ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Dawn Hunt (Rogers Communications Partnership)

Ottawa, 14 August 2014                                                          

Our references: 8665-C12-201212448

By Email

Ms. Dawn Hunt
Vice President
Regulatory
Rogers Communications Partnership
rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com

RE:  Wireless Code Implementation – Compliance Reports – Action Required

Dear Ms. Hunt:

This letter is to inform you that it appears to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the Commission) that your company, Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers), has made most, but not all, of the necessary changes to its contracts, policies, and procedures to implement the Wireless Code (the Code). The Commission appreciates your company’s efforts to implement the Code on time. However, the Commission considers that there are one or more remaining issues that your company must resolve in order to fully and appropriately implement the Code. Rogers is required to respond to the Commission’s concerns, set out in more detail below, by 22 August 2014. In your letter you should explain whether you have taken the actions directed by the Commission in this letter in order to come into full compliance with the Code.

The Commission intends to publish a report for consumers in August 2014 that summarizes the results of the Wireless Code implementation process, including the information submitted by your company in your Wireless Code compliance reports and in response to follow-up correspondence, including this letter. If your company demonstrates in its response to this letter that it has made the necessary changes to fully implement the Code, the Commission’s upcoming report will reflect this.

The requirement to implement the Wireless Code

In The Wireless Code Policy^{Footnote 1}, the Commission established the Wireless Code, a new mandatory code of conduct for providers of retail mobile wireless voice and data services (wireless services). The Wireless Code applies to all wireless services provided to individual and small business consumers in all provinces and territories regardless of the status and business models of the wireless service provider (WSP).

As required by paragraph 377 of the Wireless Code Policy, WSPs filed reports with the Commission in January 2014 detailing how they have implemented the Wireless Code^{Footnote 2}.

Commission staff reviewed these reports and, on 22 May 2014 and 6 June 2014, issued letters to follow up with certain companies to seek clarification on specific issues in these reports. Your company filed a response on 29 May 2014.

Specific issues to be resolved

Based on the above-mentioned reports and correspondence, it appears that your company needs to address the following issues to fully and appropriately implement the Code:

• Roaming notifications
• Time when disconnection may occur

Roaming notifications

In section E. of the Wireless Code, Bill Management, the Commission required wireless carriers to provide international roaming notifications to customers when. Specifically:

“(i)   A service provider must notify the customer, at no charge, when their device is roaming in another country. The notification must clearly explain the associated rates for voice, text messaging, and data services.
(ii)   Customers may opt out of receiving these notifications at any time.” [Emphasis added]

As further set out in paragraph 140 of the Policy, “The Commission determines that WSPs must notify customers when their device is roaming in another country. (...) Customers should be able to opt out of these notifications at any time. The Commission also determines that these notifications must be provided to all prepaid and postpaid customers whose devices are able to roam internationally.”

The contract sample you provided with your Wireless Code implementation report indicated that Rogers’ customers may not opt out of the international roaming notification.

In a letter dated 22 May 2014, Commission staff sought clarification on this point and asked Rogers to explain how it considered that its approach was consistent with the requirement set out in the Wireless Code. In a letter dated 29 May 2014, Rogers replied that

“As noted in our Wireless Code Implementation Compliance Report (January 2014), Rogers does not consider allowing an opt-out for the Welcome SMS to be in the best interest of the customer. We firmly believe this message to be an essential tool for customers to manage their bills while roaming. Rogers does not have any plans to enable an opt-out of the international roaming notification (or “Welcome SMS”).

Allowing customers to opt out of the Welcome SMS message is at cross purposes with the objectives of the Wireless Code and could potentially create a poor customer experience. Take for example, a customer who is a regular visitor to the U.S. and is aware of the roaming rates associated with such travel and as such opts-out of receiving the Welcome SMS. Opting out of receiving such messages means that such a customer would never receive a single Welcome SMS for any travel destination.

This customer could then subsequently, some months later, travel to a new destination where he or she is unaware of the associated roaming rates. Having previously opted out of receiving the Welcome SMS the customer would be unaware of the roaming rates associated with using their devices during the visit. Upon returning to Canada this customer may receive a larger invoice than he or she may have anticipated.

The Welcome SMS serves to inform the customer of the rates to help them manage their wireless usage while traveling. If we do not proactively send customers a Welcome SMS with the rates, customers would have to seek out the rates on their own from our website, which is not a customer’s typical behaviour when traveling. It is for this reason that we believe allowing the customer to opt-out of the Welcome SMS will create more customer dissatisfaction overall. We therefore have no plans to enable this capability for the customer.”

The Commission notes that Rogers is providing roaming notifications, consistent with the requirement set out in the Wireless Code, but is not allowing customers to expressly and knowingly opt out receiving those notifications, should they choose to do so, which is also required by the Wireless Code.

The Commission agrees with Rogers that roaming notifications are helpful for customers in terms of managing and preventing bill shock. In this regard, the Commission notes that, as set out in paragraphs 117 and 188 of the Wireless Code policy:

“117. When entering another country, a consumer is unlikely to have their wireless service contract information available to them. As such, a notification from the WSP explaining the rates for voice, text, and data roaming services would greatly increase consumers’ understanding and ability to manage their usage of these services while abroad.

118. The Commission considers it necessary to require WSPs to provide notifications when the customer enters an international roaming area, including information on the rates that will be charged for voice, text, and data services.”

However, the Commission also notes that it considered it appropriate to require that WSPs enable consumers to expressly and knowingly opt out of receiving these notifications. The Commission further notes that Rogers had the opportunity to submit an application to seek a change to the Wireless Code policy, within the first 90 days following the date of the decision, but did not do so.

Time when disconnection may occur

As set out in paragraph 299 of the Policy, "The Commission determines that except with customer consent or in exceptional circumstances, disconnection may occur only on weekdays between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. or on weekends between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., unless the weekday or weekend day precedes a statutory holiday, in which case disconnection may not occur after noon. The applicable time is that of the customer's declared place of residence."

In Rogers’ implementation report, it submitted that “All disconnections occur between the hours of 6 am and 2 am, Eastern Time.”

In a letter dated 22 May 2014, Commission staff sought clarification on this point and asked Rogers to explain how it considered that its approach was consistent with the requirement set out in the Wireless Code.

In your reply, dated 29 May 2014, Rogers acknowledged that its practice with respect to the time of day when disconnection may occur is not compliant with the Wireless Code, but submitted a number of policy reasons why it felt that the requirement was not necessary, including different technical requirements for disconnection between landline and wireless services, and the long period of suspension of service before disconnection occurs. The Commission notes that Rogers had the opportunity to submit an application to seek a change to the Wireless Code policy, within the first 90 days following the date of the decision, but did not do so.

Other Matters

In its implementation report, Rogers submitted an example wireless service agreement with a cancellation fee that included an “Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee (ADSRF).”

In a letter dated 22 May 2014, Commission staff sought clarification from Rogers on how this fee would be applied and how Rogers considered that it was consistent with the cancellation fee formula in Wireless Code.

In a letter dated 29 May 2014, Rogers responded that, as of May 25, 2014, Rogers’ device subsidy model for new fixed-term contracts no longer includes an ADSRF, and that any cancellation fees are calculated according to the formula in the Code.

In a letter dated 6 June 2014, Commission staff requested a sample copy of Rogers’ updated Wireless Service Agreement to assess its compliance with the Wireless Code. In its reply, dated 10 June 2014, Rogers submitted a copy of its newest agreement, which no longer includes an Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee for new customers. The cancellation fee formula in the revised contract is as follows: “A Device Savings Recovery Fee (DSRF) applies if you were given an economic inducement when you agreed to your new term, and if, for any reason, your wireless service or your new term is terminated prior to the end of the term of your Service Agreement (Service Agreement Term). The DSRF is equal to the economic inducement multiplied by the number of months remaining in your Service Agreement Term divided by the total number of months of your Service Agreement Term (plus applicable taxes). In other words, DSRF = Economic Inducement x # months left in your Service Agreement Term ÷ Total # months in your Service Agreement Term + applicable taxes.”

The Commission notes that this is consistent with the requirement set out in section G of the Wireless Code, which requires that “When a subsidized device is provided as part of the contract, a. for fixed-term contracts: The early cancellation fee must not exceed the value of the device subsidy. The early cancellation fee must be reduced by an equal amount each month, for the lesser of 24 months or the total number of months in the contract term, such that the early cancellation fee is reduced to $0 by the end of the period.”

Action Required

The Commission considers that Rogers needs to do the following in order to fully implement the Code:

• Change its practices to enable Rogers wireless customers to expressly and knowingly opt out of receiving international roaming notifications, should they choose to do so, consistent with the requirement in section E of the Wireless Code.
• Change its practices with respect to when disconnection may occur, consistent with the requirement in section I of the Wireless Code.

Pursuant to section 37(2) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission hereby directs Rogers to file a response by 22 August 2014 demonstrating that it has made the necessary changes as set out above.

If Rogers fails to take the action required by 22 August 2014, the Commission may take further steps to enforce its requirement.

Should you have any questions regarding the above matter, please contact Nanao Kachi at 819-997-4700.

Procedural information

This letter and all subsequent correspondence form part of a public record. As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, WSPs may designate certain information as confidential. WSPs must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a detailed rationale to explain why the disclosure of the information is not in the public interest.

All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.^{Footnote 3}

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

John Traversy
Secretary General

c.c.: nanao.kachi@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified:

2014-08-14