TORONTO and GATINEAU – Rogers Communications wants to know why the CRTC hasn’t included wireless in its look at regulatory symmetry in the telecom world when it comes to the handling of customer cancellations and transfers.
In a letter dated June 30th, the communications giant told the Commission it didn’t make any sense to be looking into so-called regulatory symmetry for broadcasting, telecom and Internet while skipping wireless – and it wants the notice of consultation amended to include the handling of wireless customer transfer requests, too.
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 and force customers to deal first with their existing phone provider before they switch (a significant retention opportunity), which is the case 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.”
What’s puzzling to the folks at Rogers is while the wireless business is far larger than the wireline local or long distance telephone business or the BDU sector (by revenue) that should mean “any proceeding that is considering regulatory symmetry across telecom and broadcasting markets must by definition include the wireless sector in order to be meaningful,” reads its letter.
“Given the size and importance of the wireless market it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss regulatory symmetry across broadcasting and telecommunications services without including wireless,” adds the Rogers letter.
If the scope of the upcoming proceeding isn’t changed, that just might lead to more procedural objections, as happened during a 2009 hearing on a similar issue where certain participants asked that Rogers comments on wireless be expunged from the record, since that proceeding was only to be concerned with the cancellation and transfer of wired local and long distance service.
“The last time Bell asked for this, Rogers supported Bell,” Rogers’ SVP regulatory, Ken Engelhart told Cartt.ca on Monday. “We said we would support it if the same rules apply to wireless. The wireless arrangements are exactly like the wireline so why would they not be included in this process?”
Engelhart says Rogers doesn’t necessarily want to change the way wireless transfers or cancellations are handled via an customer agency right now, but simply believes it makes no sense that the CRTC is looking for a standardized industry customer transfer process without including wireless.
“In order to avoid similar procedural objections in this proceeding, and in order to make discussion of the regulatory symmetry principle meaningful, Rogers requests the Commission to amend its Notice to include wireless services,” concludes the Rogers letter.
The company has not yet received an answer from the Commission, said Engelhart, who added the company might throw its support behind the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which has asked for an extension of the July 23rd deadline for comments.
