ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to various parties interested in the application regarding Rogers “Next” and TELUS “T-UP!” – Request for further information

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

File number: 8620-P8-201405606

Ottawa, 12 September 2014

BY E-MAIL

To: Distribution List

Re: Application regarding Rogers “Next” and TELUS “T-UP!” – Request for further information

Dear Madams/Sirs:    

On 17 June 2014, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (collectively “PIAC-CAC”) submitted a part 1 application regarding the Rogers Next program offered by Rogers Communications Partnership (Rogers) and the T-UP! program offered by Telus Communications Company (TELUS). 

In order for the Commission to properly dispose of PIAC-CAC’s application, further information is required. 

Accordingly, PIAC-CAC, Rogers, TELUS and the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunication Services (CCTS) are to file with the Commission, no later than
3 October 2014, responses to the interrogatories attached to this letter (Appendix 2) and to serve a copy on all partiesFootnote 1 to the proceeding.

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, persons may designate certain information as confidential.  A person claiming confidentiality with respect to information submitted 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 2
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Meghan Justus at 819-635-6959 or by email at meghan.justus@crtc.gc.ca.
Sincerely,

(ORIGINAL SIGNED)

Nanao Kachi
Director, Social and Consumer Policy

Attachments

c.c.: Jean-François Mezei, Vaxination Informatique
jfmezei@vaxination.ca
Mirko Bibic, Bell
bell.regulatory@bell.ca

Appendix 1

Distribution List:

Geoffrey White, Counsel for PIAC-CAC (gwhite@piac.ca)
John Lawford, Executive Director/General Counsel, PIAC (jlawford@piac.ca)
Bruce Cran, President, CAC (bcranbiz@telus.net)
Dawn Hunt, Vice President, Regulatory for Rogers (rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com)
Stephen Schmidt, Vice-President - Telecom Policy & Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel for TELUS (regulatory.affairs@telus.com)
Howard Maker, Commissioner, CCTS (howard.maker@ccts-cprst.ca)
Josee Thibault, Director, Inquiries and Complaints, CCTS (josee.thibault@ccts-cprst.ca)


Appendix 2

Interrogatories to PIAC-CAC

  1. In its reply, PIAC-CAC state that “the impetus for PIAC-CAC’s Application was consumer complaints about one of the programs at issue.”Footnote 3  Please provide details of these complaints. 

Interrogatories to Rogers

  1. The applicants contend that the Rogers Next program is ambiguous in its description and in its operation.  In order for the Commission to assess the clarity of the information provided to Rogers Next customers, please provide:
    1. samples of your contracts designed specifically for the Rogers Next program, including the Critical Information Summary, contract terms and conditions, and terms and conditions related to device protection plans/warranties that are optional or mandatory to participate in the program.  If the format of the contract varies depending on whether the agreement is made over the phone, online, or in person, please provide examples of each variation of the contract and related documents; and
    1. please highlight, in each of these documents, the terms and conditions that are unique to the Rogers Next program, specifically terms and conditions that differentiate the Rogers Next program from a standard two-year term agreement.
  1. Please provide:
  1. the number of subscribers currently enrolled in Rogers Next program; and
  1. the number of subscribers who have terminated enrollment in the program or cancelled their service agreement before exercising their option to upgrade their device.

Interrogatories to TELUS

  1. The applicants contend that the T-UP! program is ambiguous in its description and in its operation.  In order for the Commission to assess the clarity of the information provided to T-UP! customers, please provide:
  1. samples of your contracts designed specifically for the T-UP! program, including the Critical Information Summary, contract terms and conditions, and terms and conditions related to device protection plans/warranties that are optional or mandatory to participate in the program.  If the format of the contract varies depending on whether the agreement is made over the phone, online, or in person, please provide examples of each variation of the contract and related documents; and
  1. please highlight, in each of these documents, the terms and conditions that are unique to the T-UP! program, specifically terms and conditions that differentiate the T-UP! program from a standard two-year term agreement.
  1. Please provide:
  1. the number of subscribers currently enrolled in T-UP! program; and
  1. the number of subscribers who have terminated enrollment in the program or cancelled their service agreement before exercising their option to upgrade their device.

Interrogatories to the CCTS

  1. In its application, PIAC-CAC contend that “in requiring customers to prepay for a device on the basis that the fees paid into the program are never refundable, is a violation of the Wireless Code’s limitation on early cancellations fees.”Footnote 4

In assessing PIAC-CAC’s application, the Commission would benefit from information regarding consumer complaints submitted to the CCTS relating to Rogers and TELUS with regards to these programs.  As such, the CCTS is to provide information regarding the number and nature of any complaints it has received related to:

    1. the Rogers Next program, launched in February 2014; and
    1. the TELUS T-UP! program, launched in September 2013.
Footnote 1

Copies of responses are to be served to the following parties: the applicants, PIAC-CAC (gwhite@piac.ca; jlawford@piac.ca; bcranbiz@telus.net); the respondents, Rogers (rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com) and TELUS  (regulatory.affairs@telus.com); and the interveners, Vaxination Informatique (jfmezei@vaxination.ca) and Bell (bell.regulatory@bell.ca).

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2010-277/index.html

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

PIAC-CAC reply, (11 August 2014), paragraph 27.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

PIAC-CAC Part 1 Application, (17 June 2014), paragraph 4.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Date modified: