Ontario to adopt consumer cellphone protection plan

[alanbrenton]

Will this law be retroactive? Which wireless providers provides the most cellphone / smartphone subsidy?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2399811/

The Ontario government is vowing to beef up consumer protection for wireless services by adopting new legislation that would allow cellphone users to cancel their contracts at any time, while placing strict caps on any penalties.

In doing so, Ontario becomes the third province in recent years to step into the regulatory void left by the federal telecommunications regulator, which decided against the active regulation of cellular contracts nearly 20 years ago.

The Ontario government is vowing to beef up consumer protection for wireless services by adopting new legislation that would allow cellphone users to cancel their contracts at any time, while placing strict caps on any penalties.

In doing so, Ontario becomes the third province in recent years to step into the regulatory void left by the federal telecommunications regulator, which decided against the active regulation of cellular contracts nearly 20 years ago.

The Wireless Services Agreement Act would also require “the express consent” of consumers to renew, extend or change a contract and force wireless carriers to use easy-to-understand contract language to provide more clarity around costs among other measures.

If passed, the legislation would affect new contracts for wireless phone and data services, taking effect six months after being passed. It would also apply to existing contracts that are extended or changed after that date.

Mr. Orazietti said he’s confident the legislation will garner all-party support in the legislature, noting his private member’s bill passed second reading in December. He noted that an earlier version of that bill introduced in 2010 was widely endorsed by MPPs of all political stripes before dying on the order paper when a provincial election was called last year.

While championing that kitchen table issue is bound to score political points with consumers for Premier Dalton McGuinty’s minority government, wireless carriers have long warned the growing patchwork of provincial legislation in this area risks driving up their operating expenses.

Quebec’s Bill 60, which took effect in 2010, caps the fees that consumers must pay for early cancellation of their wireless contracts. Manitoba, meanwhile, is on the brink of proclaiming legislation into law that bans unreasonable cancellation fees among other measures.

With a mixture of different rules in different provinces, the wireless industry has already warned that any added compliance costs borne by carriers could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher wireless prices.

As a result, companies like Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp. are advocating a more uniform approach. Those companies, along with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, are urging the federal telecom regulator to implement a national consumer protection code for wireless services.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced that it will hold a consultation to probe the state of wireless competition to determine whether it should actively regulate wireless service contracts.

“We are seeking evidence that our intervention is necessary before considering the development of a national wireless code,” acting CRTC chairman Leonard Katz said in a release announced the consultation.

The CRTC had decided against regulating the wireless sector in 1994, opting to allow market forces to guide the industry’s growth. At the time, it stressed there was sufficient competition in the market to justify its hands-off approach.

Those dormant regulatory powers, though, still remain in the Telecommunications Act, meaning the CRTC can still exercise its authority over such matters if it chooses. The CRTC will issue a decision later this year.

[actng]

this is probably a good thing. big 3 will use any excuse to raise prices. but the recent change in ECFs have made signing a 3 yr contract less of a dumb move as it used to be.

[Piro21]

So they're urging the abolition of the provincial measures put in place to protect consumers in favour of a law passed by their lobbyists in the CRTC? This is bound to go well.

[_Allan_]

They should cap the costs of actually USING service.
DO actual studies and find out, how much does an ACTUAL phone call from Toronto to Toronto cost. How about Toronto to Montreal. etc, and force the companies to ONLY charge that value. Charge ONLY fair value for data and text usage as well. Stop gauging us on Caller ID and Voicemail which cost pennies per day to run now.

I see this as another way for Robelus to stick their collective noses into Government business and screw the customers by crying foul.

[_Allan_]

So they're urging the abolition of the provincial measures put in place to protect consumers in favour of a law passed by their lobbyists in the CRTC? This is bound to go well.

Ontario Government is proposing this ... how did CRTC get involved at all?

[Piro21]

Ontario Government is proposing this ... how did CRTC get involved at all?

Emphasis mine:

As a result, companies like Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp. are advocating a more uniform approach. Those companies, along with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, are urging the federal telecom regulator to implement a national consumer protection code for wireless services.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission announced that it will hold a consultation to probe the state of wireless competition to determine whether it should actively regulate wireless service contracts.

“We are seeking evidence that our intervention is necessary before considering the development of a national wireless code,” acting CRTC chairman Leonard Katz said in a release announced the consultation.

The CRTC had decided against regulating the wireless sector in 1994, opting to allow market forces to guide the industry’s growth. At the time, it stressed there was sufficient competition in the market to justify its hands-off approach.

Those dormant regulatory powers, though, still remain in the Telecommunications Act, meaning the CRTC can still exercise its authority over such matters if it chooses. The CRTC will issue a decision later this year.

[ceredon]

Rogers and the rest want CRTC regulation on this for 2 reasons:
1) They are right that it will be a nightmare for them to try to work within multiple provinces each with distinct requirements. Many of their reps can barely do basic math, expecting them to understand nuances between various locales might be a bit much.
2) The know that whatever the CRTC imposes, they can manipulate to be a watered down version of whatever the provinces might legislate.

In addition to what the ON government is proposing, I'd also like to see a prohibition on 3 year contracts. There is no reason to believe that our Canadian carriers are so incompetent, compared to every other country in the world, that they need 36 month contracts where others need 1, 2 or none for the same level of service and the same devices. (And please don't say 'well Canada is huge so the costs are larger', because 95% of our population and their coverage is in small pockets along a very narrow strip.

[mtrump]

David Orazietti's bill originally has a clause for unlocking of handsets after the completion of the contract, or if the device is purchased outright. However, in the tabled legislation, the unlocking clause has been removed.

Please contact your local MPPs, McGuinty and Margarett Best (Minister of Consumer Services) and tell them you want to see the unlocking clause put back in.

[FunSave22]

David Orazietti's bill originally has a clause for unlocking of handsets after the completion of the contract, or if the device is purchased outright. However, in the tabled legislation, the unlocking clause has been removed.

Please contact your local MPPs, McGuinty and Margarett Best (Minister of Consumer Services) and tell them you wan to see the unlocking clause put back in.

While I don't claim to be an expert on this, it seems a bit questionable whether the Ontario government has the power to do this.

The Ontario government does have power to pass consumer protection laws, but in general telecommunication laws are a federal responsibility. To me, forcing mandatory unlocking doesn't really seem to fit under consumer protection.

[Aznsilvrboy]

While I don't claim to be an expert on this, it seems a bit questionable whether the Ontario government has the power to do this.

The Ontario government does have power to pass consumer protection laws, but in general telecommunication laws are a federal responsibility. To me, forcing mandatory unlocking doesn't really seem to fit under consumer protection.

Why doesn't it? Once purchased, the phone is the property of the buyer. The lock on the phone hurts the mobility of the consumer.

[FunSave22]

Why doesn't it? Once purchased, the phone is the property of the buyer. The lock on the phone hurts the mobility of the consumer.

The point of consumer protection laws is to prevent the consumer being ripped off or being taken advantage of. But they aren't to ensure consumers get the best deal possible.


Preventing huge cancellation fees and preventing contract terms being changed with no recourse for the consumer seem to me to fall under that mandate.

But forcing the company to unlock subsidized phones doesn't to me. Forcing them to unlock unsubsidized would.

I just don't see the consumer being taken advantage of here. They are knowingly getting a subsidized phone and one of the parts of the subsidization is that it's locked and will remain locked.


But that's just my opinion. I realize it's not cut and dry.

[amace]

They should cap the costs of actually USING service.
DO actual studies and find out, how much does an ACTUAL phone call from Toronto to Toronto cost. How about Toronto to Montreal. etc, and force the companies to ONLY charge that value. Charge ONLY fair value for data and text usage as well. Stop gauging us on Caller ID and Voicemail which cost pennies per day to run now.

I see this as another way for Robelus to stick their collective noses into Government business and screw the customers by crying foul.

You clearly hav eno idea about anything.

You're suggesting carriers charge you COST for services? What a fricken laugh.

How are they going to make money? They're a BUSINESS. Last I checked, the point of a business is to make money. Cell service is not a necessity, if you can't afford it, DON'T USE IT.

Plus, the amount you pay doesn't just pay the cost for a single call, it pays the salaries of store staff, network engineers, CEO, accountants, etc. They don't work for free.

I've heard alot of purely idiotic statements, but this might be the stupidest yet.
You're more than welcome to build your own network and only pay the cost to make that call.

[amace]

Rogers and the rest want CRTC regulation on this for 2 reasons:
1) They are right that it will be a nightmare for them to try to work within multiple provinces each with distinct requirements. Many of their reps can barely do basic math, expecting them to understand nuances between various locales might be a bit much.
2) The know that whatever the CRTC imposes, they can manipulate to be a watered down version of whatever the provinces might legislate.

In addition to what the ON government is proposing, I'd also like to see a prohibition on 3 year contracts. There is no reason to believe that our Canadian carriers are so incompetent, compared to every other country in the world, that they need 36 month contracts where others need 1, 2 or none for the same level of service and the same devices. (And please don't say 'well Canada is huge so the costs are larger', because 95% of our population and their coverage is in small pockets along a very narrow strip.

RIIIGHT... are you implying southern ontario is even close to as dense as the same amount of land around New York? How about New England area?

What about England? Germany? Tokyo?

Get real, Canada is one of the sparsest populated countries in the world, even in the densest areas.

[ceredon]

RIIIGHT... are you implying southern ontario is even close to as dense as the same amount of land around New York? How about New England area?

What about England? Germany? Tokyo?

Get real, Canada is one of the sparsest populated countries in the world, even in the densest areas.

Nope, didn't write anything about population density. I said the vast majority of our population lives in a very small area, relative to the size of the country. Same with coverage.

Anyone trying to bring the size of Canada into the discussion seems to intentionally need a little dishonesty in their argument. They know Canada as a whole isn't covered, yet they always seem to try to slip that in.

RIIIIGHT?

I'll make it simple: Using the size of the entire country as an excuse for Rogers (and Bell and Telus) to need, uniquely in all the world, 36 month contract and the very highness rates in the world, would make sense if they cover entire county. They don't.

[Aznsilvrboy]

The point of consumer protection laws is to prevent the consumer being ripped off or being taken advantage of. But they aren't to ensure consumers get the best deal possible.


Preventing huge cancellation fees and preventing contract terms being changed with no recourse for the consumer seem to me to fall under that mandate.

But forcing the company to unlock subsidized phones doesn't to me. Forcing them to unlock unsubsidized would.

I just don't see the consumer being taken advantage of here. They are knowingly getting a subsidized phone and one of the parts of the subsidization is that it's locked and will remain locked.


But that's just my opinion. I realize it's not cut and dry.

We are talking about forcing the carriers to unlock the phone either after the contract has finished (naturally ran out or paid cancellation fee) or if the phone was bought outright. In all cases, there is either no subsidy or the subsidy would have been paid back. Do you agree that at that point, the carriers should be forced to unlock the phones?