boycott by Martin Abegglen (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/4L7rjh

boycott by Martin Abegglen (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/4L7rjh

News

Boycott: What If The CRTC Launched a Consumer Internet Code and Consumer Groups Refused to Participate in its Development?

Last month, the CRTC announced plans to create an Internet Code of Conduct. The CRTC promised that the code would establish “consumer friendly business practices, provide consumers with easy-to-understand contracts, ensure consumers have tools to avoid bill shock, and make it easier for consumers to switch providers.” The code attracted some initial criticism due to the wide range of exclusions – everything from net neutrality to privacy to broadband speeds falls outside its scope – but in recent days an even bigger concern has emerged with several leading Canadian consumer groups actively boycotting the proceeding.

Soon after the launch of the proceeding, groups filed a request with the CRTC for an extension in the deadline for comments. The Commission announced the plan on November 8th and said that all comments were due by December 19th. The tight timeline would be challenging under any circumstances, but when coupled with the current Broadcasting and Telecom Legislative Review (original deadline of December 10th, extended to January 11, 2019) and the CRTC inquiry into misleading or aggressive telecom practices, consumer groups feared that they could not effectively participate in the proceeding.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre wrote to the CRTC immediately after the announcement to request that the Commission delay the proceeding until after completion of the sales practices inquiry. In practice, that would mean moving the comment period to April 2019. The PIAC request was supported by several groups, including the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, Union des consommateurs, CNOC, the Consumers’ Association of Canada – Manitoba Branch, and the Canadian Association of the Deaf. The CRTC denied the request, concluding that 40 days (which includes weekends) was sufficient time to provide comments regardless of other activities.

The CRTC denial has sparked a groundswell of opposition from consumer groups with many announcing that they will boycott or not participate in the CRTC proceeding (PIAC, FRPC, Concordia University’s ACT, and the Consumers’ Association of Canada – Manitoba Branch, CIPPIC, Open Media). In addition, I am advised that others will speaking out against the Commission approach in the coming days. The boycott has resulted in an odd dynamic in which the CRTC professes to establish a consumer-oriented Internet code yet it simultaneously effectively excludes consumers from actively participating in its development.

The message from consumer groups is clear. Despite a near-overwhelming power imbalance and scarce resources, the groups keep coming back to CRTC proceedings in the hope of injecting missing perspectives, data, and analysis. But those efforts take time and the Commission’s determination to place the Internet code on a rocket docket without reference to other initiatives is incompatible with developing high quality submissions. Unfortunately, the CRTC’s message seems equally clear. For the current Commission, the consultation process is little more than theatre, a box-ticking exercise in which the importance of a diversity of voices takes a back seat to a desire to justify decisions by claiming that “everyone had their chance” to participate.

The public interest community frustration with CRTC Chair Ian Scott has been mounting over the past year with delays in cost awards, the denial of new wireless competition through mandated MVNOs, doubts about net neutrality, disappointing Internet service targets, and Commission calls for new Internet taxes. However, the rush to establish a consumer Internet code that will not include many notable consumer voices sends a signal of a Commission badly out-of-touch with consumer concerns and out-of-step with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains’ priorities for the sector.

6 Comments

  1. With the CRTC always appearing to be in bed with bell and roger’s what’s the point anyway? We all know it’s just for show and they could not care less as history has proven.

  2. Turn up. Bring a “Motion of no confidence”. Vote in favour of the motion. Leave regardless of the vote outcome, pausing only to suggest that others do the same.

  3. it was very useful thanks …

  4. Marnie McCall says:

    So nothing new. Back when I was Executive Director of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, we developed a stock answer when these far too short deadlines were provided for public input. We responded with a polite letter thanking whoever it was for inviting us to participate, explaining our internal consultation procedure, which took a minimum of 30 days and typically around 60 days, and declining to participate in any process with a deadline of less than 60 days. If there were a developed position on the topic at hand, we would provide that and indicate that we were willing to answer questions on it. I left CAC in 1998 am heartily disappointed to learn that nothing has changed. I am, however, very heartened to hear that consumer organizations and other organizations that represent consumers or the public interest, such as PIAC and CIPPIC, are taking a stand and collectively refusing to participate in what is clearly window-dressing meant to allow the CRTC (in this case) to check off the box that says “consumers consulted.”

  5. This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*