On Friday, the Commissioner of Complaints for Telecommunications Services released his annual report [pdf, 1.8 MB] which shows a sizable increase in complaint volumes over last year, thanks largely to increased public awareness.

Among the sections I found most interesting was the “Summary of Complaints by Service provider.” It isn’t surprising that Bell, Rogers and TELUS have the most complaints: they are, by far, the largest service providers in the country. As such, the 85% of complaints that were directed at them appears to be roughly in line with their aggregate share. I was more interested in seeing which service providers generated fewer complaints than one might expect.

For example, Saskatchewan residents generated just 1% of the total complaints, despite having 3% of the population. On the other hand, Quebec represents 23% of the population, yet it generated 27.5% of the complaints, punching 20% above its weight. Why?

Virgin Mobile and Fido each generated about 8% of the complaints. Why? TELUS was responsible for less than half the complaints of Bell [including Virgin, Solo and Bell Aliant] and a third less than Rogers [including Fido]. On the other hand, dropping the alternate brands results in roughly the same level of complaints for TELUS and Rogers.

The aggregate data from the report may provide an interesting look at changes in buying patterns for certain services over the past 3 years or perhaps better understandings between consumers and service providers for legacy product lines. Long distance services used to generate 1 in 6 complaints – it is now responsible for just 1 in 20. Wireline voice and VoIP used to produce a quarter of complaints; they are now under 15%.

Contract disputes and billing errors are roughly 80% of the complaints to the CCTS. Mobile services continue to generate an increasing share of the contacts. Between the device, the voice plan, the messaging, data, long distance and roaming, contracting for mobile services is about as complex a transaction as consumers will face.

Are service providers and their agents doing enough to ensure that their subscribers clearly understand what they are buying and how long they are committed?

I hate customer service calls.

Inbound or outbound: it doesn’t matter. I take deep breaths, pour a fresh cup of coffee, preparing to invest the time on the phone. Actually, the worst is sending technicians for in-person service. That means sitting and waiting for the service “window”.

For whatever reason, the past month has seen an unusual level of call centre activity around here. And the call centre and customer service experience was rarely a proud moment.

Our pre-winter furnace tune-up led to 3 service calls before we all agreed that it was time to retire the old unit. That led to an energy audit, which in turn led to a discovery that our attic was missing about a foot and a half of insulation. That led to another few calls for sales and installation service. Then, scheduling the follow-up energy audit. The furnace installers missed their initial 2 hour window and called me an hour later to say they were on the way. I told them not to bother showing up and got a new crew to do the work the next day. Business is good for insulation companies – that must be why I pretty much had to beg their dispatchers to get around to even scheduling the work, let alone performing the job.

A newspaper subscription came due last week. The paper’s outbound call centre didn’t get my renewal order input properly in September, so that led to 3 additional calls this week to get the paper started again. The subscription has finally been renewed, but I was made to feel like they were doing me a favour. Why?

One of my telecom services has had intermittent problems, so that has led to 3 lengthy calls to repair and 3 technician visits so far. They still haven’t found the problem, but at least we now have confirmed diagnostics that there is an actual trouble within the network, not my inside equipment. Apparently, the issue has been escalated to the Office of the President: I can’t wait to see him stop by on his way home wearing a toolbelt and with test gear in hand. [As an aside, I think this would make an excellent United Way fundraiser.]

I had other call centre interactions with my wife’s car company and a telephone company that was apparently testing the Do Not Call List and Competition Bureau rules.

TOA Technologies (a developer of mobile workforce management solutions) is releasing its 3rd annual “Cost of Waiting” study this morning. The study finds that in the US, $37B is lost in labour force productivity as a result of waiting for in-home services or deliveries. Most importantly, 70% of respondents said they would recommend a company solely on the basis of an appointment being on time. The skill of the service technician and initiative to go above and beyond, were among the most important aspects that positively impact consumers’ opinion of a company. There are a lot of firms that should be reading this study and working on improving their performance.

As TOA Technologies has said in its press release, businesses have a narrow opportunity window to transform negative customer perception into customer satisfaction and retention. My furnace company turned around the initial negative experience by applying appropriate oversight and service excellence on the recovery. Obviously, it is better to consistently deliver superior customer service, but even I have bad days once in a while. It’s true.

My biggest gripe? Sitting on hold hearing a message that says that my call is important to them. If my call is so important, why am I on hold waiting for an agent?

Manitoba wants the CRTC to order more rural coverage from Canada’s mobile carriers in the wake of communications access difficulties for firefighters earlier this month. The Brandon Sun quotes Premier Greg Selinger:

I think there’s a case that can be made for the CRTC, which regulates telephone companies in the country, that those basic levels of services can be provided. There’s no reason why Manitobans can’t make that case along with other parts of the country that have that same need.

Why would this be a CRTC issue? Police and other emergency workers historically operated private radio networks. Don’t you think they should have examined geographic coverage as part of the business case to migrate requirements within public mobile networks? If the coverage requirements are wider than a carrier operates, shouldn’t that have been part of the contract?

The premier’s statement just sounds like he is looking for someone else to pay.

I noticed that Industry Canada has shut down the Telecom Policy Review Panel website, although the panel’s full report is still available for download as a pdf [1.65 MB]. Sure, the report is now more than 5 years old, but many of its recommendations have yet to be implemented, due to partisan bickering in a minority government environment.

The CCTS is one of the most visible recommendations actually completed: the establishment of a Telecommunications Consumer Agency [Recommendation 6-2].

It is unfortunate that more of the report was not adopted; there was a McCarthy Tetrault released a book at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit that details the complete set of legislative reforms needed to implement the recommendations.

The TPR panel was created by a Liberal government; its work was completed and the report was delivered to Conservative Industry Minister Bernier. Naively perhaps, I was optimistic that a spirit of bipartisanship might allow us to modernize Canadian telecom policy despite the minority government. I can’t help but think of the number of issues that would have been preempted had the proposals been adopted.

There is an opportunity to do more.

Section 9 of the report looks at regulatory institutions, including an examination of the number of CRTC Commissioners and the way to recruit and retain them. Recommendation 9-6 calls for a reduction to 5 from the current 13 Commissioners; Recommendations 9-7, 9-8 and 9-9 deal with recruitment methods and compensation. There are a number of CRTC appointments to be made over the next twelve months, as current terms expire. The next year may be the most opportune time for a restructuring to take place.

In any case, Recommendation 9-4 called for creating a new panel around this time:

The Minister of Industry should be mandated by legislation to undertake a comprehensive review of telecommunications policy and regulation every five years.

It has been just over five years since the last panel completed its work. Perhaps it is time for a fresh look, as long as we don’t end up with another book that sits on the shelf.

Monday was the 150th anniversary of the completion of the transcontinental telegraph in the United States, in 1861. It took another 20 years for the charter of the Canadian Pacific to permit trans-Canada messaging to be routed without transit through the US.

Verizon’s PolicyBlog has an interesting viewpoint on this milestone.

Until the telegraph came in to being, it was impossible for messages to be relayed to people who were long distances apart any faster than the speed of a horse.

But Verizon also makes important observations on characteristics that distinguish today’s networks from the amazing transformative impact of the telegraph. I recommend reading it.