Trust by Terry Johnston (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/Hf1p8

Trust by Terry Johnston (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/Hf1p8

Columns

The Canadian Wireless Market and the Big 3: It’s Always Been a Matter of Trust

Fresh off the contentious hearing on the future of television regulation, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission jumped back into the fire last week with a hearing on the wireless market that focused on whether changes are needed to the wholesale market to improve competition.

The Big 3 – Bell, Telus, and Rogers – unsurprisingly opposed new measures, arguing that the Commission should reject the Competition Bureau’s independent finding that there are competition concerns along with the smaller players and consumer groups that support new regulations. Instead, they argue that Canadians can trust that the market is already competitive and that reforms would reduce investment and harm the quality of the networks.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that if that message evokes a sense of déjà vu, perhaps that is because it is seemingly always a matter of trust when it comes to Canadian wireless services.

Trust us, said the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Commission in 2000, when concerns were raised about marketplace competition. “The Canadian wireless market has been competitive from the outset,” assured the industry association.

Trust us, said Rogers Wireless Communications in 2004 as it made the case for merging with Microcell and reducing the number of major wireless competitors from four to three. The merger would leave Canada with only one GSM provider, but it will not substantially lessen or prevent competition, the company claimed.

Trust us, said the wireless carriers in 2006 as the then-new Conservative government acquiesced to telecom lobbying by introducing a new policy direction for the CRTC to rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible. The directive has been invoked each time the CRTC considers new regulatory measures.

Trust us, said the wireless carriers in 2007 when the government began considering a spectrum set-aside to allow for new entrants into the marketplace. Telus maintained that there is no need for a set-aside in “vigorously competitive” market, while Rogers characterized the new entrants as “all-time corporate welfare bums.”

Trust us, said the wireless providers in 2008 when the government considered rules such as tower sharing and domestic roaming agreements alongside the new entrant spectrum set-aside. The companies argued that there was no need for the policy measures, which it said were contrary to reliance on market forces. In 2014, the CRTC concluded that Rogers had for years included unfair clauses in their domestic roaming agreements.

Trust us, said Bell in 2010 when it argued against relaxing foreign investment restrictions in the telecommunications market. The company claimed that there was no problem accessing foreign capital and no need for reforms based on “ill-defined problems.”

Trust us, said the wireless carriers, when concerns about unfair marketing were raised. In 2010, the CRTC settled a major do-not-call case against Bell, with the company agreeing to pay $1.3 million over unauthorized telemarketing calls from independent providers selling Bell services.

Trust us, said the CWTA as provinces began in 2011 to introduce enforceable consumer protection codes for wireless services. A non-binding code of conduct is sufficient, it argued. By 2013, the CRTC had created a national wireless code in response to consumer frustration with lengthy contracts and locked phones.

Trust us, said the wireless carriers, when eyebrows were raised over advertising claims. In 2010, the Competition Bureau brought an action against Rogers over its advertising which led to a federal court ruling that ordered the company to pay $500,000 in penalties over the failure to perform adequate testing to substantiate its claims. Meanwhile, Bell paid a $10 million penalty to the Competition Bureau for misleading advertising in 2011.

Trust us, said the wireless companies when privacy advocates raised fears about the collection and use of customer information. In 2013, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada experienced a major increase in complaints, largely attributed to Bell’s customer monitoring and profiling habits.

For years, the Big 3 have used the same message to consistently oppose new measures aimed at fostering greater competition. With Canadian wireless prices still among the highest in the G7, Canadian consumers hope they can trust the government and CRTC to take action.

11 Comments

  1. Trust us, said the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Commission in 2000

    Trust us, said Rogers Wireless Communications in 2004

    Trust us, said the wireless carriers in 2006

    Trust us, said the wireless carriers in 2007

    Trust us, said the wireless providers in 2008

    Trust us, said Bell in 2010

    Trust us, said the wireless carriers, when concerns about unfair marketing were raised

    Trust us, said the CWTA as provinces began in 2011 to introduce enforceable consumer protection codes for wireless services.

    etc. etc. etc.
    __________

    The First Honest Cable Company

    • James Bliwas says:

      Touché!

    • LOL, I’ve loved this parody ever since I saw it. I really should be running on Canadian TV, just to see what the big 3 would say.

      • What the big 3 would say?

        Well someone had YouTube block this video in Canada for “defamation”.

        The complaint was nonsense and YouTube reinstated access to the video to viewers located in Canada.
        _____

        Headline: ‘First Honest Cable TV Ad’ Banned In Canada By YouTube

        The Huffington Post Canada
        Posted: 09/04/2013

        ‘A video titled “The First Honest Cable Company Ad” went viral last April with its cheeky take on the customer-unfriendly practices of certain U.S. cable providers. But it appears YouTube has pulled the video for viewers in Canada “due to a defamation complaint.”

        ‘The censored video raises some interesting questions, such as: Who is trying to stop Canadians from watching parodies of the U.S. cable industry? And why would a U.S.-made parody of U.S cable companies be defamatory in Canada, but not the U.S.?’

        ‘But it does seem to fit a pattern of Canadian institutions using copyright and defamation arguments in efforts to censor online content.’

        ‘Just last week, it emerged that Alberta Tourism was behind a complaint that pulled an anti-oil sands video from YouTube in Canada.’

        http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/04/anti-telecom-ad-banned-canada_n_3868963.html
        _____

        How pathetic is that?

  2. Yes, we trusted them so much Canada ended up with the world’s highest prices for cable, internet and wireless service. Feh!

  3. Mr. Geist, in fairness you should acknowledge that the big 3 were the only ones saying “trust us”. There were a host of regional and smaller players saying the same thing, they include SaskTel. MTS, Wind, Mobilicity, Videotron, Cogeco, Ting and many more.

    In fact, most of the participants were saying “you can trust me, but the other guys can’t be trusted so please regulate them.”

    It would be an interesting exercise for the CRTC to calculate the costs to Canadian taxpayers and consumers of layering additional regulation on the wireless sector. Sure, there would be the direct costs of hiring legions of lawyers and policy analysts to support the regulatory effort at the CRTC but all those companies would have to beef up their regulatory departments as well. Those incremental costs would all eventually flow through to higher wireless prices for consumers. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

  4. Correcting my previous post – I missed a “NOT” in the first sentence.

    Mr. Geist, in fairness you should acknowledge that the big 3 were NOT the only ones saying “trust us”. There were a host of regional and smaller players saying the same thing, they include SaskTel. MTS, Wind, Mobilicity, Videotron, Cogeco, Ting and many more.

    In fact, most of the participants were saying “you can trust me, but the other guys can’t be trusted so please regulate them.”

    It would be an interesting exercise for the CRTC to calculate the costs to Canadian taxpayers and consumers of layering additional regulation on the wireless sector. Sure, there would be the direct costs of hiring legions of lawyers and policy analysts to support the regulatory effort at the CRTC but all those companies would have to beef up their regulatory departments as well. Those incremental costs would all eventually flow through to higher wireless prices for consumers. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

  5. I trust the big 3..trust that if things don’t change they will continue to rape Canadians!

  6. Mr. Skungeous says:

    “Rogers characterized the new entrants as “all-time corporate welfare bums.”

    More ironic words have never been spoken.

  7. Pingback: The Canadian Wireless Market In A Matter of Trust | STP Canada

  8. Trust is earned, not given, and they haven’t done anything to earn my trust.