Telecom consumers’ bill of rights

January 25, 2017

Last summer, the CRTC issued a decision establishing a code of consumer rights, affecting the major incumbent telecom companies.

At that time, the press release from the CRTC said that these rights include:

the right to a local telephone service, the right to choose a phone company, the right to confidentiality, and the right to register a dispute or complaint.

Last week, the CRTC confirmed that these same rights apply in the territories of Northwestel and the smaller ILECs as well.

The complete list of rights, each described in more detail in the notice, includes:

  • Your right to local telephone service
  • Your right to choose a phone company
  • Your rights regarding deposits for service
  • Your rights when the phone company wants to cut off your phone service
  • Your rights when you want to discontinue your phone service
  • Your right to block outgoing long distance and 900 and 976 calls
  • Your additional rights if you are a person with a disability
  • Your right to keep your information confidential
  • Your rights regarding unsolicited telephone calls
  • Your right to protect your privacy when calling or being called
  • Your right to control access to your home
  • Your rights regarding the wiring and equipment inside your home
  • Your right to refunds
  • Your right to detailed monthly billing information
  • Your right to register a dispute or complaint
  • Your right to participate in CRTC proceedings

It remains to be seen how these rights will be policed and managed across multiple industry participants in a competitive environment.

How long will it take to create the C-5: Canadian Communications Consumer Complaints Commission that was announced last month?

Last Friday, PIAC filed a request with the CRTC asking for a public consultation process in the establishment of the agency. Will the PIAC letter act as a stimulus to start the process, or further delay its implementation pending a consultation and follow-up hearing as called for in the PIAC proposal.

Let’s get started!

Backdoor to forbearance?

May 6, 2007
CRTCLast week’s Price Cap decision has a few elements that create a lot of flexibility for ILECs in areas that aren’t fully competitive.

Optional services have been designated as uncapped – those are features like call waiting, voice mail, calling line ID, etc.

Couple that with the CRTC allowing an unprecedented flexibility in price de-averaging, down to the individual subscriber, and you need to ask what is left to be forborne?

The Commission retains the ability on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether the particular pricing strategies of the ILEC lead to discrimination that is unjust or confer a preference or disadvantage that is undue or unreasonable. To this effect, the Commission notes that subsection 27(4) of the Act places the onus on the Canadian carrier to demonstrate that any discrimination is not unjust or that any preference or disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable.

Commissioner Langford’s dissenting opinion asks some interesting questions:

What’s the difference between deregulation, forbearance in other words, and [this third price cap regime]? For consumers, the answer will be, very little. In fact, in the future, consumers living in forborne regions will be better protected. At least they’ll have competition to rely on.

As always, there is certain to be lively discussion of these issues and others at the Regulatory Blockbuster on June 13 at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit.

Technorati Tags:
, ,

Systemic network security

May 5, 2007
NortelNortel CTO John Roese has some interesting insights on network intelligence and the implications on security in his blog posting Security built in, not bolted on. His views were stimulated by CNet coverage of a talk delivered by Bruce Schneier [of BT Counterpane] at Info Security Europe 2007.

In the blog post, John speaks of the challenges of

the nice simple, high-performance, global Internet was so unintelligent that it could barely detect, much less defend, itself from these attacks

How do service providers guard their own networks and provide security to their customers? Some might ask, “should they?”

Contrast the current internet with his view of the future:

One of the reasons I feel that WiMAX 802.16e (not just the RF part but the whole system) has a strong possibility of playing a major role in the 4G hyperconnected future is that in addition to being a high-performance, low-cost broadband transport system, it leverages the IEEE security learnings (specifically the trials and errors of the Wi-Fi world) to deliver a system that makes few assumptions about the end systems’ security, but realizes that it must control access, protect transport and remain resilient even in the presence of the unknown.

The CNet article cites Lord Alec Broers, chair of the House of Lords science and technology committee, as having suggested that every company, from operating system and application vendors to ISPs, needs to take greater responsibility for the security of end users.

As I mentioned earlier, John Roese is delivering the closing keynote address at The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit, June 13.

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Why wait for iPhone?

January 25, 2017

I just had a sneak peek at a new phone that is being custom developed for one of the Canadian cellular service providers for launch this summer.

The phone features the Fastap keyboard from Digit Wireless and appears to be based on a phone introduced by ZTE at CTIA in March.

The prototype of the phone is loaded with every feature you can imagine: built-in GPS, camera with flash, FM radio, music player, mobile-TV, video player, memory expansion, EVDO, web browser, speakerphone.

It is a flip phone form factor with mini-USB for connecting to your computer and charging.

I understand that the phone is being tested now. Will it be in stores before the iPhone?

Who says the Canadian market is too small for custom development? Isn’t this kind of innovation another important measure of a competitive market?

Who should pay to bridge the divide?

January 25, 2017

My blog post last week about the OECD’s broadband rankings led to some interesting discussions – some using the blog comments and others who communicated the old fashioned way – by phone.

A couple folks commented on the difference in price between broadband in the city and that offered by rural alternatives. It comes down to a question of redistribution of money: Is it fair for someone in rural Canada to have to pay more for slower speeds than what is available in the city?

This is a question of government policy. I have my own views, in part prejudiced by the fact that I personally chose to pay a lot more to live close to all sorts of conveniences: arts, sporting and cultural facilities, shopping, internet. Not everyone in rural Canada is impoverished – not by a long shot. It is an insult to equate “rural” with “impecunious”. Not everyone in the city can afford traditional supplier rates for broadband.

Should others pay to provide rural Canadians with urban prices and services for broadband, with subsidies based solely on a rural designation? Should connectivity to multi-million dollar cottages be the beneficiaries of subsidies?

Why would we stop with broadband services? I noticed that milk and other groceries are more expensive outside the city. Mind you, I have noticed that the LCBO charges the same for liquor in Keewatin as it does in Toronto. Of course, you may need to travel to Thunder Bay to find a decent Vintages selection. It is interesting to see the products for which we believe in levelling prices.

In the meantime, the CRTC has signalled in this week’s price cap decision that it is ready for rural telephone rates to move upward toward covering the costs.

I’m still waiting to see how Ontario moves forward with its budget statements to extend broadband into rural and northern communities. Maybe the best approach to stimulate broadband adoption is through an income based tax credit – independent of where people live.

Scroll to Top