CRTC consultation was announced just 4 days before TELUS launched – even a commercial as annoying as the one featuring Richard Simmons needs longer than 4 days to develop, let alone time for planning and training.

Competitive pressures from new entrants? Perhaps.

Consideration of the report from the CCTS, identifying billing and contract issues as the biggest source of customer escalations?

Or perhaps a case of trying to satisfy a a large group of customers that want it simple.

But let’s be clear: simplicity is not necessarily the best solution for everyone. I may have a plan that is more complicated to understand, but it is more custom tailored to the way I use my services. I don’t want to be forced to fit into one of the standard packages because I think I did better for myself, assembling my package on my own.

Mind you, I didn’t have trouble getting rid of the flashing “12:00” on my VCR.

In the absence of regulation, the marketplace has developed simple, easy to understand options for consumer wireless plans.Will some suggest that such simplicity be mandated as part of the wireless code? I certainly hope not.

It can be confusing for people to make all sorts of high tech purchases, such as personal computers. You have a choice to get a computer pre-configured from a big box retailer or even a TV shopping network and such machines are attractive for a lot of people. Others want to be able to put together their own machines, assembling cases, mother boards and individual components on their own. The latter is certainly more complicated, but it is quite likely that such computer owners have an even better understanding of their computer’s capabilities than the people who bought a pre-configured package. Simple is not always better.

“Clarity” is a significant attribute mentioned in the CRTC’s consultation for the mandatory wireless code. It is a reasonable requirement for consumers to clearly understand what services are included and what their bill will look like.

Will clarity be confused with simplicity?

Regular followers know that I have been beating the drum for some time to get computers and broadband into low income homes with school aged children. Half of all households in the lowest income quintile lack a computer.

The past few months have been more encouraging, as some groups have let me know that they are looking at how they can participate – with computers, training, and connectivity.

At the ISP Summit earlier this evening, it was encouraging to see CRTC Jean-Pierre Blais challenge the ISP industry:

Consider this. Leading American ISPs, technology companies and not-for-profit organizations have started a program to bridge the growing disparity between the “digital-haves” and “digital have-nots.” By providing hardware, broadband access and digital literacy training to low-income Americans, rural Americans, seniors and minorities, they are helping those caught in the socio-economic divide to capitalize on the benefits of the Internet.

Why? How? Evidence shows that students who have a computer and broadband Internet connection at home are more likely to succeed at school. Online consumers can save a substantial amount each year by shopping smarter. And, more than 80% of Fortune 500 companies require potential employees to apply for jobs online. The flip-side is also true: none of these benefits can be realized without access to the Internet.

It is gratifying that the CRTC Chair understands the problem and we hope his support will help encourage the execution of a solution. A lot of people are putting a lot of effort into getting connected computers into low income households. Earlier in the day, I met with folks who are working on solving the challenge of having computers and software available. And there are people trying to develop a solution for connectivity.

We’re approaching the end of another year. In my last blog post of 2011 (“Be it resolved“) I resolved to move the yardsticks on this program. For the past 3 years, at The Canadian Telecom Summit, I have called on carriers to do more. In January 2011, I estimated that we need a million computers to ensure that all school aged children have access to a connected home computer.

So another year has nearly finished. I remain optimistic. Momentum continues to build, but we still haven’t seen a program launched despite all the best intentions.

In my year-end blog post, I suggested it might be easier than my other resolution. That may be true, but so far I have failure on both counts. Connecting Canadians has moved closer to its goal than my objective to lose 20 pounds.

I would like to be able to announce a successful project launch at The 2013 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Who is with me?

A story on the CTV News website describes a telephone scam targeting Westjet customers. Apparently, fraudulent calls are using the airline’s name in order to try to get people to provide their credit card information. The caller tells people they qualify for a free vacation because they fly with Westjet.  The caller then asks for credit card information in order to secure the trip and pay a discounted hotel rate.

Interestingly, the story directs people to the Canadian Anti-fraud Centre, not to the CRTC.

According to Westjet, this is the third time this scam has surfaced. Apparently, it comes around every six months or so. Westjet says previous versions of this scam have been tracked to a Mexican vacation company.

Recall that almost exactly a year ago, the CRTC announced that it had reached a settlement with two Mexican vacation promoters. “The CRTC worked jointly with Mexico’s consumer protection agency, PROFECO, to bring its investigation to a successful conclusion.”

In my mind, the recurring Westjet scam raises the question of whether the regime for telemarketing rules is the best way to protect Canadians. Would Canadians receive any further protection if the anti-spam law had been proclaimed?

Are these legislative efforts creating additional red-tape and regulatory burden for legitimate companies without sufficient resources being dedicated to simply defending Canadians from fraud?

I continue to believe that Canada’s anti-spam legislation casts too broad a net, with the potential to inhibit the adoption of digital technologies by small business, failing to appropriately deal with the core problem impacting confidence in electronic commerce – simply, we should be aggressively targeting fraud.

At The 2012 Canadian Telecom Summit, Industry Minister Christian Paradis promised that we would see the release of the long awaited, long overdue national digital strategy.

We are still developing a Canadian digital economy strategy. And I am committed to delivering it by the end of the year.

So I was somewhat hopeful that the release of Canada’s digital economy strategy would have been the centrepiece of the Minister’s address to the IIC earlier today in Ottawa. It is the end of October. We’re starting to run out of time for delivery by the end of the year.

There were a few words mentioning the government position on the digital economy.

Our government begins from a single premise: A strong digital economy is fundamental to the future prosperity of Canadians. It’s that simple and it’s that important.

No doubt that all of us agree. A strong digital economy is fundamental to the future prosperity of Canadians. But the key question remains unanswered: what is the strategy to guide us toward this strong digital economy?

I wrote more than a year ago that “We seem to be witnessing a stream of tactics without a clear statement of the overall objective.” The Minister mentioned some of these in his speech: the new anti-spam law, modernized copyright law, beefed up privacy laws. But our anti-spam law demonstrates the problem with creating legislation in the absence of an overall strategy. The regulations being set up to enforce the still un-proclaimed law are almost certain to inhibit the adoption of digital technologies. The law and the regulations are at odds with red-tape reduction and serve to discourage small business from leveraging cost advantages associated with digital communications.

In the meantime, we continue to look forward to the release of our overall national digital economy strategy.

The Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (“CCTS“) released its 2011-2012 Annual Report this morning.

In January 2011, the CRTC expanded the mandate of the CCTS, requiring that all Canadian telecommunications service providers must participate in the CCTS process, no later than 5 days after the CCTS notifies a service provider that a complaint has been received from one of their customers.

In the past year, 38 new service providers have signed up; there are now 178 service providers and brands that are participating in the CCTS dispute resolution process. In the past year, more than 10,000 complaints were accepted by CCTS, an increase of 35% over the 8,000 accepted the previous year.

This growth is likely due to increased awareness of the CCTS as an arbitrator of last resort.

From an operational perspective, the CCTS reports that 90% of the complaints (9,626 of 10, 838) were resolved by the investigation stage, with a further thousand complaints closed by that stage, meaning that 98.5% of the complaints were concluded prior to a recommendation being required.

Just over 70% of the formal recommendations made were accepted by both the service provider and the customer.

The complaints process is described on the CCTS website.

Billing and contract issues seem to head the list of complaints. Nearly one in ten complaints dealt with early termination fees.

Fewer that 7% of the complaints dealt with service quality.

About 60% of complaints were wireless services related.

The report observed:

For example, many billing complaints arose simply because incorrect information about prices was provided to the customer, in particular when obtaining service over the phone. Others were attributable to invoices not being clear. Many billing complaints were the result of the sheer complexity of the monthly plan, in particular for wireless services and the various features, inclusions and exclusions associated with the plans. Other complaints seemed to be the result of a lack of training of customer service representatives (CSRs) about the products and services offered by the provider. In some cases, we wonder whether complaints arise because CSRs are required to meet certain sales targets or have sales incentives that increase their compensation. And of course, some billing errors occurred simply as a result of human or data entry errors. In our experience, service providers could help reduce the number of complaints about billing issues, and avoid much of the frustration experienced by their customers, by proactively addressing these matters.

Given the large number of complaints about billing issues, and the fact that many of these complaints could have been avoided, we strongly urge service providers to review their billing practices and take steps to ensure that they produce comprehensible and accurate invoices. We also recommend that appropriate training and supervision be provided to CSRs to guarantee that accurate information about products and services is provided to customers at all times, and to confirm that the customer understands and consents before service is provided.

The CCTS asks some questions that should cause industry executives to shake their heads.

• If the solutions in so many cases were so “obvious” and the resolutions so “simple”, why were these customers required to bring their complaints to CCTS?
• Why were the service providers’ internal complaint-handling processes unable to resolve these complaints directly with the customer at the outset?
• Many service providers have multiple levels in their internal complaint-handling processes. How did these complaints get through so many levels?
• How much extra time and effort was the customer forced to go through because of the service provider’s inability or unwillingness to correct obvious errors?

Six years ago, I said that executives at companies should deal with the normal customer service processes for their perquisite devices and services.

Given the choice, as an alternative to calling a carrier for customer support, I would rather undergo root canal treatment performed by a carpenter with a rusty icepick. Insert the name of whatever carrier you want. It dosn’t seem to matter which one of my service providers I happen to call.

I’ll say it again: If carriers aren’t having their employees and executives treated like a normal customer, you should change the way you handle internal accounts immediately. You need to see what you are doing to your customers. Monthly bills that are tough to read; interactive voice response units that can’t be navigated.

Some perspective is warranted. There are roughly 28M mobile lines in Canada, 10M internet access lines and 12M residential phone lines. That means 50M access services have generated these 10,000 complaints – a rate of about one per year out of 5,000 services. Not too bad, unless you are one of the victims on the receiving end.

Read the case studies in the CCTS Annual Report. Some of them will make you shake your head in wonder.

Check out the statistics at the back of the report to see which carriers have improved and which have the most work to do. Will customer care executives be watching their numbers?