Telus ‘attracting new customers rapidly and effectively’ in retention dispute, Shaw says

Shaw Communications Inc. is rejecting Telus Corp.’s undue preference complaint about customer transfers, noting an “intensely competitive” broadcasting distribution market in Western Canada where Telus is “attracting new customers more rapidly and effectively” than any other distributor. In response to a Telus’ complaint filed with the CRTC last month, Shaw’s senior vice-president of regulatory affairs, Jean Brazeau, wrote that his company’s transfer process is “more rigorous and comprehensive” than industry practice and that no preference or disadvantage has occurred. In a May 6 letter to the commission, Michael Hennessy, Telus’ senior vice-president of regulatory and government affairs, said the company’s western competitor has delayed the cancellation of service for customers switching from Shaw cable to Telus’ IPTV service, Optik TV. He wrote that Telus has refunded customers who were double-billed because Shaw delayed or refused to process cancellation orders, and that Telus faced losses due to damage to its brand. “Shaw continues to abuse its position as the dominant provider of television service in Western Canada by trying to thwart competition in this sector,” Hennesy wrote, asking the commission to direct Shaw to immediately process all outstanding cancellation orders and all future orders within two business days and notify Telus when the orders have been processed. In a reply filed with the commission, Shaw acknowledged tough competition in the West, where Telus is winning customers at Shaw’s expense. “Notably, Telus reported that it acquired 44,000 new TV customers in its first quarter of 2011. Telus previously reported that, as of December 31, 2010, it had 314,000 TV connections—an 84.7% increase over 2009 and a 302.6% increase over 2008,” Brazeau wrote. “By comparison, Shaw reported a loss of 21,204 basic cable subscribers for the six months ended February 28.” Given the numbers, Brazeau wrote that “Telus has not suffered any material adverse harm as it is attracting new customers more rapidly and effectively than other BDUs .” He added that “the few delays in processing customer cancellations are reasonable given the volume of cancellations.” Telus’ complaint comes after the CRTC issued a new policy on customer transfers in March. The policy requires distributors to “accept a customer cancellation request from a prospective BDU where the customer requests that this BDU act on his or her behalf.” It also requires the completion of transfers within two business days “of the receipt of a third-party customer cancellation request where no coordination between service providers is necessary.” Telus made a similar complaint to the commission during the proceeding that led to the new customers transfers policy. In the May 6 letter, Hennessy asked that Shaw not make contact with customers until a cancellation has been processed. He also asked that Shaw be ordered to reimburse Telus the amount that Telus has refunded customers who were double-billed as a result of delays. But Brazeau wrote that the request is “particularly objectionable and inconsistent with Commission policy.” Shaw detailed the steps the company takes to execute transfers, which includes two daily spreadsheets sent from Telus to Shaw with cancellation orders for Alberta and British Columbia. Brazeau wrote that services are disconnected and billed “as per the date the request was received from Telus” and not the date on which Shaw processes it. He wrote that a cancellation order could be rejected for a number of reasons, including a failure to match names and addresses; the cancelled service either missing from the account or previously suspended by Shaw; or a customer providing a more recent authorization for Shaw to retain the service. But in Telus’ complaint, Hennessy wrote that Shaw is delaying the processing of cancellations until it can reach the customers, at which point it tries to retain them. “In some cases, Telus’ customers have been kept on the line for close to an hour or have been contacted numerous times, forced to listen to the numerous retention efforts of Shaw because these are cloaked as ‘confirmation of cancellation’ of service,” Hennessy wrote. The situation irritates new customers who do not know whether fault lies with the new or old provider, Hennessy added. But Brazeau wrote that the delays Telus referred to arise from requests made before the commission adopted its new policy. He also rejected Telus’ complaint that Shaw stopped returning the list of cancellation requests and had not returned any since April 7. Brazeau wrote that the company has delivered several reports since that date. “While Shaw would be pleased to file these reports with the Commission, including the most recent reports sent to Telus up to and including June 14, 2011, we note that the reports originate as a Telus-generated list of cancel orders and each of the reports include the notation that the information is confidential and ‘are not to be used for any other purpose’. Accordingly, if the Commission wishes to have the reports filed on the record, such disclosure would require Telus’ consent,” Brazeau wrote. mburgess@thewirereport.ca

Telus ‘attracting new customers rapidly and effectively’ in retention dispute, Shaw says

Broadcast | June 20, 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