www.ccts-cprst.ca | [email protected] | 1-888-221-1687 CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Table of Contents 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

one Message from the Chair of the Board of Directors ...... 3 two Message from the Commissioner ...... 4 three Who We Are and What We Do ...... 5 Our Mandate ...... 5 Our Complaints Process ...... 6 four 2009–2010 Highlights – The Year in Review ...... 8 Financial Highlights ...... 10 five Participating Service Providers (as of 31 July 2010) ...... 11 six Statistics ...... 12 Definitions ...... 12 How Consumers Contacted Us ...... 13 Aggregate Data (August 1, 2009 – July 31, 2010) ...... 14 Contacts – Participating Service Providers – Outside of Mandate ...... 15 Contacts – Non-Participating Service Providers ...... 15 Nature of Complaints ...... 16 Complaints by Type of Service ...... 17 Summary of Complaints by Service Provider (2009–2010) ...... 18 Nature of Complaints by Service Provider (2009–2010) ...... 21 CCTS Website Traffic ...... 24 Complaints by Province and Territory (2009–2010) ...... 25 seven Topics and Trends ...... 26 Understand Your Telecom Contract ...... 26 Case Study #1 ...... 27 Case Study #2 ...... 27 Case Study #3 ...... 28 Number Portability – Sometimes Not as Easy as it Looks ...... 29 Case Study #1 ...... 29 Case Study #2 ...... 30 Number Portability – There’s A Catch! ...... 30 Premium Text Messages (Short Codes) ...... 31 eight Our Board of Directors ...... 33 Independent Directors ...... 33 Industry Directors ...... 33 nine Director Biographies ...... 34 ten How to Contact Us ...... 36 CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Message from the Chair of the Board of Directors 3

ONE MESSAgE FROM THE CHAiR OF THE BOARD OF DiRECTORS, MARY M. gUSELLA

On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am pleased to describes the rights and responsibilities of providers and present the third annual report of CCTS, an agency that customers in relation to deposits and disconnections . provides consumers of telecommunications services in Despite considerable work and consultations with Canada with recourse for the independent resolution of consumer groups and industry participants, it was their complaints . This report covers the second year since not possible to achieve agreement on such a Code . the appointment of the permanent Board of Directors in Nevertheless, the exercise proved a valuable one in June 2008 . assessing CCTS’s capacity to undertake this new kind of role, in addition to its central dispute resolution role . As outlined in this report, the number of communications from consumers has risen 150% over the past year . The Finally, when CCTS was created by CRTC Decision in number of complaints received and resolved has also December 2007, the Commission promised a “three-year increased substantially . The public awareness campaign review,” which is now upon us . On April 30, 2010, the launched in cooperation with participating service Commission commenced a public proceeding to review providers is helping consumers to learn about CCTS all aspects of CCTS operations, including an assessment and how to contact us, especially when they discover a of the effectiveness of CCTS and a determination of problem or concern . We intend to continue our efforts to whether to continue the requirement for mandatory achieve greater consumer awareness of our organization . membership of certain service providers . In June a number of interested parties provided written comments, At the outset the Board recognized that the Procedural including providers and consumer groups . Despite the Code required reform in order to promote timely, widely divergent views among stakeholders about so effective resolution of complaints, many telecommunications and so launched a Board-led issues, we were pleased review of the Code to identify that the comments were opportunities for streamlining its we intend to continue supportive of the effectiveness complaint handling processes . our efforts to achieve of CCTS in its main area of Revisions to the Procedural Code operations: dispute resolution . were approved by the Board in greater consumer A public hearing will be held in April 2010 and went into effect awareness of our November 2010 with a decision June 1, 2010 . organization. expected in late December . This will be a seminal moment CCTS represents a new dispute in our brief history . resolution model that operates in the public interest yet outside government processes and We are proud of our achievements to date, and we without government funding . The governance of such a are also mindful of the amount of work that lies ahead . stakeholder-led and industry-funded organization is vital As noted above, the Board of Directors approved a to its success . Accordingly, the CCTS Board established formal expression of our Mission, Vision and Values . a Governance Committee that has been working over the Our Mission is to provide outstanding dispute resolution past year to construct its governance infrastructure . The services to Canadian consumers and telecom providers, Board of Directors also conducted a strategic planning and we hope to continue to pursue this goal with vigour exercise and, in December 2009, confirmed CCTS’s and professionalism . Mission, Vision and Values .

Other highlights of the year include the Board’s acceptance in February 2010 of a request from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to work with its participating service providers to develop an industry Code of Conduct that CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Message from the Commissioner 4

TWO MESSAgE FROM THE COMMiSSiONER, HOWARD MAkER

in the year just concluded, we focused on two specific including our contact information, available to customers objectives: to improve the service we provide to consumers on their websites and in their “white pages” directories . and service providers, and to broaden consumer awareness about the availability of our service . We In order to further enhance consumer accessibility to CCTS, succeeded this year on both counts . It is tempting to say effective June 1, 2010 our Board of Directors adopted some that we “accomplished” these objectives . But these are not amendments to our Procedural Code, the document that objectives that can be “accomplished .” That term implies describes our mandate and the extent of our authority to a goal that can be completed and ticked off the list . These resolve disputes . We clarified some language and made objectives do not fit that category . We can (and should) some changes designed to enhance the readability of always strive to improve what we do and how we do it . the Code, its inclusiveness and its tone . In particular, we amended the standard of review to provide CCTS with some Likewise, organizations like ours face unique challenges additional tools to assist us in dealing with complaints . in ensuring that consumers know about us and how we can help them . But I am pleased to say that we have made For the first time, over half of the complaints we accepted great strides towards meeting these objectives . dealt with one line of business: wireless services . We received more than twice as many complaints about In early 2010 we launched our new website, complete with wireless as we did for any other line of business . This our new logo and new tagline, “Let’s Talk Solutions .” Our should not really be a surprise . The wireless business has focus on complaint resolution whenever possible has met the highest rate of growth, the greatest pace of change, and with a very positive response from both customers and the greatest degree of complexity–at least at a retail level . service providers . It has also allowed us to resolve more With the recent launch of new wireless service providers, complaints, and to do so more quickly . In 2009–2010 we and the anticipated entry of even more carriers in the near received 3,747 complaints (16% more than last year) and future, we can expect this trend to continue . processed 3,522 of them—an increase of over 500 from the year before . This means that we completed 94% of We are heading into a review by the Canadian Radio- the work that came to us, an enviable rate . Of the 3,522 television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) files we handled to conclusion, we achieved a resolution this fall . We are hopeful that the CRTC will agree that we satisfactory to both parties in 84% of cases, of which are fulfilling the objectives described first in the report roughly 65% took place within 30 days . of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel, then in an Order-In-Council (P .C . 2007-533), and finally in two We redesigned our website to allow consumers to learn CRTC Decisions (2007-130 and 2008-46) – specifically more about us . We rewrote all of the content, and added to bring independent, impartial and effective dispute new content, in an effort to provide consumers with resolution services to consumers in the unregulated relevant information about us . We also improved our online telecommunications sector . complaint form, to make it even easier for customers to file their complaints . I offer my sincere thanks to the members of our Board of Directors, and in particular our Chair, Mary Gusella, for Our participating service providers are also doing their part their consistent and unwavering support . And I conclude to raise our public profile . The most effective measure has with a note about our staff . We insist that our employees been the biannual bill messages that the providers are bring special attributes to the organization—an interest in using to inform their customers about CCTS . Large spikes telecom, a desire to work with people, and a passion for in the number of calls received by our call centre coincided fairness . I can say without fear of contradiction that the with the issuance of these messages by the larger members of our staff have distinguished themselves this providers . Although not all of these callers had a complaint year by providing superb service to our customers . It is their to make, in every case we took the opportunity to inform efforts, above all, to which the success of CCTS this year them about our role . In addition to the bill messages, the should be credited . Thank you for all of your work on behalf providers agreed to make prescribed information about us, of our customers . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Who We Are and What We Do 5

ThrEE WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO

CCTS is an independent organization dedicated to working with consumer and small business customers and participating Canadian telecommunication service providers to resolve complaints relating to most deregulated retail telecommunications services . We strive to assist customers and service providers in an independent, fair, effective and efficient manner, after direct communication between a customer and a service provider has proven ineffective . OUR MANDATE

We are able to assist customers with a wide range of complaints about products and services offered in the telecommunications sector including:

Long Distance telephone services Home Telephone (including prepaid calling cards)

Wired and wireless internet Wireless services access services (including voice, data, and text)

White page directories, Directory assistance, and Operator services

We are able to assist with most types of problems that can arise between a customer and his or her service provider, including:

Compliance with contract terms and commitments – for example, complaints about whether there is a contract, what is included in a contract or how the contract should be interpreted, or whether the provider’s conduct meets its contractual obligations, or misunderstandings about the particu- lars of a contract or term;

Billing disputes and errors – for example, complaints about customers having agreed to one price and subsequently being charged more, being overcharged due to either a billing system error or a price that is different than advertised, or being billed for per-use services that they claim they did not use;

Service delivery – for example, complaints about the installation, repair or disconnection of service, including the quality of the service or unreasonable interruptions to service;

Credit management – for example, complaints about security deposits, payment arrangements and collections treatment of customer accounts; and,

Unauthorized transfer of service (“slamming”) – for example, complaints about a customer’s service being transferred from one provider to another without the customer’s consent.

A few services and issues are excluded from our mandate . Please see www .ccts-cprst .ca/en/complaints/mandate for full details . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Who We Are and What We Do 6

OUR COMPLAiNTS PROCESS we are always examining our complaint handling 4 recommendation process to ensure that it is thorough, fair and efficient. our process works like this: Upon completing an investigation, we can make a written Recommendation for the resolution of the complaint, 1 Assessment based on our analysis of its merits . We may recommend that the service provider take some action or refrain from When we receive a complaint, we review it to determine taking some action (for example, correction of a billing whether it falls within our mandate . If so, we forward error, connection or disconnection of service, waiver a copy to the service provider . We ask it to attempt to of charges, collections activity) . Or perhaps something resolve the matter with the customer and report back to simple, like an apology or an explanation, may provide us within 30 days . the necessary redress . We may also recommend that the service provider make a payment to the customer When the service provider responds, we evaluate the as compensation for any loss, damage or inconvenience response and determine whether the complaint has been suffered by the customer arising directly from the facts resolved to the satisfaction of the customer . This is the disclosed by the complaint (to a maximum of $5,000) . stage at which the majority of complaints are resolved . Our process provides both the customer and the service When a complaint remains unresolved we will assess its provider with some time to consider the Recommendation complexity, the amount of additional information that may and determine whether to accept or reject it . be required, and the likelihood of successfully resolving the matter informally . 5 Decision

2 resolution If either the customer or the service provider rejects the Recommendation, we ask them to explain why so Complaints that appear to be amenable to informal that we can reconsider the Recommendation in light resolution are assigned to a member of our staff who will of their continuing concerns . We will consider the work with the customer and the service provider to arrive reasons for rejecting the Recommendation, and then at a prompt resolution of the dispute . We will normally issue a Decision . In the Decision, the Commissioner request additional information and documentation from may maintain the Recommendation, or may modify or both parties to effectively “mediate” a resolution . Many of change it if he concludes that there is substantial doubt these complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of both as to the correctness of the original Recommendation . parties at this stage . If the Decision is accepted by the customer, it becomes binding on the service provider and must be 3 investigation implemented . However, the customer is entitled to reject the Decision . If the customer does so, the service Complaints that raise particularly challenging issues or provider is not required to carry it out, and the customer are otherwise especially complex will be investigated . retains all of the usual legal rights and remedies and is During an investigation, we will request additional free to pursue them . information or documentation from one or both parties to help determine whether the service provider reasonably performed its obligations pursuant to the terms of the contract between it and the customer . Throughout the investigation, we may also attempt to informally mediate a resolution of the dispute .

A complaint can be rejected or dismissed at any stage of the investigation/resolution process should we determine that the provider acted reasonably in fulfilling its obligations under the contract, or that it has taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint, even if this resolution is not acceptable to the customer . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Who We Are and What We Do 7

COMPLAiNT PROCESS FLOW CHART

The flow chart below shows the stages of our complaint-handling process .

Customer submits ComplAint

insufficient information Complaint Out of Scope Key information missing from ASSESSMENT Complaint outside of mandate complaint, file on hold until CCTS determines whether complaint is in mandate. and referred to appropriate customer responds. organization where possible.

Complaint Resolved Complaint Accepted Complaint resolved between Complaint forwarded to the provider which has customer and provider after 30 days to respond. CCTS involvement.

Complaint Closed RESOLUTiON Complaint Resolved Service provider made a Complaint remains unresolved. CCTS collects CCTS successfully “mediates” reasonable offer or clear that information from both parties and attempts an informal resolution. provider met its obligations informal resolution. to the customer.

Complaint Closed Complaint Resolved iNVESTigATiON Analysis of evidence Analysis of evidence facilitates Complaint remains unresolved. CCTS analyzes demonstrates provider met resolution of complaint. evidence provided. its obligation or reasonable offer is made.

Recommendation Accepted RECOMMENDATiON Both customer and Complaint cannot be resolved and no basis for service provider accept closure. CCTS issues recommendation to parties recommendation. proposing resolution.

Decision rejected Decision accepted DECiSiON Customer rejects Decision Customer accepts Decision One or both parties rejects the recommendation. and is free to pursue other and service provider is bound CCTS issues a Decision. remedies. Service provider to implement its terms. released from Decision. CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 2009–2010 Highlights – The Year in Review 8

FOUr 2009–2010 HigHLigHTS – THE YEAR iN REViEW

successful implementation of public awareness plan, including our new and improved website and online complaint tool

This year we put into place a public awareness program electronically and in hard copy to every sitting member of designed to inform consumers about CCTS and make federal, provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as it easier to communicate with us . To that end, we to Service Canada and the Office of Consumer Affairs . completely rebuilt our website . We rewrote the existing content and added new content, designed to offer Our participating service providers have placed information to consumers about all aspects of CCTS . prescribed information about CCTS in their “white pages” We improved our online complaint form and process directories, biannually on their customer bills, and also so that customers can easily get their complaints and on their websites, describing the availability of CCTS and related documentation to us quickly and securely . And how we can be reached . They have also placed on their we completely re-styled the site to make it more visually sites the details of their internal complaint-handling appealing and user-friendly . processes, in order that customers can follow the progress of their complaint within the company . We are also attempting to increase awareness by providing CCTS information to other parties to which Raising public awareness is a full-time job, and consumers may turn with telecommunications we are committed to continuing our efforts in this complaints . We created a brochure and delivered it both important objective .

more consumers can access CCts service—over 90 service providers and brands now participate

This year we have seen additional providers join CCTS . The number of Canadian consumers who have access to We list on our website all of the names and brands our services continues to grow . they use to deliver products and services to Canadians (www .ccts-cprst .ca/en/complaints/service-providers) .

our statistics demonstrate the effectiveness of our public awareness initiatives and the efficiency of our processes

• The number of public contacts we received increased • The number of complaints we accepted increased by over 150%—this is largely a result of the providers’ by over 16%—we did not expand our mandate, so bill messages, which caused a dramatic increase in the this represents more customers making use of number of telephone calls received from consumers . the process . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 2009–2010 Highlights – The Year in Review 9

• The number of complaints we handled in the year • Of those completed later in the process at the increased by over 17% . “Investigation” stage, over 66% were informally resolved to the satisfaction of the customer and • 94% of complaints we received were fully processed this provider through the efforts of CCTS staff . year . Improvements in the efficiency of our processes • Of the 22 formal Recommendations we issued, 18 (82%) and the addition of staff have allowed us to handle more were accepted by both parties . We were required to complaints than last year and to more promptly process issue only 4 Decisions . This rate of acceptance of our complaints received . Recommendations shows that consumers and providers respect the fairness and independence of the process • Of the 3,522 complaints processed, 84% were resolved and the outcomes . between the parties after the complaint came to CCTS . Over 65% were resolved promptly at the first stage, usually within 30 days .

CCts staff grows in order to accommodate the increased volume of calls and complaints – leased additional office space

This year we added 4 call centre agents and two additional office space contiguous to our existing space, Complaints Resolution Officers to our staff . In and our Board authorized the expenditure . mid-year we were presented with the opportunity to lease

Amended procedural Code

Our Procedural Code governs the way in which we deal • The “standard of review” that we apply when with complaints . Effective June 1, 2010 we made a investigating complaints is whether the service number of changes to the Code designed to make it more provider reasonably performed its obligations under inclusive and accessible to consumers, to make it more the contract with the customer . However, amendments balanced in tone and content, to simplify certain timelines have been made to specifically authorize CCTS to and to clarify and define the meaning of certain terms . consider whether the service provider followed This is a very important accomplishment . its usual policies and operating procedures in its dealings with the customer . In addition, in cases in Among the most noteworthy changes are: which we determine that no contractual agreement was reached, or the contract is silent, unclear or • The amendments now formally reflect that CCTS ambiguous, CCTS is now specifically authorized to will use informal resolution processes to address consider general principles of law, good industry complaints, while retaining the more formal procedures practice, relevant codes of conduct or practice, and for those exceptional cases that require them . “what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint .”

Customized ADr training

We retained a well-respected firm with expertise in with their complaint-handling and dispute resolution alternative dispute resolution to customize and deliver roles most effectively, efficiently and professionally . The a training program to all CCTS staff . The objective was program was delivered over 2 days in May 2010, and was to provide our staff with the tools and resources to deal extremely well-received . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 2009–2010 Highlights – The Year in Review 10

Case management system upgrade

Our current case management system prevents us from We are currently negotiating with IT vendors to perform performing the kind of statistical analysis that we would an upgrade of our system to enhance its capacities . We like to do . We believe that our effectiveness would be are hopeful that this will be complete by the time of our enhanced by being able to provide more specific data next Annual Report . about the different services, and the unique complaint issues that arise with respect to each of them, as well as the ones that are common to all of them .

new funding formula

Starting in the third quarter of 2009–2010, we modified The main objective of this change is to require the the formula by which the participating service providers providers that generate most of the complaints to fund fund our operations . We have put in place a new “hybrid” most of the operations . We are hopeful that this will formula that includes both: have the effect of encouraging providers to resolve more of their complaints “in house” in hopes of avoiding the a . a fee based on the revenues generated by each additional cost of having them come to CCTS . provider from deregulated retail telecommunications services (as a proportion of the revenues generated by all participating service providers); and b . a fee which each provider pays based on the number of complaints CCTS receives from its customers .

FiNANCiAL HigHLigHTS

The CCTS budget for 2009–2010 was approximately • the expansion of our office space to accommodate the $2 .1 million, compared to the $1 .9 million collected from staff growth made necessary by the increased number participating service providers in 2008–2009 . In addition to of contacts and complaints; our normal operating and governance expenses, specific • customized training for our staff in techniques of budgetary allocations were made for projects that our alternative dispute resolution; and Board of Directors felt to be of primary importance: • consulting fees related to the formalization of our • our public awareness activities, including the redesign human resources infrastructure and our finance of our website and online complaint tool, and the functions, and related to our efforts to develop a wide distribution of our communications materials Code of Conduct for deposits and disconnections, to individuals and organizations to whom dissatisfied as requested by the CRTC . consumers might reach out, including elected officials and government; CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Participating Service Providers (as of 31 July 2010) 11

FIVE PARTiCiPATiNg SERViCE PROViDERS (AS OF 31 JULY 2010)

Below is an alphabetical list of our participating service providers and the many brand names by which they are known . Complaints about services provided under any of these names are eligible for our complaint service .

1010580 Delta Cable Phonetime 3Web Distributel Premiere Conferencing Canada 450Tel Dryden Mobility Premiere Global Services 768812 Ontario Inc . Eastlink Primus À dimension humaine ENMAX Quinte Long Distance Access Communications Envision Rogers All Communications Network of ExaTEL SaskTel Canada (ACN Canada) Execulink Sears Connect AmericaTel Fido Shaw Amtelecom Galilée Simcoe County Long Distance Atria Networks Global Crossing Telecommunications Sogetel Bay Communications Canada Solo Bell Aliant Globalive Communications Speak Telecom Bell Canada Globalstar Startec Blink Communications Globility Communications Straight of Canso Cable BMI Internet Group of Gold Line Tata Communications Bragg Communications Halifax Cablevision TBayTel Bruce Municipal Telephone System K-Right Communications Télébec Bruce Telecom Koodo Telehop Cablevision du nord du Québec Le pigeon voyageur Telizon Call Select LooneyCall TELUS Canada Direct LuckyCall TeraGo Networks Canada Payphone Corporation MCI Canada Uniserve Canopco Mountain Cablevision Vancouver Telephone Company Caztel MTS Allstream Verizon Canada CDTel Net Reach Vianet Internet Solutions Cheetah NorthernTel Videotron Ltd . Cityfone Telecommunications Northwestel Virgin Mobile Canada Coast Cable OneConnect Services Vonage Canada Cogeco Ontera Win-tel Cogeco Data Services Opcom Hospitality Solutions WIND Mobile Cogent Canada People’s Tel GP Yak Communications Cybersurf Internet Access Persona Communications CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 12

SIx STATiSTiCS

We are pleased to present our statistics for 2009–2010, provided below on an aggregate basis as well as on a provider-specific basis .

DEFiNiTiONS in order to fully understand the data being provided, familiarity with the terminology that we use is essential. in particular, it is important to understand how we define “Contact,” “Complaint,” “resolved,” “Closed,” “recommendation,” and “Decision.” these terms are presented in the order in which they arise during our process and the order in which they appear in our statistics.

Contact A contact is any communication by a member of the public with CCTS by phone, fax, mail, email or web form, as long as the communication does not relate to a complaint that we have already accepted . A contact that escalates into a complaint is still considered a contact .

Complaint A complaint that we have received, reviewed and found to be within our mandate .

Resolved The complaint was informally resolved with the assistance of a CCTS team member to the satisfaction of both the customer and the participating service provider .

Closed The complaint was fully investigated and subsequently closed . A complaint may be closed for different reasons, including: • The service provider has corrected the problem and/or provided the customer with some form of redress or compensation; • The service provider has made an offer to resolve the complaint that we think is fair and reasonable in light of the specific circumstances of the complaint; • The complaint was found to be without merit; or • The complaint should more properly be brought before another agency, tribunal or court .

Recommendation The complaint was fully investigated . Often, the service provider has not made an offer to informally resolve the complaint, or the offer is not found to be reasonable and fair in the light of the specific circumstances of the complaint . As such, CCTS will make a written Recommendation that the provider take specific steps to resolve the matter .

Decision A Decision is issued if either the customer or the service provider rejects the Recommendation . The party rejecting the Recommendation must set out its reasons and the Commissioner will reconsider the Recommendation and issue a Decision . The Commissioner may confirm the original Recommendation or, if the Commissioner concludes that there is substantial doubt as to its correctness, he may modify the Recommendation as appropriate . A Decision is binding on the service provider, but not on the customer . The customer may reject it and pursue other remedies .

CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 13

How ConSumeRS ConTACTed uS

In 2009–2010, customers often chose to contact us by We can take complaints by telephone, in particular telephone (74.4%), frequently to discuss CCTS’s mandate, from customers who require this service. However, it to obtain information or to discuss a possible complaint. is generally more effective, for all parties, to submit a Although many customers contacted us by telephone, complaint in writing as it ensures that we capture all of the vast majority of complaints were received in writing. the required information.

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

Webform 16.5% Phone 74.4% 1,000 Mail 1.6% Fax 0.3%

0 Email 7.1%

Oct. 09 Jan. 10 Apr. 10 Aug. 09 Sept. 09 Nov. 09 Dec. 09 Feb. 10 Mar. 10 May. 10June. 10 July. 10

TESTIMONIAL “ Keep up the good work. We need an organization like yours especially for an ordinary consumer like me.” —R. P., A long dISTAnCe CuSTomeR CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 14

AggREgATE DATA (AUgUST 1, 2009 – JUly 31, 2010)

The following table shows the number of contacts we received and the number of complaints that we accepted, as well as the number we dealt with at the various stages of our complaint process . The table also breaks down the number of complaints handled this year, the stage at which they were completed, and the nature of their disposition .

2008–2009 2009–2010 number of new ContACts 17,407 43,609

number of ComplAints openeD 3,214 3,747 pre-investigAtion Dispositions

Complaints resolved following CCTS involvement 1,968 2,297

Complaints closed before investigation level 239 225 investigAtions

Complaints moved to Investigation 1,004 1,151

Complaints resolved at Investigation 427 663

Complaints closed at Investigation 321 312 reCommenDAtions

Recommendations issued 48 25

Recommendations accepted 31 18

Recommendations rejected 6 4

DeCisions

Decisions issued 6 4

Decisions accepted 5 4

Decisions rejected 1 0 CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 15

CONTACTS – PArTICIPATINg SErVICE PrOVIDErS – OUTSIDE OF MANDATE

Of the 43,609 contacts we received in 2009–2010, 9,320 contacts about participating service providers were determined to be outside of our mandate because the subject matter of the complaint is excluded by our Procedural Code . Because they were out of mandate, they could not become complaints . They break down as follows:

Customer service 610

Misleading advertisement 60

Outsourcing of calls 25

Pricing 382

Service out of scope (e.g. television) 828

Telemarketing 335

Service provider’s general policies 848

Other 6,232 totAl out of mAnDAte 9,320

CONTACTS – NON-PArTICIPATINg SErVICE PrOVIDErS

Of the 43,609 contacts we received in 2009–2010, 1,621 contacts were about service providers that did not participate in CCTS . We track these statistics in order to provide stakeholders with a sense of the number of consumers we could not assist because their service provider does not participate in CCTS . Below is a summary of the issues raised in these contacts .

ContACts % of totAl ContACts subjeCt mAtter within mAnDAte 177 10.9%

Billing error 83 5.1%

Contract dispute 30 1.9%

Service delivery (installation, repair and maintenance) 34 2.1%

Unauthorized transfer of service (slamming) 2 0.1%

Other: in scope 28 1.7% subjeCt mAtter outsiDe of mAnDAte 824 50.9% subjeCt mAtter not proviDeD 620 38.2% totAl 1,621 100% CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 16

NATURE OF COMPLAiNTS

Almost 80% of the complaints that we accepted in 2009–2010 were either about a contract dispute or a billing error . The 3,747 complaints that we accepted this year fall into the following categories:

Billing error 44%

Contract dispute 35%

Service delivery (installation, repair and maintenance) 18%

Unauthorized transfer of service (slamming) 3%

totAl 100%

nature of Complaints

Unauthorized transfer Billing error of service (slamming) 44% 3%

Service delivery (installation, repair and maintenance) 18%

Contract dispute 35%

testimoniAl “ Thank you very much . I do not know what I would have done without you the mediator because nothing I did myself made any difference .” —A .R ., AN INTERNET CUSTOMER CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 17

COMPLAiNTS BY TYPE OF SERViCE

There were significantly more complaints regarding wireless services this year than in 2008–2009 . serviCe type 2008–2009 2009–2010

Wireless services 38.01% 51.7% local exchange and VOIP 23.74% 23.7%

Internet access 16.52% 15.2% long distance 16.38% 8.3%

Other 5.35% 1.1% totAl 100.00% 100.0%

Complaints by type of service

Wireless services 51.7% Directory assistance 0.1%

White page directories 0.2%

Operator 0.8% long distance 8.3%

Other 1.1% Internet access 15.2% local exchange and VOIP 23.7%

testimoniAl “ CCTS was extremely helpful, and I am extremely grateful . If it weren’t for CCTS this problem would still be ongoing .” —J .A ., A HOME PHONE CUSTOMER CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 18

SUMMARY OF COMPLAiNTS BY SERViCE PROViDER (2009–2010)

In 2008–2009, we reported complaints by the “TSP (Telecommunications Service Provider) Member” to which they were attributable . Many service providers offer services under multiple brand names . This year, we have chosen to report the number of complaints that we received using the company name as selected by the customer, and we have expanded the list to include all of the brand names under which our participating providers offer services . Issued Closed Closed rejected resolved resolved Accepted Decisions Issued recommendations recommendations recommendations recommendations Decisions rejected Decisions Accepted Complaints Accepted Moved to Investigation to Moved

pre- provider investigations recommendations Decisions investigations

1010580 6 5 0100000000 3Web 4 0 1100000000 450Tel 1 0 1010000000 768812 Ontario Inc. 1 0 0100000000 À dimension humaine 0 0 0000000000 Access Communications Inc. 0 0 0000000000 ACN Canada 56 15 1 24 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Americatel 6 1 0411000000 Amtelecom Telco gP Inc. 0 0 0000000000 Atria Networks 0 0 0000000000 Bay Communications Inc. 0 0 0000000000 Bell Aliant regional Communications lP 46 23 1 18 8 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 Bell Canada 1,428 808 72 544 242 170 17 11 2 2 2 0 Blink Communications 0 0 0000000000 BMI Internet 0 0 0000000000 Bragg Communications Inc. 0 0 0000000000 Bruce Municipal Telephone System 0 0 0000000000 Bruce Telecom 0 0 0000000000 Cablevision du nord du Québec 0 0 0000000000 Call Select 0 0 0000000000 Canada Direct 0 0 0000000000 Canada Payphone Corporation 0 0 0000000000 Canopco 18 5 1 12 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caztel 0 0 0000000000 CD Tel 1 0 1000000000 Cheetah 0 0 0000000000 Cityfone 3 1 0211000000 Coast Cable 0 0 0000000000 Cogeco 20 14 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cogeco Data Services 0 0 0000000000 Cogent Canada 0 0 0 000 000000 Cybersurf Internet Access 6 2 0300000000 CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 19 Issued Closed Closed rejected resolved resolved Accepted Decisions Issued recommendations recommendations recommendations recommendations Decisions rejected Decisions Accepted Complaints Accepted Moved to Investigation to Moved

pre- provider investigations recommendations Decisions investigations

Delta Cable 2 0 1100000000 Distributel Communications 136 0435000000 Dryden Mobility 0 0 0000000000 Eastlink 6 2 1121000000 ENMAx 0 0 0000000000 Envision 0 0 0000000000 ExaTEl Inc. 0 0 0000000000 Execulink 0 0 0000000000 Fido 242 177 17 46 41 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 galilée 0 0 0000000000 global Crossing Telecommunications Canada ltd00 0000000000 globalive Communications Corp. 0 0 0011000000 globalstar 1 0 0110000000 globility Communications Corp. 0 0 0000000000 group of gold line 1 0 0100000000 halifax Cablevision ltd. 0 0 0000000000 K-right Communications Inc. 0 0 0000000000 Koodo 59 43 1 19 6 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 le pigeon voyageur 0 0 0000000000 looneyCall 0 0 0000000000 luckyCall 0 0 0000000000 MCI Canada 0 0 1000000000 Mountain Cablevision limited 0 0 0000000000 MTS Allstream Inc. 28 16 1 4 5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Net reach 0 0 0000000000 Northern Tel 2 1 0102000000 Northwestel 2 0 0100000000 OneConnect Services Inc. 0 0 0000000000 Ontera 9 1 4310000000 Opcom hospitality Solutions Inc. 0 0 0000000000 People’s Tel gP Inc. 0 0 0 000 000000 Persona Communications 0 0 0000000000 Phonetime 0 0 0000000000 Premiere Conferencing Canada ltd. 0 0 0000000000 Premiere global Services 0 0 0000000000 Primus 174 183 8 32 69 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 Quinte long Distance 0 0 0000000000 rogers Communications Inc. 540 348 46 142 65 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 20 Issued Closed Closed rejected resolved resolved Accepted Decisions Issued recommendations recommendations recommendations recommendations Decisions rejected Decisions Accepted Complaints Accepted Moved to Investigation to Moved

pre- provider investigations recommendations Decisions investigations

Sasktel 4 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 00 Sears Connect 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 00 Shaw 23 10 2 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simcoe County long Distance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Sogetel 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Solo 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Speak Telecom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Startec 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Straight of Canso Cable T.V. ltd. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Tata Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 TBayTel 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Télébec 8 4 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 00 Telehop 4 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 00 Telizon 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 TElUS Communications Company 657 435 40 133 77 28 2 3 0 0 0 0 Ter ago Networks Inc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Uniserve 3 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 00 Vancouver Telephone Company 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Verizon 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Vianet Internet Solutions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Videotron ltd. 88 56 4 33 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virgin Mobile Canada 227 119 14 65 39 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vonage Canada Corporation 17 8 2 9 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Win-tel 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 00 Wind Mobile 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 yak Communications Corp. 23 7 2 23 36 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 3,747 2,297 225 1,151 663 312 25 18 4 4 4 0

testimoniAl “ It was not until I filed a complaint with CCTS that I was able to speak with someone willing to investigate our issue thoroughly . I have no doubt it would not have been resolved as quickly or without significant cost . Thank you .” —A .H ., A HOME PHONE CUSTOMER CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 21

NATURE OF COMPLAiNTS BY SERViCE PROViDER (2009–2010)

The following table shows the categories of the complaints accepted in 2009–2010, broken down by participating service provider . Slamming Billing error Service Delivery Service Contract dispute Contract

provider Complaints Accepted

1010580 6 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 3Web 4 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0% 450Tel 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 768812 Ontario Inc. 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% A dimension humaine 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Access Communications Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ACN Canada 56 41.8% 25.5% 25.5% 7.3% Americatel 6 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% Amtelecom Telco gP Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Atria Networks 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bay Communications Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bell Aliant regional Communications lP 46 53.2% 31.9% 12.8% 2.1% Bell Canada 1,428 42.8% 38.6% 15.5% 3.1% Blink 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% BMI Internet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bragg Communications Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bruce Municipal Telephone System 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bruce Telecom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cablevision du nord du Québec 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Call Select 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Canada Direct 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Canada Payphone Corporation 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Canopco 18 94.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% Caztel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CD Tel 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cheetah 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cityfone 3 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Coast Cable 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cogeco 20 44.4% 5.6% 50.0% 0.0% Cogeco Data Services 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cogent Canada 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cybersurf Internet Access 6 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% Delta Cable 2 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Distributel Communications 13 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% Dryden Mobility 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 22 Slamming Billing error Service Delivery Service Contract dispute Contract

provider Complaints Accepted

Eastlink 6 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% ENMAx 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Envision 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ExaTEl Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Execulink 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fido 242 56.3% 30.4% 11.6% 1.8% galilée 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% global Crossing Telecommunications Canada ltd 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% globalive Communications Corp. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% globalstar 1 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% globility Communications Corp. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% group of gold line 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% halifax Cablevision ltd. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% K-right Communications Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Koodo 59 73.2% 12.5% 14.3% 0.0% le pigeon voyageur 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% looneyCall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% luckyCall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% MCI Canada 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mountain Cablevision limited 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% MTS Allstream Inc. 28 29.6% 37.0% 29.6% 3.7% Net reach 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northern Tel 2 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northwestel 2 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% OneConnect Services Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ontera 9 22.2% 66.7% 11.1% 0.0% Opcom hospitality Solutions Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% People’s Tel gP Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Persona Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Phonetime 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Premiere Conferencing Canada ltd. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Premiere global Services 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Primus 174 43.2% 17.3% 28.1% 11.4% Quinte long Distance 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% rogers Communications Inc. 540 39.5% 43.8% 15.3% 1.5% Sasktel 4 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% Sears Connect 2 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% Shaw 23 40.9% 9.1% 31.8% 18.2% Simcoe County long Distance 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sogetel 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 23 Slamming Billing error Service Delivery Service Contract dispute Contract

provider Complaints Accepted

Solo 6 83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% Speak Telecom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Startec 5 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% Straight of Canso Cable T.V. ltd. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tata Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TBayTel 1 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Télébec 8 22.2% 66.7% 11.1% 0.0% Telehop 4 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% Telizon 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TElUS Communications Company 657 35.4% 39.1% 24.0% 1.6% Ter ago Networks Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Uniserve 3 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% Vancouver Telephone Company 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Verizon 1 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% Vianet Internet Solutions 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Videotron ltd. 88 45.6% 36.7% 15.6% 2.2% Virgin Mobile Canada 227 57.3% 22.3% 20.4% 0.0% Vonage Canada Corporation 17 47.1% 5.9% 47.1% 0.0% Win-tel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Wind Mobile 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% yak Communications Corp. 23 44.0% 28.0% 8.0% 20.0% AggREgATE 3,747 43.5% 35.0% 18.5% 3.0%

testimoniAl “ It is paramount for such an organization to exist and to have enough authority . Thank you for your hard work!” —J .D ., A WIRELESS CUSTOMER CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 24

CCTS WEBSiTE TRAFFiC (2009–2010)

In 2009–2010, we upgraded our website and online complaint form . This was completed in February 2010 . After this date, the number of unique visitors* to our site increased by 84% over the 2008–2009 average .

month unique visitors 2008–2009 unique visitors 2009–2010 Change from previous year

August 2,552 3,413 34% September 3,056 3,681 20% October 2,680 3,107 16% November 2,463 3,348 36% December 2,296 3,368 47% January 2,787 3,140 13% February 2,905 ** ** March 3,302 5,692 72% April 2,654 4,757 79% May 2,553 4,527 77% June 2,558 5,821 128% July 2,916 4,318 48%

Average unique visitors per month in 2008–2009: 2,727

Average unique visitors per month after February 2010: 5,023

* “ Unique visitors” is the number of people who visited www .ccts-cprst .ca one or more times throughout the month .

** Redesigned website went live on February 1, 2010 . Due to a technical error, data is unavailable for the month of February 2010 . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Statistics 25

COMPLAiNTS BY PROViNCE AND TERRiTORY (2009–2010)

The following table shows the geographic origins of the complaints we accepted in 2009-2010 .

month Complaints population1

Alberta 306 8.2% 3,687.7 10.9% British Columbia 495 13.2% 4,455.2 13.2% Manitoba 79 2.1% 1,222.0 3.6% New Brunswick 32 0.9% 749.5 2.2% Newfoundland 31 0.8% 508.9 1.5% Northwest Territories 3 0.1% 43.4 0.1% Nova Scotia 70 1.9% 938.2 2.8% Nunavut 2 0.1% 32.2 0.1% Ontario 1,633 43.6% 13,069.2 38.7% Prince Edward Island 9 0.2% 141.0 0.4% Quebec 1,051 28.0% 7,828.9 23.2% Saskatchewan 31 0.8% 1,030.1 3.1% Yukon 5 0.1% 33.7 0.1% Total 3,747 100.0% 33,740.0 100.0%

5 3 2

31 1,051 495 79 306 31 9 32 1,633 70

1 Canada, Statistics Canada, Population by year, by province and territory (Ottawa, CANSIM, 2009) at http://www40 .statcan .gc .ca/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng .htm . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Topics and Trends 26

SEVEN TOPiCS AND TRENDS

UNDERSTAND YOUR TELECOM CONTRACT

Complaints about contract-related issues continue to delivery of service, but disagree about some aspect of the increase at a significant rate . In our 2008–2009 Annual details of the contract or what should be delivered under Report, we noted that 27% of all complaints accepted that it . This happens most frequently in the case of contracts year were contract-related . This year, 35% of accepted agreed to orally (usually by phone), but it can also arise complaints fell into this category . Because contract- in the case of written agreements . Sometimes, neither related complaints are on the rise, we feel that it’s party has retained a copy of the documentation specifying important to revisit this issue and to discuss some of the the details of the arrangement . Other times, what the complaints that we see and how we are handling them . contract says is clear but the meaning of a particular provision is ambiguous . A participating service provider’s Terms of Service (Terms) set out the rights and responsibilities of each In most of these cases we will be able to review the party related to the service being provided . The Terms, provider’s Terms of Service . But many of the complaints together with any other written document that sets out turn on the specific services being provided to the the specifics of the products and services being provided customer, and the conditions under which they are being and their cost, constitute the service “contract” (these provided . The cases in which there is no proof of the specifics could also be the subject of an oral agreement) . agreement between the service provider and customer When we investigate complaints, we review, interpret on these important details are extremely difficult for and apply the contract in order to determine whether us . These “he said/she said” cases require us to make the provider “reasonably performed its obligations inferences based on other circumstances, or to determine pursuant to the applicable contract and followed its usual the credibility of the parties . Our preference, of course, policies and operating procedures in its dealings with the is to rely on evidence . Thus we continue to strongly Customer” (section 4 .1 of our Procedural Code) . When we encourage providers to ensure that their customers conclude that there is no contractual agreement in place, are fully aware of all the details of the contract prior to or when the contract is silent, unclear or ambiguous, we entering into an agreement or making a change to their can also consider: service . We also strongly recommend that providers retain a record that captures the customer’s agreement • general principles of law; to a contract or to any change to their service (such as • good industry practice; a signed agreement, a recording of a phone call, or any other method that reasonably captures the customer’s • any relevant codes of conduct or practice; and agreement) for at least as long as the customer’s service • what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the remains with the provider . Providers have told us that it is complaint (Procedural Code section 4 .2) . challenging for them to do so given privacy legislation, or because of the high cost of records storage . We find these We continue to receive complaints from customers who arguments unpersuasive . Providers that fail to maintain tell us that they have not been made aware by their this material run the very real risk that these complaints provider of the existence of the Terms or a contract . may be decided against them . In some cases, the provider is able to demonstrate to us that it had indeed informed the customer about the Of course, this is not a one-way street . Consumers should applicable Terms and that the customer agreed to them . make sure that the provider gives them the full details In other cases, it is unable to do so . We also continue of the contract (including the Terms) . They should review to receive complaints in which the customer and the the contract and do their best to understand it prior to provider agree that there is a contract in place for the agreeing to obtain service . If they do not agree with the CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Topics and Trends 27

Terms, they should not agree to obtain the service . In to-month basis and that she was offered the rebate as some cases, they may be able to obtain the service under a means to retain her business . She therefore did not different terms from a different provider . Consumers believe that she should have to pay the ECF . should also retain relevant documentation should it be needed in future . The provider confirmed that its telephone agent had offered her a new plan in order to retain her business . Both providers and customers have rights and However, it stated that this offer was contingent on the responsibilities under the contract . Consumers often customer agreeing to a new two-year contract . Since the complain to us that the Terms are “biased” or slanted in customer terminated her service prior to the expiry of the favour of the provider . The things we hear most often are contract, it billed her ECF in accordance with its Terms consumer frustration about the right that the Terms often of Service . The provider stated that it sent an email to the give providers to impose additional fees on customers customer after she had agreed to the contract, in order who terminate service prior to the end of their contract to confirm the details, but that it could not locate a copy term . We also hear frustration about Terms that allow the to send to CCTS . The customer did not have a copy of the provider to make changes to the Terms in the middle of email which the provider claimed to have sent . a contract . It is not surprising that a business that drafts the contract will do so in a manner that is favourable to We found that the provider could have avoided any itself . At CCTS, our mandate is to apply the contract that uncertainty by specifically documenting the arrangement is in place, and to provide redress for consumers when between it and its customer but that it could not the provider has not followed the contract . It is not our demonstrate that it had done so . There was no other role to determine whether it is fair for a provider to be evidence on which we could conclude that the offer to the able to draft a contract that favours itself . This is a policy customer included a two-year term . Since the provider issue . Government telecommunications policy is that could not demonstrate that the customer agreed to in the deregulated telecommunications marketplace, continue to receive service under a new contract, we did vigorous competition should redress these inequities, i .e . not believe that it should be allowed to bill her ECF . providers will draft their Terms to be more customer- friendly in order to win customers . It is also expected Message: In order for a provider to enforce its Terms, that industry Codes of Conduct will be developed to it must demonstrate that the customer was provided ensure fairness of treatment for customers . Consumers with the details of the contract, including the associated dissatisfied with this should recognize that it is a policy Terms, and that (s)he agreed to be bound by them . issue, not a dispute-resolution issue, and should make their concerns known to their elected representatives . 2 Case study #2

The case studies below further describe some of the The customer agreed to obtain Internet service from his scenarios we saw this year, and the way we dealt with provider under a three-year contract . After approximately those complaints . six months of using the service, the customer received a bill that was much higher than expected . Upon reviewing 1 Case study #1 his bill, he found that he was charged additional fees for “bandwidth consumption .” He called his Internet service The customer had previously agreed to obtain wireless provider, which informed him that his Internet plan service from her provider under a one-year contract . provided him with up to 25 GB of bandwidth usage per At the end of that year, she called the provider with month and that, since he had exceeded this allotment, he the intention of cancelling her service . However, in an was billed for the additional usage . The customer stated attempt to retain her business, the provider offered her a that he had not been informed of the bandwidth limit and new plan that was similar to her old plan but at a lower therefore did not believe that he should have to pay the monthly price . She agreed to remain a customer of the additional fees . He also stated that he had no idea what a provider and accept the new plan . Sometime later, the “GB” represents and therefore did not know the extent to customer decided to terminate her service and was which he could make use of his service . charged early cancellation fees (ECF) . The customer states that when she accepted the new plan she did The provider relied on its Terms of Service as well as not agree to a new contract with a fixed end-date . She its agreement with the customer in order to bill him the believed that she was obtaining service on a month- additional bandwidth usage charges . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Topics and Trends 28

During our investigation, the provider sent us a copy of The provider also sent us copies of the customer’s the contract that was signed by the customer and that monthly invoices which, it claimed, clearly informed him clearly demonstrated that he had indeed agreed to obtain that he was on a three-year contract . However, upon Internet service and to be bound by the provider’s Terms . review of the invoices, we did not find a clear statement We also found that the contract provided the customer that the service was being provided under a three-year with all of the details related to his service, including the contract . All we could find was the appearance of “36M” 25 GB bandwidth allotment, as well as a website link to next to the name of his wireless rate plan . the provider’s full Terms . We voiced our concern to the provider about the The Terms stated clearly that an additional charge would ambiguity of the contract as well as the lack of apply for bandwidth usage that exceeded the monthly documentation to confirm the specifics of the duration allotment and that it was the customer’s responsibility of the contract, if any, agreed to by the customer . to verify his usage regularly . A website link to a tool that Nonetheless, because the customer signed the contract, allowed him to view his usage was also provided . we concluded that he had indeed agreed to a minimum contract period . Since the footnote advised him that We therefore found that since the provider clearly the minimum would be either 12, 24 or 36 months, we demonstrated that the customer agreed to be bound by found that he had to have agreed to a minimum contract the Terms, he was responsible for paying the additional period of at least 12 months . We did not agree with the bandwidth usage charges . provider’s contention that the appearance of “36M” on his invoice, without additional context, was conclusive message: It is important that customers read and of the customer’s agreement to a three-year term . In understand the Terms before agreeing to be bound the absence of other information, we did not find it by them . If we find that a customer has agreed to the reasonable to assume that the average customer would Terms, we will apply those Terms in an effort to resolve understand this to be notice that the service was being the complaint . delivered under a three-year commitment .

3 Case study #3 Since the provider is responsible for ensuring that its contracts are clear and not ambiguous, and since the The customer had agreed to obtain wireless service on customer had already kept his wireless service for what he believed to be a month-to-month basis . After over one year, we recommended that the customer be approximately a year and a half, the customer called permitted to terminate his service without paying the ECF . the provider to cancel the service, but was told that he Both parties accepted this recommendation . had consented to a three-year contract . Since he was terminating his service prior to the contract’s expiry, Message: A provider’s contract terms must be clear . If he would be billed an early cancellation fee (ECF) . The they are ambiguous, they will be interpreted against the customer confirmed that he did sign a document but provider . In order to apply its Terms, a provider must be that the agreement was to obtain wireless service on a able to clearly demonstrate that the customer agreed to month-to-month basis, for a fixed price per month . He be bound by them . A vague note on a monthly invoice is stated that he did not agree to keep the service for three not sufficient to demonstrate a customer’s agreement to years and therefore did not believe that he should be a contract . required to pay the ECF .

The provider sent us a copy of the contract that the customer had signed . We found that the contract provided the details of the customer’s rate plan but did not state that the service was to be provided under a three-year contract . Rather, the document contained a footnote, in small print, that indicated generally that a customer would be subject to ECF if the customer cancelled his service prior to the expiry of his 12, 24 or 36 month agreement . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Topics and Trends 29

NUMBER PORTABiLiTY – SOMETiMES NOT AS EASY AS iT LOOkS

We often receive complaints from customers who have The new provider offered a different explanation each asked to “port” their telephone numbers from one service time they spoke: the old provider did not complete the provider to another and have subsequently encountered order properly; repair work was required; and, ultimately, problems with inaccurate billing or with delivery of their that it would look into the matter and call her back within services . This surprises consumers considering that the 24 hours . When the customer did not receive a call back, industry heavily promotes the ability to change providers she complained to CCTS . but keep your phone number, and the portrayal is one of a simple and smooth process . Our investigation revealed that the new provider leased its lines from another provider in order to offer service to We have generally found that the process used by the public . However, at the time that the new provider’s providers to port landline and wireless numbers between representative agreed to port the customer’s number, the providers can be confusing and that errors often ensue . new provider did not have available facilities in order to For example, we have seen cases in which providers deliver the service . It therefore “held” the order until such submitted the wrong customer information or the wrong time as it had available facilities . Since the old provider had dates on the porting order . Some have not included all already terminated the customer’s service, and since the of the services that were supposed to be ported whereas new provider was unable to provide service right away, the others have included services that were not intended to customer was left in “limbo” between the two providers, be ported . We have found other instances of providers without any service at all . We worked with the new provider submitting porting orders to provide landline service to resolve the situation by urging the expedited installation without actually having the necessary facilities available of the necessary facilities, thereby ensuring that the to deliver the service to the customer . These mistakes customer’s service was reconnected under her original result in delays in delivering the service as well as related number and with the provider of her choice . billing errors . In some cases, the customer is billed by both providers for the same service . When these errors Message: Service providers must ensure that they occur, customers are often confused and uncertain as to complete porting orders properly and that they inform the how it should be resolved and which provider they should customer of any delay in the provision of service . approach . When we investigate these types of complaints, we will often engage both providers involved in order to 2 Case study #2 sort out the details and determine how and where the error occurred . The customer approached a new wireless service provider (the new provider) to request that it port his number and We understand that there are complexities related to provide him with service . The porting was completed number portability . Nonetheless, regulatory guidelines on the requested due date and the customer began like the Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines (C-LOG) using and paying for the service . A few weeks later, the exist to detail how the process should work . We therefore customer received an invoice from his old wireless service encourage providers to invest the time to fully understand provider (the old provider) for service allegedly provided those complexities and ensure that their employees after the porting was complete . The customer called the are properly trained in order to minimize the occurrence old provider which informed him that its system indicated of errors . that his service was currently active and as such, it was billing him for that service . Since the customer was 1 Case study #1 receiving service from the new provider, he did not believe that he should have to pay the old provider as well . The customer was receiving landline telephone service from a provider . She approached a new service provider When we received the complaint, we worked with both (the new provider) and requested that it port her number providers in order to determine the date that the service and that it begin providing her with service . However, on was ported to the new provider . We found that the old the date the service was supposed to have been ported provider had indeed “released” the customer’s number to the new provider, the customer found herself with no to the new provider, on the requested due date, but that it service at all . She therefore called her new provider and had not cancelled the billing of the account, which is done spent the next few days trying to sort out the problem . through a separate system . Therefore, bills were still CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Topics and Trends 30 being sent to the customer . Once we discovered this, the Message: When completing requests to port telephone old provider agreed to waive all of the charges billed after numbers, service providers have an obligation to ensure the service was ported to the new provider . a seamless transition and must therefore ensure that all related systems are accurate and up to date .

NUMBER PORTABiLiTY – THERE’S A CATCH!

Another feature of many of the porting complaints that active . So the customer cannot cancel service with the we received in 2009–2010 is customer frustration about old provider until after the porting order is completed . If being “double billed” by both providers . Unlike those (s)he does, the old provider will cancel the number and cases in which the double billing resulted from a porting the customer will be unable to port it . error (as described above), these complaints involve customers being billed by both the “new” provider and So the customer is forced to contact the new provider the “old” provider for services during the same period and request that it port the number . Once this is done, of time . the old provider will release the customer’s number to the new provider . But it will continue to bill the customer The ability of customers to take their landline or wireless for another 30 days of service since 30 days’ notice was numbers with them when changing service providers not provided . The customer is also billed for service by resulted from various decisions issued by the CRTC . the new provider who is now delivering the service . As a In the CRTC’s December 20th, 2005 news release result, the customer must pay both providers for service accompanying Telecom Decision 2005-72, former CRTC for a period of 30 days if (s)he wishes to port the number . Chairman Charles Dalfen stated that “consumers should be given the widest possible choice of service providers In our view, this practice fails to achieve the objective and should be able to switch telephone companies of allowing customers to switch telephone companies without unwarranted cost or inconvenience .” The ability without “unwarranted cost or inconvenience .” In fact, to port a number to another provider is seen as an it accomplishes the opposite—customers are put to important benefit to Canadian consumers . additional inconvenience and extra cost . The current process is unfair to customers . There is no reason for a In practice, however, consumers are generally forced to customer to have to make more than one call, or to pay incur both needless cost and inconvenience in order to two providers for the same month’s service . port a number . We therefore strongly urge the industry to find a Customers who want to switch providers and take their solution that does not require consumers to pay two number with them are told that all they need to do is providers for the same period when only one is actually provide these instructions to the new provider, which will providing the service . This would achieve the objective of make arrangements with the old provider . But things are allowing customers to switch service providers without not always as simple as they appear . “unwarranted cost or inconvenience .”

Most providers currently require that a customer provide Our review of these complaints leads us to believe that 30 days’ notice prior to terminating service, even if there are at least two possible industry solutions to this they are on a fixed term contract that is expiring . So problem . One option would be for providers to revisit the customer also has to let the old provider know that the policy of requiring 30 days’ notice for termination of they are terminating their service . If they don’t, the old service when a customer is porting to another provider . provider will bill them for an additional 30 days from the time that it was informed of the termination . A second option involves “future dating” of a porting order . We have found during the course of some The easy answer appears to be for the customer to give investigations that providers can future date a porting 30 days’ notice to the old provider and then port the order by up to 30 days . So when the new provider receives number to the new provider . However, in order to port a a request to port in a customer’s number, it can date number to another provider, the number must remain the request 30 days into the future . The old provider can CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Topics and Trends 31 accept this as the customer’s 30 days’ notice . During Until such time as the industry has created another this period the old provider continues to provide service solution, we recommend that customers seeking to port and only it bills the customer . Thirty days later, when the their number to a new provider first verify whether they number is ported, the new provider begins to provide the are required to provide 30 days’ notice of termination service and only it bills the customer . One phone call, one to their current provider . If such notice is required, we monthly fee . recommend that the customer ask the new provider to future date the porting order by 30 days .

PREMiUM TExT MESSAgES (ShOrT CODES)

Premium text messages are texts that you receive on your the pricing and frequency of delivery of the messages, wireless device and that are charged at a “premium” rate, contact information for the content provider, and a i .e ., more than your provider’s normal text messaging description of how the customer can unsubscribe (usually rate . The texts are normally sent to/from a “short code” by texting “STOP” to the short code) . that is 5 or 6 digits long . They are most often associated with contests or live television shows like Canadian Idol, The good news is that almost all of the premium text or used on a subscription basis to receive automatic texts message complaints that come to us get resolved to the with specific content such as sports, trivia or horoscopes . satisfaction of the parties . However, in order to avoid the The cost for these texts can vary greatly and can be problem, or to deal with it quickly if it arises, we offer anywhere from $0 .15 to $10 .00 per text . some advice to consumers:

These text messages do not come from the wireless • Be extremely careful about disclosing your wireless carrier . They are delivered, and billed for, by the number online . Be cautious when using online carrier on behalf of a third-party content provider . This applications that request your wireless number, such service is provided under the terms of the short code as those offered through Facebook and other social program developed and administered by the wireless networking sites . carriers’ industry association, the Canadian Wireless • Treat your wireless number like you would any other Telecommunications Association (CWTA) . The content piece of personal information . Disclose it only when providers are subject to guidelines requiring that they you believe that it is safe to do so . follow a detailed process for signing customers up, and also for allowing customers to unsubscribe . More detail If you are billed for premium text messages on your about the program is available at www .txt .ca . wireless bill and you do not believe that you have signed up for the service, you should: Among the main customer complaints are that they did not sign up, or that they did not know the frequency 1 . Immediately text “STOP” to the short code that sent and cost of the messages, or that they are unable to you the text (this should appear on your bill and, if you unsubscribe . Given that the Short Codes program haven’t deleted it, on your handset); guidelines prescribe rules that should prevent all of 2 . Check your previous bills as this may not be the first these things from happening, the number of complaints time that you have received and been charged for is surprising . In order for a customer to subscribe, the premium text messages; program requires a “double opt-in,” i .e ., after sending an initial text to the short code (or signing up online), the 3 . Call your wireless carrier and/or the company that customer should receive a text response . The customer sent you the premium text message to make a should then be asked to reply again, usually with a PIN, complaint . Explain the circumstances and ask them to either by texting or online . Once this “double opt-in” remove the charges; process is complete, the customer is subscribed to a 4 . If you cannot resolve the dispute directly with your premium text message service . The rules also require wireless carrier, contact us; and that the double opt-in process include information about CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Topics and Trends 32

5 . The CWTA is responsible for the program and wants about a premium text message, we expect the wireless to ensure that the content providers are following the provider to have looked into the customer’s allegation and rules . If you believe that you did not subscribe to the obtained evidence from the content provider sufficient to service and/or if you have texted “STOP” but continue support the accuracy of the charges . When we investigate to receive the texts, contact the CWTA (website: such a complaint, we will expect the wireless provider to www .cwta .ca; email: info@cwta .ca) and let it know provide to us the evidence upon which it relied to support about the content provider so that it can take steps to the accuracy of the charges, including the content monitor the compliance by the provider with the rules . provider’s compliance with the Short Code program guidelines . In any case in which the wireless provider is Wireless providers are paid for billing and collecting from unable to demonstrate that the charges are proper, we their customers on behalf of the companies that send will recommend that the provider waive them . customers the premium text messages (the content providers) . When we receive a complaint from a customer CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Our Board of Directors 33

EIghT OUR BOARD OF DiRECTORS

Our Board is structured to provide for the participation of all stakeholders while remaining independent from the telecommunications industry . It consists of eight directors, seven of whom are voting directors:

• four Independent Directors, two of whom are nominees of consumer groups; • three Industry Directors, one each to represent the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Members, the Cable Company Members (Cablecos), and the Other Participating Service Provider Members; and • the Commissioner, who is a non-voting Director, and is independent of the telecommunications industry . iNDEPENDENT DiRECTORS

The Independent Directors are intended to represent a diversity of experience and interests, being individuals known and respected on a regional and national basis and representative of the Canadian population, including gender, linguistic, minority and geographic representation . iNDUSTRY DiRECTORS

The Industry Directors represent each of the ILEC, Cableco and Other Participating Service Provider Member categories . The current appointed Industry Directors are Jonathan Daniels (ILEC), Dennis Béland (Cableco) and Jill Schatz (Other) . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Director Biographies 34

NINE DiRECTOR BiOgRAPHiES

MARY M. gUSELLA (ChAIr)

After a 36-year career in the federal public service, A lawyer by training, Mary was awarded the Prime Mary retired in 2006 from the position of Chief Minister’s Outstanding Achievement Award, the Public Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Service’s highest award, for her “Outstanding contribution Commission where she led the transformation of to the Public Service of Canada .” She received the the organization, eliminating a chronic backlog, Queen’s Jubilee Medal and has been inducted into the drastically reducing wait times, developing new tools Honour Society of the University of Ottawa Law School . and partnerships for human rights prevention, and maximizing the use of conflict resolution techniques to resolve complaints in a timely and effective manner .

MARiE BERNARD-MEUNiER

A career diplomat, Marie served in Ottawa as Assistant issues . She currently serves on the Boards of many Deputy Minister for Global Issues and abroad as Canada’s public institutions, including the Public Policy Forum and Ambassador to UNESCO, to the Netherlands and to the Audit Committee of the Canadian Space Agency . She Germany . She left the Foreign Service in 2005 and has holds a Master’s Degree in Political Science from the since published extensively on various public policy Université de Montréal .

DiCk gATHERCOLE

Dick is a lawyer and former Executive Director of the BC member of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and Public Interest Advocacy Centre . In his varied career Dick counsel with Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General . has been the Chair and CEO of the BC Energy Council, a

JEAN SéBASTiEN

Mr . Sébastien has a Ph .D . in Comparative Literature L’Union des consommateurs and was a member of the and is professor of media and literature at College Board of Directors of the Canadian Internet Registration de Maisonneuve in Montreal . Jean has also served Authority (CIRA) . Prior to this, Mr . Sébastien spent some as a policy analyst on matters of broadcasting, 15 years working in various capacities in the media . telecommunications, and information technology for CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 Director Biographies 35

DENNiS BéLAND

Dennis is the Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, is a Member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Telecommunications, Quebecor Media Inc . Dennis has LNP Consortium Inc ., the Canadian Numbering a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering and Management Administration Consortium Inc . and a former Member and a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the John F . of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Wireless Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University . He Telecommunications Association .

JONATHAN DANiELS

B .A . (McGill) 1990, J .D . (Toronto) 1994, is Vice President Elliott . Mr . Daniels teaches telecommunications law at Regulatory Law at Bell Canada . Prior to joining the University of Toronto Faculty of Law; he has also Bell, Mr . Daniels has served in various positions at taught telecommunications market dynamics at Ryerson Cable & Wireless based in the Cayman Islands, C1 University and has published a number of articles in the Communications, Covad Communications, Sprint telecommunications and broadcasting fields . Canada and as an associate with the law firm Stikeman,

JiLL SCHATz

Jill joined Primus Canada in 2008 as General Counsel Jill is active in the corporate counsel community and is and VP Law and has overall responsibility for the legal a past-President, Vice-President and Treasurer of the requirements of the company . Jill has extensive in-house Canadian Corporate Counsel Association (CCCA) . She experience in various public and private corporations and serves on the Executives of the IT and E-Commerce has held senior legal, corporate secretarial and executive Section of the Ontario Bar Association and the Toronto roles in the IT and Telecommunications industries since Chapter of the CCCA . Jill holds a Juris Doctorate (J .D .) 2000 with Momentum Advanced Solutions Inc . (formerly and MBA (Finance Major), both from the University OnX Enterprise Solutions Inc .) and Cybersurf Corp . Prior of Toronto as well as a Masters in Law (International to 2000 she held in-house positions with ICI Canada Inc . Trade & Competition Law) from Osgoode Hall (formerly C-I-L Inc .) and TransCanada PipeLines Limited . Law School . CCTS Annual Report 2009–2010 How to Contact Us 36

TEN HOW TO CONTACT US

By Email response@ccts-cprst .ca

By Telephone Toll Free: 1-888-221-1687 TTY: 1-877-782-2384

By Fax Toll Free: 1-877-782-2924

By Mail P .O . Box 81088 Ottawa, ON K1P 1B1