CRTC to review Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services

Starting on Monday, November 29, the CRTC will hold a hearing to review the independence and effectiveness of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS). The CCTS is mandated to work with consumers and their telecom service providers to resolve complaints. The CCTS is also meant to provide a stop-gap or safety net on the rapid deregulation of telecom markets, and the lack of meaningful competition.

We at OpenMedia.ca believe that the CCTS should be made as accessible as possible both to Canadian consumers and to telecom companies big and small. We have, in the past, called the effectiveness of the CRTC's complaints services into question, most notably in the fight for Internet openness (net neutrality). We've argued that the CRTC should conduct regular audits of Internet Service Providers to ensure that they comply with net neutrality policy, rather than relying on the current consumer complaints-based approach.

The usual suspects will be appearing at Monday's hearing - the telecom giants Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Telus - in addition to MTS Allstream and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), an OpenMedia.ca network member.

PIAC, submitting to the CRTC on behalf of the Consumers’ Association of Canada and Canada Without Poverty, included a complaint about the narrowness of the CCTS's mandate:

The CCTS is not dealing with nor resolving over 50% of complaints received from the public that it must deem “out of scope”. The scope defined by the CCTS in its Procedural Code is ludicrously small, leading to frustration and incredulity amongst customers.

They also described the difficulties consumers face in making complaints, arguing that the CCTS's mandate is too narrow, and that it is described in a way that is likely to be "virtually incomprehensible to a complainant".

Bell, on the other hand, submitted that the "CCTS is not necessary as a complaints handling body in the forborne telecommunications market" insofar as they merely duplicate companies' own complaints services. It also argues that the complaints process ought to be further narrowed to focus solely on regulatory issues, and stay out of the way of market forces.