Manitoba consumer protection consultation draws industry conflict

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) and member Mobilicity butted heads last week over Manitoba’s proposed cell phone legislation. “We deeply disagree with the CWTA’s disregard for the need for more consumer protection, not only in the province of Manitoba, but right across our country,” Dave Dobbin, president and CEO of Mobilicity, said in a press release on Friday. Monday was the final day for submissions to the Manitoba provincial government’s public consultation on cellphone contract regulations. Manitoba aims to improve consumer satisfaction over cellphone contracts by mandating the use of plain language and fair practices for contract-cancellation clauses, Jan Forster, acting director of Manitoba’s Consumer Protection Office told The Wire Report in a recent interview. The CWTA’s submission stated that increased government legislation adds costs to consumers and that they are better served by a self-regulated, competitive marketplace. “ could ultimately limit choices and add costs to consumers, and if it doesn’t add costs to consumers, it will add costs to taxpayers because all of these processes and government people working is a cost to taxpayers,” Bernard Lord, president and CEO of CWTA, said in an interview. “We believe the market is well served by competition and self-regulation,” he said. Lord added that members of the CWTA abide by a strong code of conduct that encourages customers with complaints about services or contracts to approach the Commissioner for Telecommunications Complaints (CCTS). Mobilicity said in the release it doesn’t believe the CWTA’s code of conduct goes far enough to protect wireless consumers. “The self-regulating code of conduct has proven completely ineffective in protecting consumers,” the company said. “Mobilicity strongly supports the need for more protection of wireless consumers and has encouraged provincial governments to explore the introduction of consumer protective legislation similar to that enforced by the province of Quebec and being considered by the province of Ontario,” the carrier wrote. Quebec passed Bill 60, the Consumer Protection Act, last August, and an Ontario MPP tabled a private member’s bill in November that aims to increase protection for wireless customers. Lord said Bill 60 has added costs for wireless companies in Quebec and the problem will be exaggerated if each province comes up with its own legislation. “Quebec’s Bill 60 has affected carriers because they have had to modify their billing procedures, which adds costs that are passed onto customers. When wireless companies need to adapt their billing procedures to adapt to a government regulation, that is investments they are not making in their networks to enhance their service,” he said. “If we end up with a system where there are different rules and different regulations in every province, this will complicate the billing systems and add costs to consumers.” Mobilicity said it believes Bill 60 restricts the use of “anti-consumer tactics” like contract termination fees and service fees. The company said the bill ensures wireless users can make better informed decisions, adding that its opinion on consumer protection has not been heard at the CWTA. “We are exceptionally disappointed with the CWTA’s lack of foresight in continuing to act only in the interests of the Big Three wireless oligopoly … As members of the CWTA, we repeatedly voiced our opposition to its submission to no avail,” Dobbin said in the release. Marc Choma, director of communications at the CWTA, said via email that the association does not comment on individual positions held by members. “The role of any association is to express the majority view of its members on any given issue. However, as in any association, individual members are completely free to express their own minority views as they see fit,” Choma wrote. Independent media analyst Carmi Levy said in an interview that carriers don’t normally criticize the CWTA because they tend to see it as having a positive influence on the industry. “I can imagine that the CWTA is not pleased that a major new carrier in Canada is taking such an obviously public and aggressive stance toward it,” Levy said. John Lawford, counsel with consumer group the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), said in an interview that Mobilicity has been fighting with the CWTA since it joined because its business model is based on offering no termination fees and unlimited plans, which counter the business models of most CWTA members. “ they don’t have break fees, and they have ‘all you can eat’ plans. , the CWTA is effectively defending both of those business models,” Lawford said. “The only reason for these termination fees is to stop people from moving from Bell Canada Inc. to Mobilicity, or from Bell to Wind Mobile, etc. … What’s the point of having all of these new entrants if no one can switch?” Levy said new carriers like Mobillicty have less to lose by loosening the ties that keep customers with the incumbents. “If you’re new to a market, you’re going to win customers who are moving over from existing carriers. The easier you can make it for them to move to you, the better it is for your business model,” he said. “It’s in a newcomer’s best interest to influence the evolution of rules that encourage consumer portability between carriers, and this is one of them.” Mobilicity was unavailable for comment Tuesday. asmith@thewirereport.ca

Manitoba consumer protection consultation draws industry conflict

News | January 18, 2011

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us