{"id":6683,"date":"2013-09-18T14:30:54","date_gmt":"2013-09-18T18:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=6683"},"modified":"2013-09-19T10:56:19","modified_gmt":"2013-09-19T14:56:19","slug":"name-and-shame","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mhgoldberg.com\/blog\/?p=6683","title":{"rendered":"Beyond name and shame"},"content":{"rendered":"

When the CRTC expanded the scope of services<\/a> covered by the office of the Commissioner of Complaints for Telecommunications Services<\/a>\u00a0(CCTS) in December 2010, we knew it would be a challenge to ensure that all service providers would register.<\/p>\n

The major telecom service providers are front of mind, but there are hundreds of smaller players providing voice and internet services to the public. Although all service providers were supposed to have registered, compliance was to be ensured by checking the list when a customer complaint arrived at the CCTS.<\/p>\n

A year later, in December 2011, Brama Telecom was the first service provider to face the CRTC over a continued failure to comply with the requirement to register with the CCTS following a complaint. Following an official CRTC inquiry<\/a> being launched, Brama joined the CCTS and the CRTC proceeding was discontinued<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Today, 3 service providers became the first to continue past that gate<\/a> and have moved to the “name and shame” stage. The CRTC has modified its webpage describing the CCTS<\/a> in order to list the continued non-compliance of the companies.<\/p>\n

You should also be aware that the CRTC has required the following companies to participate in the CCTS, but that they have not yet complied with this requirement:<\/p>\n