September 3, Filed by: GC Key

Transcription

1 September 3, 2013 Mr. John Traversy Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2. Filed by: GC Key Dear Mr. Traversy: Re: Eastlink Part I application 30 day notice requirements 1. Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink, is filing this Part I application pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure to request that the Commission prohibit service providers from requiring that their customers provide 30- day s notice before terminating services. This practice has been introduced by a number of wireline carriers in recent years forcing customers to either wait out the 30-day period and pay for service with the existing provider that they do not want, or to make the switch and pay the penalty of one month s service fees for a service that they will not receive. This practice is anti-consumer and it creates a barrier to the existing Commission customer transfer processes intended to enable a smooth transition when services are transferred to a new service provider. 2. A prohibition on 30-day notice requirements is consistent with existing Commission established customer transfer policies and it supports competition and choice for consumers. Given that the Commission recently established a prohibition on 30-day notice requirements in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC The Wireless Code (the Code ) for wireless service cancellations, by including in the Code a right for customers to cancel service at any time, it is appropriate that such prohibitions also apply to wireline communications services Young Street 8 th Floor Halifax, Nova Scotia B3K 5M3 T E regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca

2 Background 3. Since the introduction of local wireline telephony competition in 1997, the customer transfer process had enabled new service providers to seamlessly complete customer transfers through CRTC-approved porting processes. Under these processes, the new service provider coordinates the service transfer with the existing provider so that the customer does not have to contact her existing service provider to cancel the service. The porting process is beneficial to consumers and to competition, and it is one of the critical processes on which local wireline competitors relied to build a healthy and competitive wireline industry. Commission policies and procedures have consistently granted new service providers the authority to cancel ported services on behalf of the customer, including the Master Agreement for Local Interconnection (MALI), Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines (CLOG) and the Master Agreement for Local Exchange Carrier Interexchange Carrier Interconnection (LEC-IXC). 4. The value in this seamless transfer process was also recognized in recent Commission decisions which applied the customer transfer process to non-ported phone, broadcasting and internet services which do not require service provider coordination (Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy The customer transfer process and related competitive issues, BTRP ). 5. In recent years, however, an increasing number of Eastlink's competitors have imposed 30- day notice requirements on their customers, causing substantial disruption to the porting process and denying customers the right to terminate their services at any time. Customers must now contact their existing service provider and give them 30 days notice before terminating their service, thereby denying consumers the right to initiate a smooth transfer process. For instance, when a customer contacts Eastlink to request service, our staff must advise the customer that they may have such a requirement. In these cases, the customer often then terminates the order immediately so they may contact their existing provider. 6. When they discover that they are bound by a 30-day notice period, they are either forced to pay two bills if they want to transfer before 30 days, one for the service they are receiving from Eastlink and a 30-day penalty for not giving notice to the existing provider. Or, in a number of cases, the customer chooses not to leave the existing provider to avoid the

3 payment. In effect, the 30-day notice requirement is a tool for existing competitors to retain customers in a captive context by restraining them from terminating service, which, in Eastlink's view, also negatively impacts competition. In Eastlink's case, we have received feedback from customers of our competitors who have displayed shock and displeasure with the 30-day notice. They are also often upset with the fact that they cannot receive our services earlier. Eastlink believes the practice is not only anti-consumer, but it also impedes competition by denying competitors the right to rely on the existing CRTC processes which allow Eastlink to authorize the transfer on the customer behalf seamlessly. Eastlink may even experience a negative reaction toward us for our competitors policy as well. 7. Not only does the notice requirement deprive consumers of control over their timing and choice of provider, but it increases costs to competitors in a number of ways, including: (a) spending more time explaining to customers that they need to check with their existing provider regarding the notice requirement, increasing the time and costs at our end of the porting process; (b) we cannot rely on the Commission approved shorter porting and customer transfer timelines, as we may need to book out service another 30 days; this requires additional management of resources and scheduling; (c) after the costs of attracting the customer, describing our services, scheduling transfer and then booking install and working toward transfer date, we may inevitably lose the customer to a competitor offer because the customer felt compelled to wait out the 30-day period. 8. Bell and Bell Aliant have for years been attempting to overturn the existing customer transfer processes in favor of requiring customers to contact them directly. This is evident from both a Part VII application filed by Bell Aliant in wherein they sought to remove from telecommunications service providers the authority to act on the customers behalf for ported service cancellations, and in comments filed by the Bell companies in the proceeding resulting in BTRP , wherein Bell preferred an outcome that would require the customer to cancel the service directly with the service provider, rather than through a customer authorization process with the new provider. It seems that the 30-day notice requirement now imposed by Bell has provided a solution that has the effect of bypassing to some extent, the established customer transfer process. 1 See Telecom Decision CRTC ;

4 9. That customers do not like the 30 day notice requirement is also evident from the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) , and annual reports, which note that 30-day notice requirements pose a significant barrier to seamless customer transfer processes. Specifically, on page 30 of its report, the CCTS noted that this practice fails to achieve the objective of allowing customers to switch telephone companies without unwarranted cost or inconvenience. It further noted on page 17 of its report that, in that year, 9.3% of all issues raised by customers were about the requirement to provide thirty days notice to cancel service. 10. Eastlink has provided comments in the past outlining why this requirement poses difficulty in the porting process. Specifically, in our May 3, 2012 comments under TNC Proceeding to determine whether the conditions in the Canadian wireless market have changed sufficiently to warrant Commission intervention with respect to retail wireless services Eastlink explained that 30-day notice requirements put customers in a position where they must either port their number immediately and incur additional costs, or attempt to future-date their port request which can cause logistical problems in the porting process, possibly preventing the port from occurring or leaving the customer temporarily without service. In either case, the 30-day notice requirement acts as a barrier to switching service providers. 11. Eastlink is not alone in our opposition to such requirements. Quebecor stated in Paragraph 17 of its December 4, 2012 comments under TNC Proceeding to establish a mandatory code for mobile wireless services that 30-day notice requirements represent, Une pratique qui ne peut être tolérée puisqu elle force les abonnés en question à payer pour des services dont ils ne veulent plus, en plus de constituer une source considérable de confusion pour les consommateurs de services sans fil mobiles. Many carriers, consumers and consumers groups made similar comments under TNC , TNC , and other previous proceedings. 12. Eastlink submits that while some of these comments were filed regarding wireless service, the issue is not limited to wireless services. Indeed, the CCTS featured an example of a local telephone complaint related to 30-day notice requirements on page 17 of its report. The simple fact is that these notice requirements serve no purpose whatsoever other than to introduce delays, confusion and additional costs into the customer transfer process

5 for all telecommunications services. At the same time, companies like Eastlink without 30- days notice of cancellation requirements have difficulty competing fairly against those that do. Eastlink is committed to keeping our customers by winning their business each day rather than trapping them with such requirements but it is difficult to sustain this approach in the face of such policies from our competitors. Precedent supports elimination of 30-day notice 13. In Paragraph 262 of the Code, the Commission agreed that it was best to eliminate 30-day notice requirements to minimize barriers to switching wireless service providers. As a result, the Commission determined in Paragraph 266 of the Code that consumers may cancel their wireless services at any time by notifying their WSP, and that cancellation must take effect on the date on which the WSP receives this notice. This determination prevents customers from having to pay for services they do not want and simplifies the porting process. 14. In addition, previous decisions such BTRP The customer transfer process and related competitive issues have allowed carriers to act as agent for the customer for broadcasting and internet services, so that customers have the flexibility to avoid speaking to their current service provider if that is their preference. In fact, this decision even establishes time limits to complete the customer transfer where no coordination is required. 30-day notice requirements restrict the ability of new service providers to terminate services on behalf of customers since the customer must still provide notice to their existing provider and they also preclude the new service provider from transferring the customers within Commission prescribed timeframes, due to the extension of transfers by another 30 days. 15. Eastlink submits that this prohibition on 30-day notice requirements is an important protection for all customers and that not only wireless customers should be entitled to benefit from such protection. It should be equally extended to customers of other telecommunications services.

6 Symmetry in customer transfers 16. In BTRP , the Commission determined that regulatory symmetry with respect to customer transfers would be in the best interest of consumers in light of increasing convergence and the trend toward the bundling of services. (Paragraph 19) 17. The Commission further determined that the customer transfer would be easiest if prospective service providers were able to cancel all services on behalf of the customer, not just those where a number was being ported. The Commission stated that such an approach would simplify customers experience when switching service providers as their new service provider would be able to handle the changeover. This minimizes difficulties that might arise due to any steps in the changeover process that customers have inadvertently omitted. 18. The Code has created a significant asymmetry between the customer transfer process for wireless services and all other services; an asymmetry that should be rectified in favour of consumers by prohibiting 30-day notice requirements for all services. For example, if a customer subscribing to wireless phone and wireline phone wishes to switch to Eastlink, and Eastlink contacts the current provider to cancel the wireline phone service and port the wireless service, the consumer can be sure not to incur additional fees for the wireless service. However, that same consumer will likely incur 30-day charges for the wireline phone cancellation; a cost s/he may not have expected. This is the problem of confusion and hidden costs in the customer transfer process that the CCTS identified in its last few annual reports. Conclusion 19. Eastlink submits that the Commission has taken steps to ensure that Canadian consumers have a uniform and seamless transfer process for telephone service (wireline and wireless), television, and Internet services in all other aspects of the process. And yet wireline telephone, TV and internet subscribers are still often surprised to learn that they must pay their existing provider for an extra 30 days of service if they want to transfer their service to a new provider.

7 20. At the same time, the recent publication and promotion of the Code has established a consumer expectation that 30-day notice requirements have been prohibited. 21. Eastlink submits the only way to avoid unintended fees and confusion for consumers in the customer transfer process is to prohibit 30-day notice requirements across all services. If such action is not taken, consumers will continue to be in a position where they must call their current provider 30 days prior to termination of other telecommunications services to avoid punitive fees. Such an arrangement would negate the Commission s intended benefit of BTRP and TRP As a result, Eastlink requests that 30-day notice requirements be prohibited across all services, such policy to take effect for all consumers immediately upon the Commission s decision on this application. Respectfully, Natalie MacDonald Vice President, Regulatory Matters *** END OF DOCUMENT***