GATINEAU – After having been told by CRTC staff on Friday that the Regulator would not consider adding wireless to its look at regulatory symmetry in the telecom world when it comes to the handling of customer cancellations and transfers, Rogers Communications has again pushed the issue back into the lap of the Commission.
In a story on Cartt.ca last week, we told you Rogers wrote the Commission saying it didn’t make any sense to be looking into so-called regulatory symmetry for broadcasting, telecom and Internet while skipping wireless – and that the communications giant wants the notice of consultation on the matter amended to include the handling of wireless customer transfer requests, too.
On Friday, the CRTC’s executive director of broadcasting, Scott Hutton, wrote back, denying both Rogers’ request for including wireless and the Ontario Telecommunications Association’s request for more time (comments into CRTC 2010-406 are due on Friday).
“Commission staff considers that broadening the scope of the proceeding to examine issues related to wireless customer cancellations and transfers would introduce an unacceptable amount of complexity and delay in the Commission’s determination on the matters raised in this proceeding,” reads the CRTC’s letter. “An expeditious resolution by the Commission, particularly as it relates to Shaw’s specific application before the Commission, is required in light of the significant effects on competition and consumer choice. In light of this, an examination of the issues related to customer cancellation and transfers for wireless services will not be dealt with at this time.”
Bell Canada made an application to the Commission in May demanding the same rules be applied to customers who want to switch from cable to Bell’s new, about-to-be-launched IPTV service as those who switch telephone providers from Bell to cable.
Among other things, Bell wants the CRTC to either rescind the rule that allows cable companies to cancel a phone customer’s service when they switch providers (this would force customers to deal first with their existing phone provider before they switch, a significant retention opportunity for the incumbent, and this is how it must be done when customers change TV providers) or the Commission should allow TV competitors like Bell to handle the transfer of new TV accounts in the same way cablecos can with their new phone customers.
The subsequent notice of consultation, CRTC 2010-406 says the Regulator is looking at “regulatory symmetry between measures applicable to telecommunications and broadcasting services for the handling of service cancellation when a customer wishes to transfer from one service provider to another.”
The notice combines Bell’s request with one from Shaw Communications asking whether there is still a need for BDUs to handle third-party cancellation requests through a customer service group.
However, refusing to talk about wireless during a proceeding that is supposed to be about regulatory symmetry in telecom and broadcasting “just makes no sense,” Ken Engelhart, Rogers Communications SVP regulatory told Cartt.ca on Monday.
“If there’s going to be symmetry between cable and telecom, why would there not be symmetry within telecom?” he asked. “I’m mystified.”
Engelhart suggested the Commission could deal with the Shaw application on its own and add wireless to a separate proceeding on Bell’s request – and expand that timeframe for comments. The Commission already amended the Bell request by adding broadband as an item to be considered in 2010-406.
So after pondering it over the weekend, Rogers formally applied to the Commission on Monday to reconsider the staff letter from July 16. “Given the central theme that regulatory symmetry plays in Bell’s application, it is incomprehensible to Rogers why this issue would be excluded from the Commission’s public notice when the application for symmetry came before the Commission for a second time in 2010.
“If it had been added to the public notice this time around, it would not have resulted in any delay. This is even more perplexing given the fact that the Commission decided to add on its own motion the issue of Internet customer transfer procedures which was not raised in either the Bell or Shaw applications,” reads Rogers’ letter.
“Given the size of the wireless market and its importance to consumers, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss regulatory symmetry across broadcasting and telecommunications services without including wireless.
“The fact that the addition of wireless might add to the complexity of the proceeding is not a valid one considering that it already includes local and long distance telephony, Internet and broadcasting services. It is already a complex proceeding and it makes no sense to sacrifice a thorough review of symmetry across all major service sectors, including the largest such sector, for the sake of expediency.”
Stay tuned for the next volley in this match, but from our chair, it really does seem strange to look at regulatory symmetry on customer transfers and cancellations for every service but wireless.
– Greg O’Brien
