PIAC says up to $600M annually at stake in paper-billing issue

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) says up to $600 million a year is at stake as the CRTC gets set to meet with telecommunications companies to discuss the practice of charging customers to receive paper bills. John Lawford, PIAC’s executive director, said in a phone interview that PIAC has put together estimates for a report, which will come out in the coming weeks. “ communication services, phone, TV, wireless and Internet, the estimated annual cost, if three in 10 Canadians receive paper bills, is between $387 to $601 million a year,” he said. “If the CRTC, by this somewhat soft process, blesses even two-thirds of that rate, you go to from $600 million a year to $400 million a year that Canadians will pay in perpetuity.” He noted that PIAC has not been invited to the meeting the CRTC said it would hold with companies on Aug. 28. In a release Wednesday, the commission said that the companies participating “will be expected to come up with a clear and predictable approach to paper-bill fees, if any, as well as exemptions for any such fees.” Lawford said that the companies “might fight hard for , and the CRTC doesn’t have any skin in the game, as they say, but the consumers sure do and they should be there at that meeting.” He added that if the CRTC “goes and has this little please-be-nice meeting,” those carriers who don’t charge fees for paper bills at the moment will start doing so, and that the approach sets a “bad precedent” for other industries that could start charging for bills and receipts. The paper-bill issue first arose when PIAC and the Consumers Association of Canada filed a joint application to the CRTC in October last year, asking the commission to ban the practice of extra charges for paper billing, and for some customers to be refunded past charges. The CRTC asked telecom providers in July 2013 to answer questions about how they charge subscribers who elect to receive monthly paper bills, and what discounts they provide to customers who move to all-electronic billing. It said in the release Wednesday that its fact-finding process found that 36 companies do not charge any fees while 27 companies charge fees ranging from 99 cents to $5.95 per month. In their responses, telecom providers said charges they impose on customers who receive paper bills are designed to provide an incentive to consumers to switch to environmentally friendly electronic billing methods, and that they reflect the companies’ costs of providing paper bills. The CRTC said in a report on the fact-finding process released Wednesday that major national telecom companies, such as BCE Inc., Telus Corp. and Rogers Communications Inc., charge for paper bills for at least one of their services, while Shaw Communications Inc., Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. are among those that do not. It said that about half of the respondents that charge for paper bills will waive the fee for customers with disabilities, while a small number will waive the fee for other customers, such as those without home Internet service or seniors, though it noted that “these exemptions vary widely by company.” The CRTC added that the practice of charging for paper billing is also emerging in other industries, including banking, and in countries like Australia and the United States. Lawford said that PIAC had asked for “the complete elimination of all paper fees,” noting that the government had said in its throne speech last fall that it would take steps to end so-called “pay to pay” policies, a reference to paper billing. “The CRTC is really setting up a complete face-plant embarrassment for the government on this,” he said. “I don’t think, procedurally, what they’ve done is fair, in closing our complaint,” he said. “We have a complaint which relates not only to paper-bill fees being eliminated … we also have a complaint about past fees for paper bills for regulated customers, and they can’t just ignore that, because that’s a tariff claim, and they haven’t ruled on it.” Lawford said that “it’s not a good approach to turn something from a public, open process to closed-door. ... It’s procedurally very suspect, as far as I’m concerned, in terms of fairness, just good old-fashioned justice to us, and I think it sends a message to consumers that you should trust the CRTC to go settle something in the quiet with the companies.” Michel Arpin, former vice-chairman of broadcasting at the CRTC, said in a phone interview that while holding such meetings isn’t common for the CRTC, it’s not unprecedented. In the early 2000s, when Charles Dalfen was serving as CRTC chairman, he held several meetings with broadcast distribution CEOs regarding the pirating of satellite services, Arpin said. He said the CRTC publicized the meetings were taking place “in a very similar manner to what the commission did today.” “It’s not really a regulatory issue. It’s a business issue, or in the other case, it was a technological issue,” he said. “In some way, it also means that the commission doesn’t believe it has to come to a decision” or a formal ruling, and instead can just make sure the parties come to a solution and agree on how they’re going to approach the issue, he noted. Arpin said the advantage of such an approach is that it allows the commission to expedite the process, since “the matter could be solved in one meeting,” by putting a general agreement in place. “Rather than having a public process that will take six or nine months before a decision , it is dealt with in a couple of weeks,” he said. Arpin added that if there is reluctance to reach such an agreement, then the CRTC could start a public process. He said, to his knowledge, the CRTC doesn’t have any obligations to publish the details of such a meeting. BCE Inc.spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said in an email the company is “happy to participate in the meeting.” Rogers Communications Inc. spokeswoman Jennifer Kett said in an email that the company looks “forward to participating in the meeting with the CRTC and others to discuss paper bill fees,” noting that “we recognize online billing is not suitable for all customers,” and that Rogers exempts customers without Internet access, seniors “and those individuals with a disability who currently receive their bills in an alternate format.” Telus Corp. spokeswoman Liz Sauvé also said the company looks “ forward to discussing paper billing with the CRTC,” and noted that in cases where “it is not practical for the customer to obtain an electronic bill … we waive the charge. For example, we do not charge customers for paper bills if they do not have Internet access, or if they require a bill in Braille or large print.” — With reporting by Anja Karadeglija at akarad@thewirereport.ca and editing by Derek Abma at dabma@thewirereport.ca

PIAC says up to $600M annually at stake in paper-billing issue

News | July 23, 2014

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

PIAC says up to $600M annually at stake in paper-billing issue

News | July 23, 2014

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

CRTC finalizes terms of Uvagut TV distribution

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

CRTC announces changes to Broadband Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us