Online Consultation: Help Develop a Wireless Code – Phase 2 Comments

We have been with Bell for many years, the big reason was to keep the phone number and that getting out of the contract was expensive.

At no time were we asked our opinion on one or two year contracts. During the hearings Bell indicated no one is interested in these terms. We would prefer to compare the cost of one and two year contracts. We would prefer the flexibility to exit before three years. We just renewed for three years again, someone wanted a smart phone.

If the cost of the phone is amortized over the course of the contract, the monthly costs for service and for handset/phone should be separate for each billing period. Once the "phone" part of the bill is paid up, there should be a reduction in the monthly billing to reflect only the ongoing "service" portion.

On one occasion, one member phone died after the warranty expired but before the contract expired. One member phone was solicited for an "eligible" upgrade but the "eligible" upgrade could not be transferred to the broken phone. We upgraded the "eligible" phone, signed on for a new contract, reactivated an older phone for the broken one. We wanted the upgraded phone for the "early adopter" member but we could not accomplish this change at the time without also exchanging phone numbers

In hindsight and after listening to the hearings, What does this mean? It seems we are "eligible" for an upgrade when we have "Paid for" the previous phone. This use of "eligible" in soliciting upgrades is confusing and should be discouraged.

In another case a third shared phone was added for a relative in a retirement home. Made sense to receive the calls from relatives and friends even when out of the room. After several failed international attempts to contact the person via cell phone, and discussion with Bell Service, we were advised we couldn't receive or make international calls on the phone. We installed a land-line. The international usefulness of the phone should be spelled out. Perhaps some compassion in these cases would be appropriate. We had an extra phone that we couldn't use but it appeared cheaper to keep in than to exit the contract.

In trying to exit the contract for that extra phone, there were additional unnecessary delays and costs. It should be clear how much notice is needed to cancel a contract, how fast cancellation occur and what extra fees are to be paid? If a phone can be activated in a day why can they not be de-activated also in one day?

Roaming should be dealt with. On the Canadian side of the St Lawrence near Morrisburg we twice received bills for USA roaming. The first time charges reversed but the second time they weren't. We did not know about the "Home Only" mode for the phone. So new phones should be set at "Home Only" and the setting should be explained.

For a trip to the USA we purchased US data and phone "offerings" over $200 to allow data and voice contact with a member during a week long trip to USA. You had to get the full month "offering" for each. Perhaps a travel package would be more helpful and economically feasible for clients.

Defining the right terms is critical to having a productive and useful discussion.

A significant proportion of the time and attention expended here, both for writing and reading comments, has been wasted or misdirected, because so many participants have been completely misguided by the terms "subsidy" and "contract" that their input here was based on mistaken premises.

The CRTC could have gotten much more useful input by replacing those misleading terms with "deferred cost" and "payment schedule", respectively.
Notice that in the Wireless Code Definitions section, neither "subsidy" or "contract", though integral to the discussion, was defined.

Hopefully the CRTC will not react to all the comments railing against the 3-year "contract" by depriving consumers of the helpful option of having a 3-year payment schedule that can be exited at any time. In fact, the CTRC, should mandate that that a 3-year payment schedule option does get offered, in addition to 1 and 2-year schedules. What I hope the CRTC also takes away from all the misguided comments here is the need to replace the false term "subsidy" with "deferred cost" and to replace the hopelessly-misinterpreted word "contract" with "payment schedule".

Here are new entries that should be added to the Wireless Code Definitions section:

Subsidy: a misnomer for what is now properly referred to as the "deferred cost". Since there is no subsidy involved, and only a deferred cost, the Wireless Code strictly mandates the use of the term "deferred cost" and prohibits the use of the term “subsidy”.

Deferred cost: the portion of the device cost that is to be paid in equal monthly installments over the duration of the payment schedule.

Upfront cost: the cost paid upfront by the consumer at the point of sale and signing of the payment schedule. The sum of the upfront cost and the deferred cost is the total cost of the device.

Contract: the old term for the payment schedule. The Wireless Code discourages the use of this term because consumers have been conditioned into thinking that terminating a contract is too expensive to be an option for them. The recommended term is "payment schedule."

Payment schedule: the agreement signed between the consumer and the service provider that outlines the equal monthly installment payments for the device, the number of months this must be paid, the data plan rate, the voice plan rate, etc. and that allows the consumer to terminate the payment schedule by paying off the remainder of the deferred cost of the device, etc.

Dear CRTC,

A more legible (formatted), 11-page PDF version of this comment may be found here:
http://pdfcast.org/pdf/crtc-draft-wireless-code-feedback

I have also 'cut & pasted', below, the text contents of that document into this comment field in case my uploaded version cannot be retrieved. (But the PDF version will be much, much easier to read and is thus strongly preferred.)

PS: I wish that we could have formally 'submitted' our feedback as we did at the outset of this consultation, where we could upload a PDF file. Maybe next time?!

== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==

TO: CRTC
RE: Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2012-557(-3)
-- Feedback regarding the Draft Wireless Code
From: RogersWatch
Date: Feb 15, 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings again!
Once more I come before you as 'RogersWatch', the persona I created after my own needlessly
frustrating experience with Rogers and my subsequent braindump of my experience, tips & tricks
at https://RogersWatch.wordpress.org .
My comments herein are based on my intense 2+ years spent dealing with Rogers, and many,
many aggrieved customers who also were having problems with Rogers.
The two major complaint groups to the CCTS are:
- wrongly billed amount
- changed contract terms, without knowledge/consent of the account holder
One can review the draft Code in the light of how well its contents addresses those two major
areas (where the Code is not addressing some other, identifiable issue).
Superficially, actions which would cause a predicted decrease in CCTS complaints are a good
regulatory action. However there are some actions a regulator can take that will cause an increase
in complaints (for instance, by providing inducement for consumers making meritorious
complaints) - this can be a good thing too as it can increase the awareness or depth of a problem,
or that consumers are more motivated to seek enforcement of their rights.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 1 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section A3 - Application re Post vs Pre Paid
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of two "Options" re which sections (all, or only some of the Code
shall apply to pre-paid customers).
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: Option 2 appears to be a limiting sentence, which means
this sentence's inclusion will reduce the effectiveness of
the Code because it limits the protections afforded to not
include those on pre-paid plans.
Issue: 1) It's difficult to assess this limitation because its scope is not described - i.e. what
sections will not apply to pre-paid customers.
2) Why the inclusion of this limitation at all, anyway?
Suggested Option: Choose "Option 1", where pre-paid customers have all the same
protections as do post-paid.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 2 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Initial Sentence of Section A6 - Covers only "Distance Contracts"
CRTC's Proposed Text: The Wireless Code applies to “distance contracts,” such as contracts
agreed to over the phone or online.
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: This appears to be a limiting sentence, which means this
sentence's inclusion will reduce the effectiveness of the
Code because it limits those who are protected by the
Code. This sentence will thus cause the Code to have
diminished effect.
Issue: What is the Wireless Code's definition of "distance contract"? Being apparently a term
of art, should it not be clearly defined?
Is it the same as "remote agreements" in Ontario's CPA, 2002:
PART IV
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RESPECTING SPECIFIC CONSUMER
AGREEMENTS
Definitions and Application
Interpretation
20. (1) In this Part,
[...]
“remote agreement” means a consumer agreement entered into when the
consumer and supplier are not present together; (“convention à distance”)
[...]
Issue: Why the inclusion of this limitation on who is protected by the Code?
I read that introductory sentence as meaning that the Wireless Code applies to only
"distance contracts" ... and that in-person contracts (e.g. when the customer goes to a
store and signs up) are not covered by the protections of the Wireless Code.
That would be a brutal limitation, which would leave those who make agreements instore
unprotected by the CRTC's Code, and thus makes not much sense.
Suggested Improvement: Remove entirely that sentence about "distance contracts".
There is no need to prevent those who make an agreement in-store,
or otherwise not from a 'distance', from receiving the benefits of the
Code's protections.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 3 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section B1 - Implementation Date
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of two "Options" re how quickly the Code comes into effect.
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: The sooner the code is brought into effect, the more
quickly any reduction in CCTS complaints will be enjoyed.
Suggested Option: Choose "Option 2", which brings into force some sections more quickly
than Option 1.
======================================================================
Section B2 - Defining who are the Protected Parties
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of three "Options" re who (pre-existing vs new customers) will
become protected by the Code.
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: The more parties protected by the Code, the fewer
expected CCTS complaints.
Suggested Option: Choose "Option 1", which provides the Code's protections to both preexisting
and future contracts. (Unless protection of pre-existing contracts
would invite, by the carriers, a legal challenge of probable victory.)
If the Code is a good thing, then is not its broader coverage too a good
thing?
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 4 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section C1 - CCTS as 'Enforcer'
CRTC's Proposed Text: "The CRTC will monitor trends in complaints about the Wireless Code
and will take action to enforce its requirement that service providers
adhere to the Wireless Code in cases of systemic non-compliance.
Service providers will be required to file a report with the CRTC that
demonstrates how their practices comply with the Wireless Code
within one month of the Wireless Code coming into force."
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: The CRTC has identified a key problem and is apparently
seeking to forcefully implement a permanent solution! The
problem is the systemic nature of the carriers'
transgressions, and the wasteful need for each harmed
consumer to file a CCTS complaint. Furthermore, the
CRTC seems to be heading off the predictable claims of
ignorance, new policy, etc, that the carriers might bleat, by
demanding that the carriers provide documented proof of
compliance.
By addressing the systemic nature of some of the
complaints and seeking to compel correction on the
carriers' parts the expected result would be for CCTS
complaints to decline markedly.
Issue: Well, I'm largely delighted : )
My preference though, would have been for the CCTS itself be able to issue decrees
compelling changes to carrier policy. In the world of wireless telecommunications,
where technologies and services can change in substantial and/or quick ways, a
compliance/enforcement arm needs to be similarly fleet-footed or it risks being of
diminished or even no beneficial effect.
By the CRTC being the entity which can correct the systemic non-compliance issues,
yet needing to monitor trends that are reported by the CCTS, it seems to add a level of
delay and review that might outweigh the advantages which it would bring.
Suggested Option: Either:
a) from the outset of the Wireless Code's implementation, have the
CCTS be the entity to compel change to systemic carrier noncompliance,
or
b) as part of any forthcoming review of the Code's effect and/or
CCTS enforcement, consider handing off this authority to the
CCTS.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 5 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section C2 - Recourse for consumers
CRTC's Proposed Text: "The CCTS can require a service provider to provide a consumer with
an explanation or apology, an undertaking to do or cease doing
specific activities with respect to the consumer, or monetary
compensation up to $5,000."
Issue: The use of the word "or" suggests that a consumer is entitled to at most one of the
remedies enumerated, and never more than one.
Is this the intent of the CRTC, to limit the remedies available in this way?
I suspect, and most certainly hope, not!
Suggested Improvement: Change to:
The CCTS can require a service provider to provide a consumer
with an explanation or apology, an undertaking to do or cease
doing specific activities with respect to the consumer, and/or
monetary compensation up to $5,000.
Issue: When a consumer has a meritorious complaint, should that consumer be entitled to
some remuneration for the time they 'wasted' trying to resolve it with the carrier, and
'spent' having to compose and follow-up with a CCTS complaint?
If that is implicitly permitted by the suggested wording in this section of the code I
would implore the CRTC to consider stating it explicitly. If such is not the
correct/intended interpretation I would ask that the CRTC specifically consider making
a provision for consumers to be remunerated when they file a prevailing complaint.
This would have the effect of:
a) offering a disincentive to carriers to act in systemic ways that cause CCTS
complaints, and
b) offering an incentive to consumers to file a CCTS complaint, which would
both encourage fair and balanced outcomes in the marketplace and it would
also assist with reviewing the Code's effectiveness if a greater portion of valid
CCTS complaints is actually filed
Suggested Improvement: Change to:
The CCTS can require a service provider to provide a consumer
with an explanation or apology, an undertaking to do or cease
doing specific activities with respect to the consumer, and/or
monetary compensation up to $5,000 including compensation
for time spent by the consumer trying to seek remedy with the
carrier and filing and fulfilling their CCTS complaint.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 6 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section D2.1 - Changes to contracts by service providers
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of two "Options" re what are the consumer's rights of
cancellation/repudiation when the carrier attempts to change the
terms of the contract
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: The simpler option of the two (i.e. Option 1 - permit
consumers to cancel outright) would be preferable from
an enforcement/consumer-awareness/consumercomprehension
standpoint and would likely cause less
problems than the much more complicated Option 2.
Issue: There's a potential bit of mischief here, in that what exactly are the services that
comprise part of the contracted service can be a topic of dispute between the
consumer and the carrier.
Consider Caller ID service. This is ostensibly an 'add-on' that a carrier would not
consider to be part of the 'contracted service'. However a consumer who has a
contracted service cannot receive caller ID from any source other than the carrier.
The potential for problems here arises when a carrier attempts to raise the price of an
add-on service that is in use by a consumer whose plan in on a contracted term. The
consumer might well want to leave for greener pastures in consideration of this price
hike but they can't without suffering some penalty due to the contracted term of their
plan, but they are also prevented from replacing this 'add-on' with that from some other
provider by way of the current architecture of telecom. (Call forwarding costs, voicemail
to some degree and long-distance to some degree are other examples of 'add-on'
features that cannot be completely separated from one's contracted service.)
It'd be beneficial if the CRTC and/or CCTS would clarify whether contract-term
protection extends to these inseparable-from-plan 'add-ons'.
Aside from that, the clear preference is to lock in all terms (material or not) of a
consumer's plan and leave it completely unmolested for the entire term of their
contract, unless both the consumer and carrier agree. That would leave consumers
with less bill shock, less aggravation about how what they thought was their agreement
isn't actually and carriers with a strong incentive to not have their reps make
'accidental' changes to the terms, including duration, of a consumer's plan.
Suggested Option: Choose "Option 1" for clear, powerful consumer protection.
Also, please specify broad coverage of what features/add-ons (perhaps
all?) have their functionality and price covered under the auspices of being
part of the contracted service, and protected against change during the
contracted term.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 7 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section D3.2 - Application of early termination fees
CRTC's Proposed Text: "If the consumer cancels the contract early, the consumer cannot be
required to pay any fee, charge, penalty, interest, or other amount
other than the termination fee described below. "
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: This sub-section will hopefully end the complaints to the
CCTS regarding being billed for 30 days of 'dead air' (i.e.
per the contract of adhesion's requirement for 30 days
notice of cancellations), so it will have a measurably
positive effect.
Hooray, especially in light of Telus' recent change to
attempt to charge a $50 fee when one closes one's
account m- instead of the customary $35 activation fee (a
$35 knife in the chest, they're trying for a $50 knife in the
back).
Thank you, CRTC, for putting an end to these knives -
well, at least the ones in the consumer's back!
======================================================================
Section D3.3 - Calculation of early termination fees
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of two "Options" re how to handle/calculate ECF/subsidy fees.
Issue: "Option 1" is much smaller in text quantity, so were the CRTC to adhere to its own
requirement about the contracts being of a plain language (per section D1.1) Option 1
would be the only reasonable choice, because the language of Option 2 makes the
sentiment nearly incomprehensible. Furthermore, the inclusion of the math 'examples'
(including the startling reference to 4-yr subsidies) makes the section all the more
opaque to the average consumer.
Suggested Option: Choose "Option 1", since it completely and adequately provides for
payback of the subsidy without unnecessary complication.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 8 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section D3.4 - Automatic contract renewal
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of two "Options", the first of which calls for a consumers contract
with a now-expired term to fall into month-to-month terms (much as
seems to be the ubiquitous case in the marketplace nowadays), and
the alternate Option, which would have a consumer's service end if
they did not expressly consent to some form of extension.
Both options would seem to preclude any automatic extension of a
contract's term save where express consent is made by the
consumer.
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: Option 2, which would be a severe divergence from the
current standard practice in the marketplace and whose
impact would be similarly severe (unexpected service
outage) for those not wary of it, would cause much
displeasure by consumers, confusion, and possible
complaints to the CCTS, even though the carrier would
have been complying with the Code in ending the
consumer's service.
Option 1 would thus be the far wiser choice, by this
metric.
Issue: From what I can tell there are not significant (or any, that I can recall) complaints from
consumers about how a contracted-term's service falls into a month-to-month
commitment when the term ends.
Which leads to: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Suggested Option: "Option 1", that maintains the status quo (and thankfully, enshrines it in the
Code) is the Option that benefits all parties here - even the carriers.
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 9 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section D4.3 - New: “Unlimited plans”
CRTC's Proposed Text: Some wise and useful protection for consumers.
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: Although I doubt that complaints about soft and hard
caps, both published and unpublished, comprise a large
portion of CCTS complaints currently, it can be expected
that as the opportunity for high data usage (stemming
from both faster wireless speeds - LTE obviously comes
to mind - and richer/larger-data sizes as the web
continues to grow and develop) usage will become a
more and more prevalent issue for more and more
consumers.
Hidden caps, capricious implementation, missing details
all lead to consumer frustration and thus CCTS
complaints.
By including this sub-section which relates to open and
complete disclosure of the plans limitation s one can
reasonably expect that surprises to consumers, and thus
complaints to the CCTS, will be reduced.
======================================================================
Section D5. Notifications of additional fees
and tools to monitor and manage usage
CRTC's Proposed Text: Some wise and useful protection for consumers.
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: Fewer.
Section D5 here is a godsend for consumers and will
prevent a huge amount of bill shock.
Hear hear!
======================================================================
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 10 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>

Section D7.1 - Unlocking phones
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of two "Options" re a consumer being apprised of the fees for
such unlocking, and another option where such apprising is included
in addition to no fee being charged for those who have paid off their
subsidy.
Effectiveness vs CCTS Complaints: If unlocking matters are a substantial source of CCTS
complaints then Option 2, which provides the reasonable,
and reasonably-expected, $0 fee for unlocking an
unsubsidized device can expect to visibly reduce those
complaints.
Suggested Option: "Option 2" is a fair outcome since one ought not have to pay a penalty or
fee to unlock a device for which one has already fully paid.
======================================================================
Section D10.1 - Disconnection
CRTC's Proposed Text: One of two very differing "Options" with one particular difference -
only Option 1 denies a carrier the right to disconnect service for
unpaid, yet legitimately disputed amounts:
"Service providers cannot disconnect a consumer’s service
where the consumer disputes the reason for the disconnection,
provided that payment is being made for the undisputed portion
of the services, and there is no reason to believe that the
purpose of the dispute is to evade or delay payment."
Suggested Option: "Option 1" is vastly preferable as it staggers and requires notification to the
customer ... in addition to containing the protection of consumers
regarding disputed charges.
If Option 2 must be selected by the CRTC I would plead that it be modified
to provide the same protection from disconnection in the case of disputed
charges being unpaid.
======================================================================
I find myself generally quite satisfied with the contents of the Draft Code, based on my incomplete
study of it., and predicated on the draft substantially representing what will be in the final code ...
especially where options are provided and the option that provides the greater consumer
protection being the one implemented in the final Code. Thank you!
-- RogersWatch
RogersWatch response re Draft Wireless Code - CRTC 2012-557(-3) Page: 11 of 11
<< END OF THIS PAGE>>
<< END OF THIS DOCUMENT>>

Another reasonable fix to this issue would be to allow for all incoming calls to be free (not count against your minute caps), as has been done by many provider worldwide for years.

After I stated yesterday about Philippines, I heard to day they will unlock a cell phone at the Chrystal mall in Burnaby BC, the Hilton Hotel , SaskTel is off base with the price $50.00

This may be less to do with the code, but the solution would preclude the need for some of the code entirely, I'd think:

Why does Rogers have over 11,000 grandfathered plans? Why would someone want to keep an old plan? The only reason is because that plan is better than what's currently offered.

In a competitive market, new plans would always be better than old plans. If the market truly was competitive, Rogers would not have to grandfather anyone's plan, because newer plans would be better (for the consumer) and people would jump on them at the first chance.

I urge you to consider that parts of the code are only needed because of the LACK of any kind of real competitive environment. With that in mind, perhaps separating device sales from service sales or banning contracts outright would address part of this problem, and obviate the need for certain parts of the code, making it simpler.

Thank you!

First and foremost, if this document is intended to protect the consumer as it appears to be designed to do, there is no reason that any of the telco companies should have any say in its contents, structure or implementation. That's how we ended up in this mess in the first place. The Big Three have proven time and again they do not have the consumers best interest in mind. They only have their own best interests in mind. And given that, they cannot and should not be afforded a voice in the construction of a document that has become necessary as a direct result of their previous actions and behaviours toward their customers. Much the same as how the FAA likely doesn't ask Boeing for input when creating an airworthiness certification document.

Second, 3-year contract terms are ridiculous. I've read recently that Bell has said Canadians have voted with their wallet and prefer 3-year contracts. Of course they'd say that when that's the only thing they, and their counterparts offer in order to get the best technology at a "reasonable" price. There's not enough time in this process to get into how their idea of what a reasonable price varies from what the consumer (and consumers around the world) think. But at a minimum, we need to do away with 3-year terms. Especially in a time when the technology advances at such a rapid rate. It's unreasonable to lock someone in to a contract that is essentially 6 times longer than the technology cycle for the devices that contract is for.

Now, for some comments on the document as it stands:

A 3: Every cell user in Canada deserves to be treated with the same level of respect and have the same protection afforded them, regardless if they are a contracted user or a pay-as-you-go user. So Option 1 is the only reasonable option here.

B 1: This is a process that needs to be enacted quickly. And it can be. Between the 2 options listed, Option 1 is favoured, but I don't see a reason it can't be moved up to 3 months, or even 30 days. There is nothing in this document that appears to require a long lead time to implement, and doing so only plays into the hands of the telco companies themselves. Frankly they don't deserve the privilege.

B 2: Again, why are we considering treating some consumers better than others? Everyone who owns a cell phone in this country deserves to be protected from the greed and self-interested telco industry. Option 1 is the only viable option. Imagine signing a long-term contract in the next week and not being protected by this new Code of Conduct for a full 3 more years? That's not how we should be treating Canadians. Any option that excludes anyone was put in there by the telco interests and has no business being there.

C 2:Some sort of reasonable timeline would be a nice addition to this part. Say, 30 days. This way it forces the providers to act in a timely manner and prevents them from stalling the issue over months and months - and activity they are currently well versed in accomplishing.

D 1.3: At no time when a consumer gives money to a provider for a service should that money, or the credits thereof, expire. The money has been paid, the provider has a responsibility to honour that purchase at any time the consumer chooses to use it. Option 2 is the only reasonable option here.

D 1.5: A provision to cover alternate languages should be added here. When it comes to legal contracts it is important that the consumer have a full understanding of what they are agreeing to. Many Canadians are able to understand English or French on a casual basis, but might be more comfortable having a legal document in their native language. This should be made available by the provider at no additional cost as well.

D 2.1: In all cases, if more than one option is presented, we should always be using the one that requires the least explanation. Simpler is better. In this case, Option 1 is clear, concise and requires very explanation to understand it. Whereas Option 2 is lengthy and complicated.

D 3.3: Option 1 is preferred for the same reason as stated above.

D 3.4: Who even offers contracts less than 60 days? Isn't that pretty much the same as a pay-as-you-go arrangement? This section needlessly confuses things. Option 1 makes more sense in this case.

D 4.3: Unlimited plans. Isn't this one a farce. Let's amend this section to state that no provider shall be permitted to use the word "unlimited", or its synonyms, in any advertising of any kind unless the service is ACTUALLY unlimited. The larger telco providers have gotten very adept at muddying the waters as to what Unlimited means. Unlimited means there are no limits. This has created confusion among consumers, which in turn creates an unfair marketplace for smaller competitors that actually do offer unlimited plans, which in turn gives the Big Three even more power to limit competition. And so the cycle goes until there are no more competitors. I don't know how we've gotten to a point where a company can say they have an Unlimited plan while in reality it is only unlimited at certain times of day or up to a certain amount of minutes or data. This is absurd. The word unlimited means there are no limits. So if your provider has limits, you are now excluded from using the term. It's that simple.

D 7.1 Regardless which option is chosen here, there needs to be language included that there should never be a fee for unlocking the phone. This is a cash grab. Consumers can buy unlocked phones directly from the manufacturer, so why should the providers get to charge customers to unlock it? It's shady. Aside from that, Option 1 is the better of the two.

D 10.1 There's always an exception to the rule. In this case, Option 1 is more complicated than Option 2, but it makes the most sense and it the better of the two.

We have a lot of work to do to bring the wireless situation in Canada up to par with so much of the rest of the world. Not the least of which of those problems is the overall cost of the services. We are lagging far, far behind other industrialized nations in this regard. But in order to make advancements on that issue, we must first have a telco industry that respects its customers. We certainly don't have that now. Hopefully, we can get a Wireless Code of Conduct in place that benefits the consumer entirely, and is not a body of work created or influenced by the providers themselves. Once we accomplish that, we can begin to address the other issues plaguing our system. Issues that cause Canada to have some of the worst cellular rates in the world, and some of the worst customer service and available features.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the CRTC’s draft Wireless Code.

My comments re the draft code:

A3. Option 1
B1. Option 1
B2. Option 1
C2. Suggest revising as follows: The CCTS can require a service provider to provide a consumer with an explanation or apology, an undertaking to do or cease doing specific activities with respect to the consumer, and/or monetary compensation.
D1.2 Add l. Additional usage-related charges
D2.1 Option 1
D2.2 This statement assumes benefit to the customer when changes are made to policies. It does not account for changes to policies that degrade the protections / services to customers. Please revise this statement to account for this possibility.
D3.1 Option 1
D3.3 Option 1
D3.4 Option 2
D4.3 The word ‘unlimited’ should not be used by the wireless carriers nor in this statement unless, in truth, it means unlimited.
D7.1 Neither option; all phones should be unlocked.
D10.1 Option 1
F1. Suggest the review period by every 3 years.

Contributor Comments that I support:

Please note that I didn’t list all of the contributor comments that I support given that there are so many excellent points that have been made. But I have highlighted a few that are key to what I think should be included in the Wireless Code.

Advertising
Advertising should be truthful and the language used should be accurate to the products and services being proposed / provided. If there is federal and/or provincial legislation that covers this issue, it should be referenced in the Wireless Code as applying to all wireless carriers.

Locking
The default position should be that all phones are unlocked.

Contracts

Eliminate the 3-year contract, and offer fair options up to and including the maximum of a 2 year contract (e.g. no contract with post payment billing; 12, 18 and 24 month contracts, fair contracts for those who own their own phone; fair contracts for those who purchase the phone as part of a plan, etc.).
If the cost of the phone is being paid off by the customer during the contract, when the phone is fully paid off the cost of the subsidy should be eliminated.

Charges
Absolutely no charges for incoming messages, calls, texts, etc.
Per second billing.
Charges for any service should be proportional to the cost of actually providing the service.
No separate charges for Voicemail, Call Display and Caller ID.
No long distance charges in Canada.
No roaming charges in North America.
Caps on roaming charges.

Service Equity
Persons with visual/hearing impairments should have service options that reflect their abilities, and they should not be paying for any service they cannot use.
A person’s phone number should be portable across service providers within the same area code without any restrictions.

Competition
If possible, ensure that the drafting of the Wireless Code supports the development of competition within the wireless industry (seriously absent at this time!) to the benefit of consumers.

Inquiry
Please assess whether a 911 Fee and a System Access Fee are warranted given today’s infrastructure and technology.

I think the draft code looks pretty good. One great section is D1, the section regarding contract clarity. This will definitely help to protect the consumer. If we can understand our contracts then we will safe a lot of time and money in our interactions with our cellphone company.

I would like to see some more initiatives that would benefit both the consumer and the companies. I think that limiting fixed term contracts to less than three years. Capping of the length of contract terms could promote healthy competition between cellphone companies which could then lead to them offering better service to their clients.

Application Developer Issue
I downloaded an application and was immediately bombarded with advertising messages from the developer. Removing the App did nothing to change this. Contacting the developer has been very difficult and so far they have not been willing to stop bombarding me with up to 3 messages per day selling new applications. It would be nice if the code required app developers to provide opt-out capability for their messages, and required them to stop sending messages if the user opts out.

As far as I'm concerned, the draft code fails to provide fails to provide adequate protections for consumers, in favour of the status quo. Wireless services are among a minuscule number of services that are allowed to bill for services in the way that they do. The way post-paid services are billed is completely contrary to any other utility I can think of. When paying for electricity, there is a regulated meter that indicates how much we have used, and we are billed on that basis. The same applies for water, natural gas and even for fuel for vehicles.

Using electricity as an example, we do not pay for a set minimum number of kWh every billing period when we haven’t used them yet, then lose them if we don’t consume them within that particular billing period. Instead, there is a set service fee for access to the grid, and we are then billed for what we use; no more, no less. It is only with wireless service that we are expected to pay for blocks of airtime (“minutes”) and a certain amount of data transfer per month, but then lose all of it if we don’t use everything in that particular billing period. We cannot carry unused “minutes” or data transfer capacity to following months, and we are not given the option to be billed for what we use.

I strongly feel that such services should be billed like other utilities. That is to say there is a fixed, recurring fee for access to the wireless network and the provisioning of a telephone number, but any use is billed monthly at a reasonable, and regulated, fee per airtime “minute” and per mebibyte (MiB) or gibibyte (GiB) of data transferred.

In the case of pre-paid services, there should similarly be a network access fee, but any “minutes” purchased at any time while the access fee is paid, are added to the account and remain available until used.

I have a small company and most of my employees have Blackberry phones. We installed a Blackberry Enterprise server only to discover that the "Blackberry" plans that each of our employees was forced into when they purchased a Blackberry did not include access to a Blackberry Enterprise Server. Each of them is with a different provider and all recieved the same comment from the Telecom. To access this feature we need to subscribe to a small business plan. This plan has fewer minutes, and less data than a regular plan, but it does allow access to the BES. None of my employees felt this was acceptable. If we have to purchase a special Blackberry plan then it should be required to provide total support to a Blackberry.

Low income seniors are totally freaked out (and avoid getting cell phones) because of having their limited budget blown by unsolicited marketing calls from third parties. I've been advised by my doctor, for medical reasons, to get a cell phone - but knowing someone who had her entire monthly calling allowance blown by unsolicited calls, I refuse to do so - unless and until third party marketers, using robo calls- are dealt with by the CRTC.

PRICE GOUGING

The new code MUST have something that mandates a maximum percentage mark-up networks can charge customers over rates that are offered to other customers.

EXAMPLE 1 – CORPORATE vs CONSUMER

Please note that corporate offers are not exclusive and limited to a small percentage of high end clients and their executives. Not only are millions of customers currently on corporate pricing, hundreds of thousands of customer have been put on the “protected plans” of companies they have no association with as there is little oversight by the networks of their dealers. Government accounts have in the past seen some of the highest abused. In the end you have a percentage of Canadians paying higher rates to subsidize lower rates for others.

CORPORATE OFFER (example currently on Rogers)

$20.00 monthly service fee includes
- 400 Weekday Minutes
- 500 Incoming Local Calls
- 100 Canadian LD Minues
- Unlimited Rogers to Rogers Calling
- Unlimited Eve & Wknd Minutes (6pm)
- Basic Voicemail
- Call Display w/Name Display
- 250 Sent/Unltd Received Text
- Unlimited Incoming SMS
- Overage Rate $0.08 per Minute Local
- Overage Rate $0.07 per Minute Long Distance
- US Roaming $0.30 Flat Rate
- US Roaming Data Saver
- Intl Roaming $1.05 Flat Rate
- Intl Roaming Data Saver
- Detailed Billing
- Network Features

SIMILAR CONSUMER PLAN

$42.00 monthly service fee includes

- 1000 Weekday Minutes
- Unlimited Eve & Wknd Minutes (6pm)
- Entry Voicemail
- Call Display
- Unlimited Text / Picture / Video Messaging / BBM
- Overage Rate $0.45 per Minute Local
- Canadian LD Rate $0.45 per Minute
- US Roaming $1.45 per Minute

Other than the fact the monthly rate is 210% more on the consumer plan (nearly $900.00 including taxes over 3 years and includes less features and options) the difference in overage rates are ridiculous.

Local overage rate: 562% higher
Canadian long distance rate: 642% higher
Calls from Canada to the US: 450% higher
US Roaming rate: 483% higher

EXAMPLE 2 – RETENTION vs CONSUMER

People who have ever called to cancel their account will often be offered rates than can be a fraction of what they were paying and that other customers are still being charged.

Just to keep it simple lets compare how Rogers would charge customers for Canadian Long Distance minutes. The Retention Plan listed below is on both my personal accounts and hundreds of my customers’ accounts.

Retention Plan
$5.00 includes 1,000 Canadian Long Distance minutes monthly

LD Saver (offered on website and though regular customer service)
$5.00 reduces to $0.10 flat rate for all Canadian LD calls

Standard Overage Rate
$0.45 per minute

Using the same amount of minutes, one of these customers would be billed $5.00. The other customer would be billed $45.00 and the customer without an additional plan would be billed $450.00. As the cost to the networks for providing this service is identical in each case, how is it allowed any company can charge one customer 9000% more than another for that same product?

SOLUTION

THE NEW CODE MUST MANDATE A MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE MARK-UP FROM THE LOWEST RATES OFFERED TO THE HIGHEST!!!

If a network is willing to offer an overage rate of:
$0.10 for local minutes
$0.10 for Canadian long distance minutes
$0.30 for US roaming per minute
I do not think it is unreasonable that the maximum rate that could be charged to a customer on a different plan would be 20% higher. In this case $0.12 for local and Canadian long distance and $0.36 for US roaming.

NOTE: The cellular networks offer hundreds of plans for the same product! This is one of the greatest deceptions in Canadian history. You can have a situation where four people are sitting at the same table, all making local calls and all being charge different rates FOR THE SAME SERVICE!

It’s not like one of them gets better sound quality or has the call connected faster. A voice call is a voice call! The cost to the network does not change depending on the customers’ price plan. The only thing that is different is the profit they make from one customer to the next. The reality is there is no company or industry in the world selling physical products that would legally be able to get away with these pricing strategies. Why are the cellular networks allowed just because they are offering a service?

Hi MACKIDSINCB my name is Ted Woodhead and I appeared on behalf of TELUS on Monday and Tuesday and Chairman Blais mentioned you comment in his questions to our Panel. I was able to find your complaint and I thought I would ask you to reach out to me so I could see what happened with your account and your experience. You can reach me at ted.woodhead@telus.com.

thanks,

ted

My comments on contract terms:

Having worked in Europe, Australia, Canada (for 2 of the largest telco's) and the USA as an executive I am well versed in cost structures, margins and market conditions domestically and internationally.

Given the protections and monopolies that the largest carriers have enjoyed along with the significant market share they continue to enjoy, the cost structures in Canada are comparable to the USA, and even countries with population densities like Canada and large geography's to serve (Australia), Canadian carriers are the only ones that insist on 3 year terms for the full device subsidy. At the same time they go to their bond holders and large investors showing their high ARPUs, Margins and Retention rates --- all among the highest in the world.

The CRTC should not quiver to take on the single biggest issue amongst consumers and should enforce a 2 year term limit, just like the USA, Europe and Australia. Our devices are comparably priced, if not higher than these countries; so if consumers are paying more why does it take a consumer 50% longer to pay off their device subsidy?

After 2 years the device should be immediately unlocked for free and after about 24-30months the consumer should enjoy a minimum of a $10 discount on their monthly postpaid plan fee, to reflect that the device recovery fee has been fulfilled. If Carriers want to offer bonus virtual dollars to push a consumer to reinvest in a new device and maintain their account on a new 2 year term that should be to them.

This is an important issue and carriers --- like they do in the rest of the world --- can still offer consumer options without needing to lock them into 50% longer contract periods.

It's time consumers expect more, the CRTC and Federal Government do more, and that carriers deliver more for the services they are well compensated for.

I would like to bring attention to the wireless code of a deaf person paying for voice plan on their wireless phones, I find this very silly for us to require to pay for the voice plan which we can't talk with our voice and we cannot hear at all. We feel that we wasted lot of money paying for something that we cannot use. We depend a lot on texting and Internet data plans to communicate with outer world. If we happen to face any emergencies, we have to hand out our phone to a hearing person so they can call 911. I don't like giving my pervious iPhone to an stranger to call 911. I understand that CRTC already made announcement of allowing us text 911. I think this will help all deaf people to be more independent instead of relying on other people to do it for us. It seems as it is a good timing for CRTC to tell the wireless providers to remove voice plans on behalf of deaf persons wishes of being waived from that instead of being forced to pay for something that is basically useless for us all.

I strongly support the direction this Code is taking. Recent financial results announced by Telus demonstrate again the extent of overcharging service providers can get away with due to limited competition in this country. The costs of mobile service in Canada are outrageous compared to other countries to which I travel, where I can get comparable or better access and service at a fraction of the cost as at home. Service providers in Canada are hugely profitable but whine about constraints on their fees and duration of contracts and continue to provide excuses to the public. I am sick of it. Please stand up to them on behalf of long suffering consumers.

D1.3 option 2 – current situation unfairly biased in favour of service providers so that they benefit EVEN IF NO SERVICE PROVIDED. At a minimum, extend the duration of expiry to 12 months for all pre paid credits from date of purchase.

Contract changes: yes, give consumers options to cancel the policy

Yes, limit cancellation fees in relation to actual provider costs of service so far provided

D4 Yes, strongly agree we need greater transparency on plan terms and limits.

D5: Yes, consumers should be provided with tools and information in order to monitor usage.

D7: Yes, allow unlocking.

I DON’T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE ABOUT MAX CONTRACT LENGTH. Fixed term contracts should not be allowed to exceed 2 years, which is the standard in many other countries.

Canadian carriers have deals with the US carriers and ride off their buying power to get handsets at the same price. They can offer the 2 year contracts like their American counterparts and still make amazing profits. The 3 year contract does not need to exist and an extra 12 months on contracts for Canadians is not supported by the actual costs of the handset to the canadian telecoms Telus bell and Rogers all pay the same amount for handsets as Verizon and AT&T. Industry l Execs stating otherwise that they are paying 15%-20% more for the same phones are not being truthful to the crtc or Canadian public

Roaming Fees

I would like to add my voice to the call for regulation of international roaming fees, which have risen to a ridiculous rate. I have had my cell service with Fido for over 12 years. When Fido was an independent operator, international roaming fees varied depending on the roaming partner and were considerably lower than they are currently. Ten years ago, I was paying on the order of 40-50c/minute when using my phone in the UK to call a UK number. After Fido was bought by Rogers, the roaming fees were 'simplified' such that I now pay $2/minute when roaming anywhere in the EU. Data roaming fees are even more ludicrous.

I would urge the CRTC to look at the EU roaming regulations, which currently limit the cost of an outgoing call when roaming to €0.29/min, and the cost of data transfer to €0.70/Mb (vs $30/Mb if I used my Fido phone for data transfer in the EU), with those prices to fall later this year. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission_roaming_regulations)

To my mind, the cost billed for roaming should more closely reflect the cost to the carrier (with allowance for a reasonable profit margin).

You can't compare with the market is 10 times the size of Canada's, the economics are significantly different, and pretty much everything in the US is cheaper than in Canada. I speak from personal experience, since I lived in the US a few years ago.

First of all, the length of the contract becomes irrelevant once the customer is allowed to, and able to, get out of their contract at any time and without any termination fee, as the draft code proposes. If, at any point during your contract you want to switch carriers, just get out of your contract and (at most) you only have to pay the remaining subsidy amount. That's what the draft code proposes.

Secondly, 3-year contracts do benefit some people. A person in an area that is only served by the Big 3 are going to continue to stay with their carrier regardless of whether they're under contract or not, so they would be better off signing a 3-year contract and getting a phone at a cheap price. So we should not be removing that option simply because it doesn't suit your needs, when it does benefit others. The smart thing to do is to provide an additional option that suits your needs better than the 3-year contract. Thankfully, Mr. Blais and the CRTC feel the same way.

The only solutions that I've heard of that can satisfy both groups of consumers that I've just described is:

1. ban all contracts, forcing carriers to provide subsidies using tab-like programs. (see Wind's and Koodo's tabs)
2. force carriers to provide contracts with lengths shorter than 3 years, but do not force them to stop offering 3-year contracts.
3. allow customers to terminate contracts without paying any fees other than the remaining subsidy amount.

Those solutions are fair and would satisfy all consumers, not just those who hate 3-year contracts.

Finally, there is absolutely nothing that indicates that carriers would offer the same amount of subsidy on a 2-year contract as they do on a 3-year contract. So don't bet on it happening. Look at the System Access Fee. Rogers claimed to have gotten rid of it, but in fact they just increased their rates and created the Government Rate Recovery Fee.

Why is it that the code advocates 'simple' contract terms, but it doesn't advocate simple devices. mandatory unlocking makes devices simple. I think the fact that the market has a mix of lock and unlocked devices, that only work with certain carriers, creates confusion also. barring the phones support for the specified carriers operating frequency, I think unlocked phones can have a huge impact on informing consumers.

Rogers initially charged me $400 for cancelling my service prior to Sep 2014 --- and my cell was about 6 yrs old.

You should concider the following
1.why do they force me to. have a data plan on the wifi phones
2.why they are locking the phones even after the contract ends and the do not unlock it unless you pay a fee for that.
3.roaming fees is so hi and some carrier let you pay roamin inside their zone beacause their network is weak in some areas which make you use other carriers network (is this our fault that their network is weak')

Contracts IF and ONLY IF Paying for Phone....

I own my own land-line phone and the phone company does not require me to pre-pay for services, nor do they require a contract.

Why must customers have to have a contract or pre-pay for service when they own their own cellular device?

Customers should be allowed service without a contract and without pre-payment when they own their own device.

I do not pre-pay the following companies (though they might bill me a month in advance - which is ok):
telephone land-line service
cable
electricity
banking fees

And many of these retailers already offer telephone and cable service.

In my opinion, the following things should be implemented:

1. Eliminate handset locking.
2. Eliminate long distance within Canada.
3. Eliminate charges for incoming SMS and calls.
4. Eliminate robbery plans like $55 for 150 minutes.
5. Separate phone subsidy and service charges.
6. Eliminate System Access Fees.
7. Stop charging for Voicemail, Call Display, Caller ID. You cannot charge $8 for Voicemail and $5 for Call Display and Caller ID.
8. Introduce cheaper SIM only plans geared towards people who bring their own handsets.
9. If I move from Toronto to Ottawa, I should be able to keep my 416 number, without any additional or roaming fees.
10. Eliminate roaming within the province, atleast.

Neil.

I would like the CRTC to mandate the following changes:

(1) No expiration dates for airtime minutes on pre-paid phones. Carriers should not be allowed to collect free money.

(2) Customers of pre-paid phones should be provided free unlocking at no charge, on request.

(3) For post-paid plans, roaming charges should be capped to $50 per month for unlimited use of roaming. This will allow the new carriers to build up their networks while giving customers peace-of-mind about call quality.

Having perused some of the comments on this website, I had on idea that Canadians hated the incumbents Rogers, Bell, and Telus with such intensity and passion. I hope that the senior executives of these companies are reading the comments and will search their conscience and do the right things for their customers. What good is a business if it continues to make its customers so mad, like the Telecom business?

I have had plans with Shaw and Telus over the past decade and in both cases the billing has been a constant source of irritation with inaccuracies and complexity. Correcting billing errors has required significant investment in time and generally required several calls and steps to accomplish. This needs to be better and perhaps standardized across providers using standard terms for services so each provider can be compared.

As to lost or stolen phones, like credit cards coss incurred when the phone is stolen should be waived by the provider and disconnection, tracing or other services to prevent the phone's further use need to be free. THe client can request a replacement phone for what ever the associated cost is, use any credited points etc. toward the replacement phones or get a different phone for either a lower or higher price related to the phone model requested. Any client can ask for or through online tools disable a phone to disable it's use if the phone is potentially lost, misplaced or stolen. When found service can be re-enabled, or when loss verified the phone can be permanently disabled and the unit replaced.

The client must be able to disable any features of a phone to prevent their use and being charged for that use, this includes features such as roaming, data services, data transfers, incoming and outgoing features, etc. All features of a phone must clearly state what provider services they use and the costs associated with that services. things like Twitter, Facebook, photo emails, web browsers, bill payments, syncing, and any other application like GPS, texting, etc.

A client that receives a solicitation for a service like ring tones, apps or tunes or any other feature and does not get a clear representation of the cost of the feature and whether it is a one time cost, recurring subscription or a bundle cost can ask the provider to cancel the feature without charge. When the feature supplier cannot or will not cancel a service the phone provider with block the vendors service and assist the client in getting the feature terminated and if needed bring a complaint to the CRTC over the vendors activity.

The clent can establish comprehensive billing rules to ensure the costs of the service are reported via text message or email when various thresholds are reached and services are terminated at specific levels. Costs over and above these levels are then recoverable by the client if the provider does not block the service as requested.

Contract renewals and lengths should include 2 and 3 year options and cancellation or all or part of the contract with the return of equipment should not trigger termination charges greater then 2 months of contracted service. This should be similar to rental termination agreements and condo contracts. A client must also be allowed to transfer a contract to another person without a termination chage and a minial administrative fee like 15% of the monthly cost.

All mobile phone clients must be offerred access to a 3rd party facilitator or ombudsman when ever an issue related to contract/billing charges, changes, 3rd party subscription costs, excessive billing costs, termination or other issues that cannot be settled with the provider.

If a clients usage costs for any service or the entire billed package increases dramatically the provider is required to contact the client for confirmation of the increases in usage costs. Failure to contact the client or get a reply after multiple attempts (email, text, phone and physical mail) have failed the services will be suspended until contact is made. A client will not be responsible for costs in excess of 150% of a base bill if the provider has not contacted the client in regard to the increased costs. THe provider must continue to initiate contacts when ever the costs increase and at several cost levels like intially at 50% above billing cost, 150% , 300% , 450% etc. The client and provider must reach an agreement as to the new threshold for base billing in such cases.

Any fees associated with termination cannot exceed a CRTC specified amount or % of the base cost of the contract times the duration and on no account more then 2 months of service.

The value of a phone and any incentive related to the phone a provider uses to acquire a client must be made clear, including the costs related to the phone on cancellation, loss or replacement. The cost of any and all components associated with the devices must be listed in the contract for the client and avilable on the providers web page for each phone/model sold.

If a client and provider cannot reach an agreement on any issue related to billing costs or termination fees and a facilitator or ombudsman cannot resolve the issues the client can terminate the contract at no cost, with the return of all equipment to the provider.

Cell phones and wireless services are becoming pervasive in Canada and the uses these appliances can be used for is becoming so broad we will soon reach a point where the service (wireless/cell phone access) will be an essential service like police, fire, 911 and the power the providers will have over the users will be similar to the original telephone system in the early years of the last century. With this saturation of use and breadth of application the provision of service must be deemed a national essential service and all providers must meet specific standards nationally.

In closing it is better to document and enact comprehensive rules and guidelines initially. Relaxation of selective sections can be enabled as they prove to be redundant or limit the expansion of services or competition.

Re: Control of Use of Cell Phones by Children of Separated Parents & The Wireless Code

As a divorce lawyer and the Director of the Fair Parenting Project, I am very aware of the need for a specific policy regarding cell phones to reduce conflict, trauma and stress in the life experiences of children with separated parents. Having had the opportunity to review “The Wireless Code Working Document” as well as the submissions available to date, I would like to make the following comment and proposal.

The use of cell phones by children of separated parents creates some unique problems. One problem that can be addressed within the Wireless Code is the unauthorized provision of a cell phone to a child.
Currently, there are situations in which children with separated parents are provided with a cell phone from one parent, (or another relative), without permission from, and against the wishes of, the other parent. There are innumerable examples of cell phone use by children with separated parents having to be addressed through family law lawyers, family mediators, and through orders at Family Court. There should be a CRTC rule that a cell phone can only be provided to a child with the permission of the custodial parent(s) or guardians.

Typical problems of cell phones being provided to a child without such permission include everything from parenting and discipline issues to interference with parenting time, wherein one parent provides a cell phone to a child and then calls the child while she/he is in the care of the other parent. Madam Justice J.A. Blishen of the Ontario Superior Court in Blois v. Gleason, 2009 CanLII 23109 (ON SC) describes one such example of the latter:

“Given the concerns being expressed by the children, Ms. Blois bought them a cell phone so they could call and speak with her privately during their visits with their father. The cell phone became a significant bone of contention between the parents. Mr. Gleason objected to the children’s frequent calls to their mother and to the length of the calls. At times he confronted the children about this. On one occasion he forcibly removed the cell phone from Logan and on another removed the batteries. As noted in the custody and access assessment of Dr. Weinberger, as opposed to alleviating stress, the cell phone in fact caused “far too much stress and became far too divisive.”

Such situations are common place, with cell phones causing real emotional trauma for families and children. The CRTC should not leave it to child psychologists and family courts to deal with this situation. Requiring a parent to go through the onerous, costly and timely process of family court to deal with a cell phone issue is an abdication of CRTC’s role.

Currently, wireless companies only permit authorized account holders, not merely custodial parents, to terminate or change a child’s cell phone service. A custodial parent should be able to file (by web form or fax) a demand for a wireless company to provide them access, suspend and/or terminate the account of the wireless phone in their child’s possession, regardless of who is the account holder of the phone. A custodial parent has control over all other accounts and objects in a child’s possession and there is no reason that a cell phone should be excluded from parental control.

Under D1.2 of the draft Wireless Code, a mandatory provision should be added to require consent by all custodial parents or guardians for a cell phone to be provided to a child.

Thank you for considering this issue within the review of the Wireless Code.

If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 613 257 7772 or visit the Fair Parenting Project’s website at http://www.fairparenting.com for further information about our efforts to optimize the experiences of children with separated parents.

Sincerely,

Eric Letts

1. Disallow three year contracts
2. All handsets must be sold unlocked. Make it illegal to lock handsets.
3. Separate contracts for services and for hardware (handsets, etc.)
4. Itemized billing for the services (voice, data, etc.) and for the handset repayment
5. Warranty on the handset for the duration of the contract
6. Specify repayment plan for hardware including early payment
7. Carryover of unused minutes & unused data
8. No extra charge for incoming calls or texts
9. Nationwide calling
10.No fees for 911 service
11. Disallow automatic renewal of contracts except going on month to month
12. Prohibit unilateral amendments to the contract by Telcos. The contract may be amended only with the written consent of the customer
13 Call display should be made a standard feature

Cell phone contract lengths should not exceed three years. Three year contracts create undue hardship because you are tied to that phone or contract unless you’re willing to pay to end it. It seems a money grab to me. From what I’ve read, Canada is one of the last countries to impose three year contracts as the norm. No contract should exceed two years, ever.

Unless you are in a contract, all cell phones purchased should be unlocked. Cell phones that are under contract for two years (as an example) should remain locked to honour the term of the contract, but should be unlocked after the contract has ended so the customer can continue to use that phone with a different service provider, if they so wish. The phone has been paid for over the life of the contract and should be unlocked, preferably free of charge, because the customer solely owns that phone.

There should be an elimination of the ‘received text message’ fee. Again, I feel that this is a money grab on behalf of the service providers because they are charging double for each text message: they charge one person to send the text message and charge another to receive the SAME text message. This fee should be eliminated because you cannot control when someone sends you a text. You are at the mercy of everyone else because, while you can control to receive an incoming call, you cannot control whether or not to receive a text message.

Under D1.3 (Additional information specific to pre-paid services), service providers should not be able to put an expiry date on credits purchased for pre-paid services. The Wireless Code should end pre-paid credit expiry dates. Once you purchase your credit or “minutes”, they should be good for as long as you need them. I think it is ridiculous that minutes expire at the end of each month with some providers. If I have paid for those minutes, they should be valid until they run out.

I have had an annual pre-paid plan with Telus for several years. While they say my anniversary date is a fixed date, my original signing date, when I pay for the coming year in advance of my anniversary date, the renewal expiry date for the next year advances to the day on which I last paid the annual fee and not the original date. In my opinion, this sliding anniversary date means I am not really on an annual plan but a reducing year annual plan. For example if my 'account credit expiry' date is 1 July 2013 and I expect to be unavailable to make payment on 30 June and pay on 5 June, my new renewal date becomes 5 June 2014. Sometimes one must pay farther in advance for one of several reasons (especially credit card expiring, vacation unavailability, etc.). In my opinion this is unfair and not the conditions described to me when I signed the contract for the service. If your code of conduct could address this, it would help all pre-paid customers.

PLEASE disallow download restrictions imposed on my device. Rogers has a maximum download file size of 50mb, but I have a 6GB plan. Essentially this means I can not download any TV show is like to purchase online. Many carriers indicate this restriction is imposed by the manufacturer (Apple in my case). Either way, I pay for a service I am not allowed to use. Rogers has been unable to advocate with Apple to relieve this restriction...so I think the CRTC needs to protect us here.

There seems to be an omission in the the draft code the billing of customers who have their own cellphones and billing of customers who get subsidized cellphones from the Telcos.

CRTC should require the Telecom Service providers to detail the monthly bill in two separate categories, i.e.,

1. Fees for services provided, i.e. voice, data, etc.
2. Fee applied during the month towards the subsidized cellphone.

The Telcos have the habit of charging the prepaid customers the same monthly charge (they receive only the services and not the subsidy) as the postpaid customers who have are on contract and received a subsidy.

CRTC should require that while the Telcos may charge the postpaid customers for both the services provided and for the equipment; the prepaid customers, who have purchased their own cellphones, may only be charged for the services provided and nothing else.

At the end of the contract, the customer may choose to go on a month to month, she/he should not have to pay the same monthly bill as before. After all, during the contract period, he was obliged to pay for equipment; after the contract, he owns the equipment should not have to pay for it again

I would like to see a discount for people who don't have a subsidized phone. If I buy my phone outright, why am I paying the same rate as someone who's phone is subsidized?

1) Decouple the sale/lease of devices from the monthly wireless services. Show the actual price of the device and the cost of the monthly services. Give the option of purchasing a device outright initially or at any time during the leasing period. Once a device is fully paid for (by any of: purchase; lease conclusion; or buy-out mid-lease), the device must immediately become unlocked at no additional cost to the owner. Monthly service fees must not contribute to device ownership and must therefore be reduced accordingly.

2) Open the Canadian market to greater competition including possibly foreign players.

3) Eliminate BS fees (ex. network access fee; 911 fee; etc.)

4) Credit air-time and reduce bills by at least $20/hour for customers' time stuck waiting, listening to "We are experiencing heavy call volume. Please stay on the line. Your call is important to us. Estimated wait-time 43 minutes." when calling service providers' customer-support lines.

J Helps
Ottawa

There should be no three year contracts. One year maximum. No forced data plans, prepaid cards that do no expire, better tracking of lost/stolen cell phones, call block should be free and flexible to turn on or off, roaming cap, do not pay for unsolicited texts or calls.

I am a consumer of telecom service/disservice.

If fairness is a determination based on evidence, and if the burden of proof in a given case is carried by the alleged victim of unfair treatment, then would it be reasonable to require service providers, such as Rogers, to have customer service process which is more accountable than the existing setup?
Email or text-based correspondence was not part of normal course of business in my experience with Rogers.
Consequently, definite proof of any issues of non-performance or mistreatment depends on review of recorded audio exchanges. It has been my experience to have phone correspondence taking excessive amounts of time. Hours and hours of time. Reference to the audio records is ignored and summary notes if made by the customer service agent are the only practically useful resource.
Improvement in efficiency of accountability would serve to prove what fairness/unfairness, practice/malpractice is in fact taking place.
Said improvement would enable customers to serve themselves with their own records of correspondence.

Unlocking

The current rate of $50 to unlock a fully paid-for phone is outrageous.

The cost is "justified" by the time it takes an employee to do it, so I say enforce an automated system that unlocks the phone once it has been fully paid/the contract has expired. Such a system is entirely doable. No more cost, no reason to charge such a steep figure. A contract has been agreed upon, but once it has been fulfilled they should not have the right to demand such a ransom to use what has been paid for.

For example, in the US and other countries where 2-year contracts are the maximum, they still get the same subsidies that we get on 3-year contracts, but their plans are cheaper due to the increased competition for new phone sales.

3-yr Contract = Unlimited Length!

Get rid of the 3-year contract. Since most consumers purchase a new phone every 2 years, those on 3-year contracts who want a new phone have little choice but to purchase an "upgrade" from their existing supplier, locking them into another 3-year contract. This stifles competition and eliminates free choice and should be banned.

Also, the practise of providing disproportionately low subsidies on shorter contracts should be banned. There is no reason why a phone should cost only 10% of its list price on a 3-year contract and 80% on a 2-year contract.

These practices essentially result in unlimited-length contracts and should be banned!

911 Fee - ban it

You are correct. As I understand it, there is not any regulation governing the "911 fee". This means that mobile operators can use it as they please, and not neccesarily to provide the infrastructure to allow 911 operators to pinpoint your location, etc. Besides, this infrastructure generally now exists and it should be manditory for operators to provide it as part of their regular service. The misleading "911 fee" should be BANNED!

Please do something about excessive international roaming fees!

- Phones should never be locked.
- International roaming fees should be regulated and be reasonable.
- Operators should be required to automatically give the lowest available rates to customers without the need for customers to phone and request it.
- Operators should also be required to provide easy-to-use tools for customers to track their usage and set limits. These tools should be accesible online via a computer, the mobile device or via telephone 24/7.

Thanks!

I agree that phone locking should be banned, but I disagree with your comments about 3-year contracts.

Yes, the subsidy may amount to lower for shorter contracts, but the problem with 3-year contracts goes far beyond a simple matter of cost. Since most customers purchase a new phone about every two years, those under a 3-year contract who want a new phone have little choice but to purchase an "upgrade" from their existing supplier, thus locking them into another 3-year contract before the first one had even expired. This stifles competition and results in contracts that are effectively indefinite.

If contract lengths were limited to 2 years or less (as they are in other countries), most consumers would be free from their contract before purchasing another phone. This means they would be free to decide what phone to purchase, what mobile operator to go with and what rate plan to be on. It would also mean that the cost for these plans would go down as operators would now be competing for these "upgrades" that are now all but guaranteed to come to them.

The resulting reduction in fees/costs resulting from this increased competition would likely more than offset the additional unsubsidised portion of the cost of the device.

Also, keep in mind that since companies want customers to sign onto 3-year contracts, they make shorter contracts very unappealing by offering virtually no subsidy for the phone on 1- and 2-year contracts and a disproportionately large subsidy on 3-year contracts. If 3-year contracts were banned, we would see these larger subsidies on the shorter contracts, so the cost will not go up as much as you might think.

I agree that phone locking should be banned, but I disagree with your comments about 3-year contracts.

Yes, the subsidy may amount to lower for shorter contracts, but the problem with 3-year contracts goes far beyond a simple matter of cost. Since most customers purchase a new phone about every two years, those under a 3-year contract who want a new phone have little choice but to purchase an "upgrade" from their existing supplier, thus locking them into another 3-year contract before the first one had even expired. This stifles competition and results in contracts that are effectively indefinite.

If contract lengths were limited to 2 years or less (as they are in other countries), most consumers would be free from their contract before purchasing another phone. This means they would be free to decide what phone to purchase, what mobile operator to go with and what rate plan to be on. It would also mean that the cost for these plans would go down as operators would now be competing for these "upgrades" that are now all but guaranteed to come to them.

The resulting reduction in fees/costs resulting from this increased competition would likely more than offset the additional unsubsidised portion of the cost of the device.

Also, keep in mind that since companies want customers to sign onto 3-year contracts, they make shorter contracts very unappealing by offering virtually no subsidy for the phone on 1- and 2-year contracts and a disproportionately large subsidy on 3-year contracts. If 3-year contracts were banned, we would see these larger subsidies on the shorter contracts, so the cost will not go up as much as you might think.

1) GET RID OF THE DARN 3 YEAR CONTRACTS! why do we have that! its litterally made to stick a customer to them for 3 years and the big 3 exploit us with their "0$ phones" to grab people and lock them for 3 years! and then make you pay outrageous amounts of money to leave" 2 years should be the max.

2) Unlimited... where do i start... why do we.. in this country.. not even do what that word is... why is it that their is limits to the word UNLIMITED! that does NOT make any sense.. if its unlimited than there shouldn't be ANY fine print! seriously... if there are limits... don't call it unlimited! FINAL! that's literally just lieing right to our faces! for example... dont say unlimitted txts if theres a 2500 text cap! thats not unlimited...its limited.. dont lie to me! just say the plan includes 2500 texts! dont make me believe something and charge me later for your lie of the word unlimited! stop hiding from the truth, im sick of it!

3) roaming caps.... we NEED them like crazy! how many times have we seen people get charged over 1000$ for roaming! is that really necessary!? must we ruin lives because of that? not to mention youre stealing money like crazy! 1gb of data for the big 3 is like 3 cents, why do we have to pay 30$ for 1gb? how do you justify that!?

4) 911 fee...... WHAT!? WHY!? does nobody realise that if you have a phone without a sim, you can still make emergency calls to 911 for free?! why do we pay extra for this?! what kind of bogus stuff is this?!

4) GRRF.... omg, just make up fees while youre at it... just call it WSMFY "We Steal Money From You" fee.... why is it that the new entrants dont charge any of these bogus fees, but yet robellus get away with just making up fees and charging like crazy?

5) Cancellation with 30 days notice... why? it should be 2 weeks notice in my opinion... im leaving the company because theyre treated me terribly or theyre ripping me off... dont force me to stay an entire month! thats like getting a divorce and having to spend another month with youre ex wife... awkward and frustrating!

6) Prepaid money... why is it that if i buy say... 30$ and put it on my phone and NOT use my phone, after 30 days the money is gone or i have to put more money to keep it? i have to pay to keep money in my account? and its a minimum of 10$ to add everytime... im literally paying to keep money in my account or they will take everything after 30 days.. thats plain THEFT! in europe as long as you have money on the account and it pays for youre services, it does not expire.... ever! thats how it should be! i dont pay for nothing! STOP STEALING FROM ME!

7) paper billing fee... let me get this straight, i have to pay YOU MORE so i can pay you? HAHA what a joke.... how do you justify this? you went from sending EVERYONE paper statements before at NO additional costs a few years ago, but now when mostly everyone uses online billing, you have to charge more for the few that get paper billing? yea like you dont steal enough from us... you make me pay to pay.. what a joke.

CRTC! you used to be a joke back in the von finkenstein days, but i see you guys are actually trying to do something now and its actually looking good.. fix the big 3 and put them in their place! we have been ripped off for far too long!

Some more comments...

Another reason why 3 year contracts are excessively long is that customers generally use their phones for two years or less. Customers who are locked into a 3 year contract therefore have little choice but to accept an "upgrade" from their existing provider to avoid breaking their contract. In this way, mobile operators basically lock customers in indefinitely (potentially forerver) stifiling competition. Mobile operators therefore only really need to compete for new customers, who are becoming few and far between. This is why contracts should be limited to only 1 year, which would allow customers to freely select another provider for a new phone.

Another practise that should be banned is the practise of mobile phone companies sending messages to customers offering "upgrades" when the customer is not even on a contract. These messages are misleading!

I receive them all the time even though I purchased my phone at full price and have never been on a contract. They come in the form of SMS messages and also automated voice messages that are played when I phone customer support, before I speak to an agent. They excitedly tell me that I am "eligible for an upgrade", which is ridiculous because, since my phone was not subsidised and I have no contract, I am free to purchase a new phone whenever I want from whichever provider I choose. Such messages should be banned when they are misleading, i.e. to non-contract customers.

PLEASE BAN THIS PRACTISE!

Key Points

To start, thank you for consulting the public on this issue.

After much thought and discussion on the draft wireless code and the current state of wireless service in Canada, I have managed to break down all the complaints that I have heard and experienced into these basic problems:

1. insufficient and misleading information about the wireless products and services and the consumer's options.
2. terms and conditions of the service are being changed by the carrier without notifying the customer and without asking for their agreement
3. lock-in caused by locked phones and exorbitant service termination conditions and fees.
4. insufficient choice of product purchase options and plans (mostly contract length)

The issue that affects me the most is the inability to purchase unlocked, unbranded and unmodified phones outright. I can't even purchase the latest Blackberry from an independent retailer like WirelessWave without also purchasing a contract Bell, Rogers or Telus (and their subbrands).

So far, I have been very satisfied with the approach that Mr. Blais and his colleagues have taken and the questions they have asked.

I would like them to continue what they have been doing and I would like to make the following recommendations:

1. DO NOT ban 3-year contracts. That will solve nothing and will cause the subsidy amounts to decrease and/or cause the monthly rates to increase. There are people who do benefit from 3-year contracts and we should not deny them that benefit. Instead, we should focus on adding options for those who are not served well by a 3-year contract. My suggestion is to make it very cheap and easy to terminate a contract, such as what is proposed in the draft code.

2. Continue focusing on adding choices for consumers and not take taking away choices that do benefit some consumers, such that the consumers can determine for themselves which choices they want and which they don't. In short, provide more choices and let the market decide which ones sink and which ones swim.

3. phone locking does not benefit any consumer in any way and should be prohibited.

Independent Retailers.

One thing that is not addressed in the draft and which nobody has mentioned yet, is the inability to purchase phones like the Z10 outright from independent retailers like Future Shop, Best Buy, The Source and WirelessWave. If Future Shop sells TVs without service provider contract and sells laptops without ISP contracts, then why doesn't it sell unlocked, unbranded and unmodified cellphones ? In the 3rd week of January 2013 a Wireless Wave employee told me that the Z10 would only be sold on contract. An employee at The Source told me the same thing.

I realize the draft code targets the wireless service carriers, but something should be done to ensure Independent retailers allow customers to purchase unlocked, unbranded and unmodified phones outright. Otherwise, we are stuck purchasing our phones from the carriers who will sell us locked, branded and possibly modified phones, which I and many others don't want.

Caller ID should be made standard and free by CRTC mandate in this Wireless Code. Not so long ago we actually had to go the trouble of dialing *67 before a phone number if we didn't want our name to automatically be transmitted to the recipient of the call. In other words, sending the caller's name was the network default. The industry then went out of its way to turn this off so that they could charge people to re-enable it.

The caller ID we pay $5/month ($60/year) for now doesn't even send you the name of the caller like it used to. It only sends you the caller's phone number. How is that basic information not already part of the network? It's just deliberately withheld so that it can be charged for (at a ridiculous price). As far as its bandwidth consumption, how many bytes are involved in transmitting a 10-digit phone number? All of 4 bytes?

Caller id / call display is just a standard part of phone service at no additional cost in many countries. It's time it was in Canada too.

The Wireless Code should mandate the standard (non-optional) inclusion of Caller ID at no charge to consumers.

The most important thing we need in Canada is more competition. Open up the markets instead of relying only on the present Telecom companies.

The CRTC should have the guts to actually work for the protection of the consumers and not for the Telecoms. The Telecoms have all the power and as consumers, we have no or little rights and recourse when taken advantage of. And the Telecoms severely take advantage of everything they can get their hands on.

Having said the above, this is what I would like to see:
Contract transparency is needed. I should not need a lawyer to understand it. They are too confusing and deliberately misleading.
Pay only for calls/texts made, NEVER those received, "attempted" and for unsolicited incoming messages or services.
The new code MUST be retroactive.
An ombudsman with real power is needed to stand up for the consumer when complains occur.
As I have always paid for my phone outright since Clearnet was bought by Telus, I should pay less per month as someone who gets a phone from their providers. Otherwise, the provider is stealing from me!
Regardless of what David Fuller of Telus said - Yes, I do want a cap! Should be mandatory at $50.00.
If I buy my phone outright, it should never be locked. Period! I have family overseas and should be able to use it there with a SIM card instead of renting one.
No roaming fees within North America. The world is now global, get on with it!
Abolish long distance rates within Canada.
We should be able to carry unused minutes.
No add on for caller ID.
No restriction on types of phone use for different plans.
3 year plans must be abolished with 12-18 months plan maximum for those who want it.
I hope something positive will come of this. I am getting rather tired of being laughed at by my relatives in Europe and South Africa for being "taken for a ride with my phone company".

I agree with nearly all the posts. Unlock the phones when contract if finished. Unlock it for free for present contracts. Get rid of contracts with plans. Customer should be able to purchase the phone in 1 or 2 or 3 yrs and calculate the cost accordingly.
Data should be unlimited. If you buy the phone outright REDUCE the cost of the contract to only the usage of Data, voice and message choices.
Phone towers should be available between the city of Hope and the Rocky Mtns. More towers should be built to include areas out of city limits especially along major highways.

There actually is no subsidy at all.

Your analysis is based on the mistaken premise that the provider, Roger or Verizon, is somehow "subsidizing" your phone purchase.

Whether a 2-year contract or a 3-year contract, in the end you're paying the same full price for the device, whether that's $649 in the US or $699 in Canada. There is no "subsidy", only a deferred cost that you get to pay in installment payments. It's not $225/year in "subsidies" that you're receiving from Verizon or $173/year in "subsidies" that you're receiving from Rogers. It's $225/year in installment payments that you're making to Verizon and $173/year in installment payments that you're making to Rogers. With the 3-year contract with Rogers, you get to spread out your $699 payment a little more. With the 2-year contract with Verizon, you have to pay your $649 within 2 years.

This misunderstanding is widespread but not at all surprising because the news media and the CRTC mindlessly continue to use the industry's own lobbying/marketing term "subsidy" (on their behalf.)

I feel this illustrates the importance for the CRTC to change this terminology and for the new Wireless Code to mandate and enforce a terminology change in the industry and the marketplace, as I suggested in another comment (http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/1802#comment-1802)

Regarding, 2-year contracts vs. 3-year contracts, you might like to have the option to choose a more flexible 3-year payment schedule when you understand that a) you aren't getting any subsidy, b) you can end your so-called contract at any time without incurring any new fees or new costs. You can read a more detailed explanation here: http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/1699#comment-1699

The only helpful thing to do right now is have the phones unlocked for free and split the bill and/or contracts. A competitive industry regulates itself, but the telecom system is not competitive. It can only change if the CRTC forces the owners of the infrastructure to share it so smaller companies and communities can expand and upgrade it, specifically in rural areas.

I appreciate the efforts the CRTC have made to draft this code, promote public discussion and encourage Canadian telcos to follow more ethical, fairer practices. At least there is hope that, with new regulation, some of the predatory behavior will stop. I agree with the changes, and I hope they are implemented quickly.

Additionally, the industry should not be allowed to misleadingly market the cost of a device as "$0 on a 3-year contract" or "$100 on a 3-year contract", (usually with the 3-year contract part in much smaller print,) because the cost to the consumer is most definitely not the falsely-advertised $0 or $100.

The Wireless Code should prohibit claims such as "$100 on a 3-year contract", and, at a bare minimum, require the use of the word "upfront", as in "$100 upfront on a 3-year contract". Better would be "$100 upfront on a 3-year payment schedule." More detailed would be "$100 upfront and 36 installment payments of $16.67/month."

The term "contract", though technically valid, should ideally be replaced as well because Canadian consumers are now so deeply conditioned to think of a contract as so expensive to terminate that they don't even consider it an option. Just look at all the misguided comments here about banning the 3-year contract. Even the more informed consumers that have participated here simply don't grasp the fact that with the new Wireless Code they will be able to end the contract at any time and basically only have to pay the remainder of the deferred cost of their device.

So to inform consumers, which I trust is a goal of this Wireless Code, a far more informative term than "contract" would be "payment schedule". The Wireless Code could mandate this terminology change as well.

"$100 on a 3-year contract" is designed to make the consumer think: "Oh, the phone only costs $100" and "Oh, I'm obligated to stay for 3 years."

"$100 upfront on a 3-year payment schedule", on the other hand, makes clear that the $100 is only the upfront part, makes clear that the consumer is paying for the device in installment payments, and removes the false implication that they are somehow locked in a "3-year contract".

The CRTC and CCTS should prohibit the misuse of the misleading term "subsidy" by the cell phone industry.

Since the consumer is ultimately paying for the full cost of the device, there simply is no subsidy involved, only a deferral of the cost.

For example, if the full cost of a device is $700, and the consumer buys it for $100 with a 3-year "contract", they are paying $100 upfront and then paying the remaining $600 at a monthly rate of $600/36 months, or $16.67/month. There is no subsidy, there is only a deferred cost paid on an installment pay.

So the CRTC and CCTS should stop catering to the industry by using their misleading marketing term of "subsidy", and change this in the Wireless Code and their other communications. They should further prohibit the industry from ever using this misleading term in their communications, from national advertising right down to what retail floor and call-center staff tell consumers.

A cell phone representative should not be allowed to say "You only pay $100 and the rest of the cost is subsidized by us." That is completely false. They should have to say "You pay $100 now, and you pay the remaining $600 in 36 monthly payments."

A much better term than "subsidy" would be "deferred cost". The Wireless Code should mandate and enforce this as a standard term to be adopted by the industry.

Is the draft code enough?
Will the draft code stop these providers to find other ways of over-charging consumers?
Should the monopoly on the Canadian telecom services also be addressed? Market monopoly in most cases generate corruption which will reflect on consumers.
A strong audit on these providers will probably surface a lot of dirt which currently is paid by consumers. Do they really represent Canadians interest?
Any moral values and ethics of responsibility to the Canadian consumers?

My current plan is 100 talk minutes per month and 6GB of data. I never come close to those limits, so why am I paying 77$ per month for what I will never use? This is nothing that hasn't been said by many others, and it's still true now. I am very tired of paying so much for what I won't fully use and having no real competition to consider.

I can go to Google and purchase their newest phone today for 310$ CAD, and get it shipped to my door (check it out: http://www.google.ca/nexus/4/ and click Shop). Going forward, more and more people will be owning their phones outright at reasonable prices.

Where is my option to go to a wireless carrier, any wireless carrier, give them a deposit, and sign up for a pay-for-what-I-use plan? If I use 23 minutes of talk time, bill me for what I used at X cents per minute. If I use 1510MB of data, bill me for what I used at Y cents per megabyte. For this, I don't mind locking into a term contract at all (as long as there is regulation on rate changes for this type of contract, and/or the ability to break the contract when rates are changed.) Billing in arrears was fine for decades, so why is it so unfeasible now?

Sure, mobile telephony and connectivity are not needs for anyone. They are, however, a basic element of our daily lives now; part of the cultural fabric. There isn't a case for calling it an essential service but there also is no case for pricing it as a luxury, either.

Echoing some other common sentiments: Why are the massive corporations permitted to, or at least are apparently permitted to, set the rules at whim. If there's so much "competition", why are every carrier's plans so similar in offering?

I am cautiously optimistic about this wireless code. Hopefully we are not all ultimately disappointed.

I hope to see changes in regards to cancellation fees. 3 year contracts are way too long and when people cancel, major companies have ridiculous fees for cancelling contracts. For example, Virgin Mobile (owned by Bell) charges $20 per month for remaining months left in the contract PLUS a fee for having a smartphone!!! Before anyone says maybe you shouldn't sign up for three years or you deserve it, the rationale behind the $20/month is a complete ripoff once you do the math. Ex. Blackberry bold worth $450 if you buy it out right but it is worth $720 (36*20) plus additional cancellation fees. CRTC needs to make companies charge you cancellation fees that you pay for the remaining balance of your phone. So theoretically speaking, it should cost roughly $12.50/month if you cancel your contract early.

Hopefully CRTC has this suggestion as one of its drafts and retroactive from 2011 help consumers who are currently being gouged!

More crock coming out the mouth of Bell just like SaskTel

Artificial Limitations Cause Excess/Hidden Costs:

The Wireless Code does not address the following issues with wireless carriers today:

I should be able to buy a SIM with any type of service, and it should work in any device natively supporting that service, where that SIM fits (just as a home phone works in any compatible wall outlet). Carriers use technical trickery to block the SIM’s from working in different devices, creating arbitrary different classes of SIMs to block interchangeabilty, and/or to cripple capable devices from using certain services.
- If one can buy a block of data for $35 for the iPad, why can't this SIM with data-only work in an iPhone as well? (Answer: carriers don't want you to use a third party VOIP service on the iPhone using just the data plan).
- The iPhone has the capability to create a Personal Hotspot, to which other WiFi devices may connect. AT&T in the US cripples this functionality on certain data plans even though the hotspot is only using data that is already part of service plan.

SIM Card Surcharges. SIM cards should not expire and should be reusable. Why do I need to keep buying SIM cards when I have one for that carrier that fits and works from another prior phone? Carriers create extra fee revenue by deactivating SIM cards when they are not used for a short period of time, and/or precluding their re-use. They charge $10 plus for new SIM cards.

Pooling of Devices: Consumers should be able to buy a block of services, and share this in an unrestricted fashion with all devices in the household (up to 5 or 10), subject to a nominal additional maintenance fee for maintaining activation on a network (eg; $25 per year). Consumers don’t pay an electricity or gas plan for each appliance in a household: why are consumers required to buy separate service plans for each wireless device to create a pool in the household?

Loss of Discounts when Consumer Initiates Changes to Contract Terms: The retention department of a wireless carrier will often provide a price quote that is $X less than list price. However, if the consumer later changes the plan coverage during the contract, this will often result in loss of all or most discounts, even in cases where the consumer is continuing with comparable services at comparable list prices.

Data Costs: Data is an essential utility like electricity or natural gas. It should also be available on a fair meter with the option to pay for the amount used. Why do we need to place bets with ourself about how much we might use, and still pay the full cost of that data if we don't use it all?

i think having to sign up for a contract for 3 years or more is not fair, because realistically the phone it self from all the wear and tear falls apart within a year or two. so i think it would be unfair for some one to be tied down to a contract for that long; when the product is no more. one other thing is that they need to make sure, who ever is selling their products is just not scamming you by telling you things which is not true and not at all in the contract, just so they can make their sale. HINT HINT ROGERS

Small Claims Court Access:

C1. Administration and Enforcement of the Wireless Code: We need the right to go to small claims court.

- The CCTS is a great organization, but the outcomes of all complaints are not public, and don’t set precedents. I also want the right to go to court. Rogers Terms of Service currently states that “disputes will be determined by final and binding arbitration to the exclusion of the courts. Such limitations are unreasonable and should be banned from the Terms of Service.

- Wherever the topic of dispute resolution is described, carriers should be required to present a consolidated list of all available options. Carriers should be provided with specific requirements of where and how to make this information available in multiple locations. Example: If you search the term “Rogers arbitration” you will quickly find the Arbitration Protocol posted on the Rogers site. It makes no mention of CCTS:

http://www.rogers.com/web/content/support-terms/arbitration-protocol
"Upon receiving a notice of arbitration in any form from a customer (referred to hereafter as the "Complainant") Rogers will ensure that the Complainant is provided with a copy of this Protocol along with a list of retired judges in the jurisdiction in which the Complainant resides from which the Complainant may, as set out below, select an arbitrator."

- In a dispute with Rogers last year, I was not aware of CCTS and I phoned them to invoke the Rogers Arbitration Protocol. I requested the list of retired judges. The result was a complete farce, as I was passed between departments and kept on hold for an hour total, while they supposedly attempted to find someone with the secret list of judges, or who even knew of the existence of the Rogers Arbitration Protocol. Not once did anyone at Rogers mention CCTS.

Monthly Costs for Services Alone (no Hardware Subsidy):

D3.4: Month to Month Costs: Contracts become month to month at what monthly rate? The Personalized Information Summary states: "After your contract end date, your contract will renew automatically on a month to month basis." At what monthly rate?

- If the hardware subsidy has been paid off, then D3.4 should specify that the monthly amount drops by the amount of the subsidy. Why should consumers keep paying a hardware subsidy after the hardware has been paid off?

- In the case of a contract that includes monthly service and hardware, the Personalized Information Summary (D1.4) should reflect separate and distinct line items for the monthly amount for services and hardware amortization. For example, the monthly amount is not $60 which includes services and an amount of $20 towards hardware subsidy. The monthly amount should be separately identified as $40 for services and $20 for hardware amortization. At the end of the contract, when the hardware subsidy has been fully amortized, the monthly amount on month-to-month auto-renewal would be $40. Section D3.4 should clearly state this and provide an example.

- In the above example, it should also be possible to get the $40 service plan from a wireless provider, without needing to start with a brand new phone (or to be able to bring in a new phone purchased elsewhere: whether the new phone was bought outright, or financed from a more competitive provider of the hardware alone).

- Any interest rates on the hardware amortization should be restricted to a fair amount.

Roaming fees need to be regulated. There is no reason Canadian carriers should charge wireless users roaming fees in Canada when on their own network. Roaming fees when going abroad also need to be regulated (like was done in the EU).

I haven't seen this issue discussed so far: The number porting conundrum. If a user wishes to switch carrier at the end of a contract, and wishes to keep the same number, apparently, he has to first go to the new provider and inform them of his desire to port his number. Instead, if he (by mistake) informs the current company he is with (as per their 30-day notice policy), they would immediately mark the number for cancellation and then there is no way that number can be kept. They would simply give it away. However, apparently, once the new company informs the old company about the number being ported, the old company would take that date of porting as their date for 30-day notice. So, effectively, the customer would end up being charged by both companies for that last month, which is ridiculous!! This issue needs to be addressed by the CRTC. A customer should be free to port his number at any time he wants by simply and openly informing the old company. Once he informs, then the company has to be made to allow him to keep that number. Neither the old company nor the new one should be allowed to harass the customer by playing games with marking the number for cancellation.

More b.s. from SaskTel unlocking fee is far far to high $50.00, it only costs $5.00 in Philippines to unlock a phone, also the phones in Asia are far more advanced than Canada

No Forced Data plans WiFi phones must be must available regardless of what model of phone is sold!

Was it your intention to write the code yourself or do expect all Canadians to do it, are you in the industry, what is your attitude of SaskTel presentation?

Martin are you currently employed by a service provider or a novel writer?

Right now at 2:13 pm pacific SaskTel is giving nothing but b.s. to CRTC commissioners, they can get this done under 6 months but they are a lazy crown corporation!

1. Prepaid accounts - no expiry date and access to a statement.
2. Prepaid cancellation - carrier must refund any unused balance within 10 days. Carrier may not prevent customer from porting phone number.
3. No charge for unsolicited incoming messages - where is the carriers' spam technology?
4. 30day cooling off period. Cus pays for usage only and pro-rated on subsidized use.
5. Ban bundling. This is an uncompetitive practice.
6 Customers should not be required to subscribe to one type of service as a prerequisite to obtain another type of service.
7. Eliminate 911 charges for any device that do not have voice capability and/or cannot effectively be used to summon 911 emergency services. (ie tablets).
8. Ban paper billing fee. Require discount for those receiving electronic billing.
9. Transparency. Separate phone subsidy fee and monthly service fee. When a phone is paid for, the customer no longer pays the subsidy. IF a consumer changes carriers and brings their own phone, they shuold not have to pay the subsidized monthly rate.
10. Equipment warranty must not be shorter than the contract period or when the subsidy is reimbursed to the carrier.
11. Airtime charges begin when the call is connected not when the customer iniates a call.
12. Per second billing. No exceptions.
13. Clear language terms.
14. O/S manufacturers should be able to push updates directly to consumer.
15. Ban the practice of charging extra to move a SIM card to another device. A SIM can only be used in one device at a time, customers should not have to pay again to use that SIM card and associated service.
16. Require CCTS to provide a full explanation of why a complaint was denied. At this time, they simply contact the complainant to tell them it was denied and provide no detail as to why. IS CCTS being controlled by the incumbent carriers?
17. Require all carriers to provide "grace area" in border zones with respect to roaming. I live near the US border, my phone always roams to the US and the it stops working because prepaid accounts do not have roaming. So while I'm in Canada, frequently I cannot use the phone. The technology exists to do this, Telus negotiated a recprical agreement with their US roaming partner years ago. When that happened, I never had an issue with roaming in the border area. Up until that time, I either ended up with huge cell phone bills or if I turned roaming off at the handset, my phone simply stopped working....while I was in Canada.

B1. The incumbant carriers do not need 6 months notice because they have known since cell phone technology began in the 1970's that this was coming. The new competitive carriers and providers don't need 6 months lead time because they began their businesses and continue to prosper as a direct result of using common sense.
If the CRTC is bent on giving the incumbents another 6 months, then Option #1 and it should apply to ALL customers and contracts.
C2. The option should not be "or" but "and/or". There should not be no limit on compensation.
D1.3 Option 2. There should be NO charge to the customer to obtain an account balance.
D2.1 Option 2
D3.1 Option 2
D3.3 Option 1
D3.4 Option 1
D4.3 13. Unlimited means infinite. Period.
D7.1 Option 2
D10.1 Option 1

this must be done in less than 6 months, SaskTel is giving the CRTC nothing but bs, listening and watching at 1:42 PM pacific.

Contracts are forced on customers. I just spent 3 days trying to buy a new cell phone and found it extremely frustrating. Essentially all phones available for ‘low cost’ ‘pay as you go’ accounts are old and obsolete, usually discontinued lines. If you want a newer, state of the art phone you either pay a huge up front cost, usually in the order of $500, or you sign a 3 year contract. The rub is that you will then end up paying the same amount every month whether you buy the phone outright or subsidize it. THERE IS NO DISCOUNT FOR OWNING YOUR PHONE. If you buy your phone upfront you will end up paying the same as all the people who paid nothing, or very little, upfront. Essentially you are paying for your phone over and over again, once when you buy it upfront, then again EVERY 3 years you use that phone. Cell phone companies say that contracts are what people want but they do everything they can to discourage you from even thinking of buying outright. Furthermore I found the plan descriptions given out by every company to be confusing, complicated and subject to never ending ‘conditions’ and the methods of selection force you down paths you are not interested in but offer nothing for those who already own a phone.

I disagree pre paid must be in code, this is the number one scam in the country. what really upsets me, is when I talk to my provider on 611 he or she gives me instructions then go to a retailer which in this case it is Rogers the people in that Rogers says we do not care what they say, we do not have access to the rogers notes, what a bunch of foolish woman and should fired, Location Metrotown Metropolsis in Burnaby BC Canada. Avoid this rogers store they are useless woman some are minorites

Customer communication must be accessible
There should be some general statement that customer communication must be accessible to people with disabilities (e.g. accessible websites, accessible text messages, accessible emails, providing TTY phone numbers, etc.). And a couple of the specific provisions could benefit from accessibility additions:
D1.1 Plain language: "Contracts and related policies governing the terms or use of the service, such as privacy policies and fair use policies, must be written in clear, easy-to-understand language, and presented in an appropriate font size" [ADD] and be made available electronically in a format that is accessible to people with disabilities (i.e. conforms with WCAG 2.0. Level AA - http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/)
D5.2: Tools to monitor and manage usage: "Monitoring usage: The service provider will provide the consumer with an online tool that allows the consumer to monitor the balance of included usage allowances and any additional fees incurred within a billing cycle." [ADD] The online tool must be accessible to people with disabilities (i.e. conforms with WCAG 2.0. Level AA)

Net Neutrality should be at the heart of any digital economy strategy, and since wireless is the next big frontier for delivering services via third-party innovators (through mobile web, games, and apps), it is also the most vulnerable to being manipulated by the companies controlling access (ie the carriers). Both the government of Canada and the CRTC should heed this call and enforce the tenets of a neutral web.

Good service and pricing is best brought about by competition, and so everything necessary to ensure competition in a market where there a limited number of suppliers needs to done.

To that end, locking of phones should be banned under the code. There is no technological reason why a phone needs to be locked, as indicated by the fact that unlocked phones can be used without any problem on any of the networks.The locking of phones is purely a measure intended to hinder a customer from switching to a different provider. This therefore hinders the competitive forces necessary to promote good service and pricing.

Furthermore, locking a phone prevents it from being used in another market (e.g. internationally), a perfectly legal and valid use of a phone the customer has bought.

Recouping the initial cost of a subsidy does NOT require phone locking - that is a an issue that can be addressed in the terms of the contract the customer signs.

Consequently, I ask that the code contain provisions to
1. Ban the locking of phones here on in.
2. Require service providers unlock currently locked phones for a _minimal_ fee (no more than $25 maximum)

With regards,
W.

I am Deaf, I am using cell phone with a voice plan included. I never use voice. I used text message, data,etc. I think its opportunity to give an option for Deaf people to remove their voice plan except an emergency accessible or text message for an emergency provided. Some Deaf people use a voice for their children to contact their love one. maybe reduce the minutes or pay per minutes if using a voice. I am giving an idea about this optional.

Restrict contracts to 2 years

The CRTC needs to restrict cellphone contracts to a maximum of 24 months. This is the standard in the USA and the EU recently passed legislation that restricts contracts to 24 months and forces operators to offer 12 month contract option.

Looks like your getting OVERWHELMED, EH ?
Having WORKED for one of the 'big 3' for 20+ YEARS---I am WELL AWARE of how they RAPED---AND CONTINUE TO---the Canadian consumer.
LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN STAND UP FOR CONSUMEERS FOR A CHANGE. WE PAY AMOUNG THE HIGHEST CELL PHONE RATES IN THE WORLD----DAMMIT !!!!
GET WITH THE FREAKIN' PROGRAM !!!!!!
GRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason that consumers have not embraced 1 and 2 years contracts is because the carriers have massaged their plans in such a way as to make the entry cost far higher which translates to higher profit margins for the carrier.

Also, Bell and the other carriers are not being "factually correct" (Mr Oosterman's words) when they state that contract penalties are there only to cover the cost of the unpaid subsidy reimbursement by the consumer to the carrier. I am an independent telecom consultant and have had more than one customer that has owned their own handset outright, are in a contract and when they wish to exit, the carrier has assessed hundreds of dollars in penalties. In other words, the contracts are really "service leases". When a customer signs off, they are agreeing that they will pay the entire cost of the service during that contract period whether they complete that contract period or not. And THIS, Mr Oosterman, are the FACTS.

"Canadian telecommunications is the envy of the world" Wade Oosterman, President, Bell Mobile commenting at CRTC hearing on Wireless Code.

"Really?" Telecommunications consumers around the world.

Did Mr Oosterman really mean, "Canadian telecommunications is the laughing stock of the world."

There should be a law that forces the Cellular provider to submit ALL conversations and material to a Government Agency for inspection when a resolution cannot be met. Right now, cellular companies will send the information to the CCTS that supports their own claims, but leaves out other conversations and materials that would not support their stance. They have no one who can force ALL information, which gives a clear disadvantage to the consumer if there is a discrepancy.
When I called Telus, they told me they don't sell or own the phones that are provided, but they only sell the service. Yet...this company can still keep your phone locked up, even after you have paid of the phone, and paid the service charge for cancelling your contract! How is this possible? They don't sell the phone, even though you buy it in their store. They won't unlock the phone, unless you agree to their terms and conditions! Once the phone has been paid, they should be forced to unlock it!
When you purchase these cellular devices, it's all fun and excitement. You have to be a lawyer to understand the contracts, and there are a few pages, which no one has time to read, or understands completely! This has to change!
There should be an agency that can force these Cellular companies to resolve issues or go to an arbitrator that is free to the consumer!
All changes in the law that are formed,should be made RETRO to the existing problems that we consumers have been subjected to!!!! Consumers should be able to claim back money lost from these companies, possibly in a Class Action Lawsuit!

I have 2 recommendations. I now purchase my cell phones as they are nothing more than consumer electronics. Still, I pay the same rates as someone who finances their phone through the provider. In addition, the provider puts me on a 3 year contract without my knowledge. The cell phone purchase or rental should be separate from the service and the rates should reflect this. The 3 year term is out of touch with physical and technological life and leads to a cycle of 3 year contract extensions. The CRTC has taken the position that there is a competitive environment but in reality there is not.

D1.3 - expiy dates on a pre-paid service should not be allowed. Many times I deal with folks who are on the fringes of cell phone coverage who have their pre-paid service expire due to additional fees/deadlines causing cancellation of the service. Now you're stuck with a camp full of upset workers and upset families calling headquarters trying to find out people are safe after a day fighting forest fires in the middle of now where.

D2.1 - Change in contract with 30 days notice? No thanks. Last 3 year term I had my provider raise the signed contract rate 3 times with no recourse to me as consumer. Each time I tried to re-negotiate down the currently advertised lower rates but was not allowed without breaking the contract. Change in contract rates should consider the contract void and allow for renegotiation by the consumer just like cancellation by the consumer allows the provider to charge cancellation fees.

D7.1 - unlocking phones. Expired 3 year contract with a phone I bought from the service provider at the start of the contract. I want to sign up for a new contract but am told that I now have to buy a new phone in order to unlock the new contract rates that are 10% of my current bill. Why does retail sales of devices have anything to do with unlocking contract rates especially when I need to buy the phone outright (no subsidized price due to contract) in order to qualify for the contract?

D9.3 - Interest incrued by the security deposit shall be returned to the consumer at a rate of +1% Bank of Canada interest rate. What is not stated is whether this based off of annual rate or monthly rate and how the interest is accrued. If billing is monthly and the need for the security deposit is reviewed bi-annually then interest to the consumer should be compounded on a monthly basis as well.

1. We had to pay for same month TWICE when we switched service providers, because they BOTH " bill 30 days in advance". CONTRACT was EXPIRED, and adequate notice was given to Rogers which was the company being left behind.
2. BASIC service should INCLUDE call display and list of recent calls, so customers can screen out unwanted unsolicited and possily spam or harassing calls. Currently, you have to pay extra for this item in cell plans because they know everyne wants it after they "hook" customers first with misleading cheaper ads.
3. People need to be free to travel the globe and use their smart pones without risking inadvertent long distance and roaming charges that are sky high.

On behalf of parents of deaf children we would like to comment on the CODE.

In 2008, the CRTC, according to Reference: 8678-C12-200615578, 8638-C12-200602708 and 8638-C12-200615586

“In this Decision, the Commission approves the use of deferral account funds by incumbent local exchange carriers for certain initiatives to improve access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities and to expand broadband services to certain rural and remote communities in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. The Commission also directs that any balance remaining in the deferral accounts be rebated to residential subscribers in non-high-cost serving areas”

As a follow up to the above CRTC decision in 2008, FNDC sent a letter to Telus (our local carrier named in the deferral account decision), alerting them to the fact that deaf/hh individuals are forced to pay for voice calls in order to have access to text messaging and data, and the unfairness in this practice and asking them to change this policy. Sadly, 5 years later, there still isn’t a policy for deaf/hh consumers in regard to this issue and as you can see, this community is still paying for voice time monthly.

It is not acceptable that deaf and hard of hearing individuals are still being required to pay for voice packages on their cellphones in order to access text messaging and data plans.

In addition, there is also a lack of access for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to re-negotiate cellphone contracts that hearing people have by simply calling the Customer Retention Department. Deaf and hard of hearing individuals are left to deal with negotiating a contract through written notes at the mall kiosk, Message Relay (if they happen to pay for a landline) and own tty (virtually obsolete/expensive) or through IP relay through the internet if they have access to internet and are registered through a phone carrier or asking a hearing person to do it for them. Deaf and hard of hearing consumers all use cellphones extensively, it is imperative that Cellphone companies offer a better means of communication with their consumers. For too many years, this community has been accepting expensive, voice packages as their only way of having access to text messaging and data.

As an organization that supports parents of deaf children, we recognize that parents rely heavily on text messaging for our deaf children as their means to communication and for safety outside the home. We applaud the recent announcement by the CRTC of access to 911 (by cellphone) for our deaf children, and we hope for more access.

We request that the CODE, reflect FULL access for deaf and hard of hearing citizens by:

• Removing the requirement for deaf & hh consumers to pay for voice plans, and offer deaf/hh consumers more appropriate perks than “free evening & weekend talk time”;
• Recognizing the importance of data plans for deaf & hh consumers (ie, they can’t voice phone the doctor to tell them they will be late, and most businesses/government don’t use text messaging, so deaf & hh consumers rely on either email or checking websites to gather information. For this reason Cellphone carriers need to develop Deaf/HH packages (like they do in in the United States) that offer better data plans and do away with the “free weekend, evening calling etc.”
• The above extensive Data plans are a necessity for deaf/hh consumers as a means to communicate via video (ie skype, facetime). Currently, they may only do this in wifi, but as videotechnology opens up, deaf/hh consumers need to have the ability to use video (skype, facetime, video relay) in non wifi areas. Therefore they need unlimited data plans (in lieu of voice plans and voice perks). This feature would pave the way when Video Relay Services is established in the future and potentially live stream interpreting of government events and emergency services.
• All Cell Carriers should have better customer access for deaf & hh consumers to negotiate cellphone packages; (ie just putting a tty number on your website doesn’t mean access).
• the CRTC should have a deaf/hh person as a consultant in regard to the above needs to ensure all phone carriers are meeting the needs of this community that has been ignored in the past.

The CODE needs to reflect the change in the communication needs of deaf and hh citizens in regard to evolving/accessible technology and to include deaf/hh people in access to this technology. With technological changes, it is time to finally provide Video Relay Services so that Deaf/HH citizens of Canada have equal access.

Family Network for Deaf Children
www.fndc.ca

1. By far the most significant change (and the easiest to make) that needs to be made is an outright BAN on 3 year contracts. Canada has the WORLD'S longest contract terms. Aren't we supposed to be one of the global leaders?

2. Ban carrier-locked phones. This is insult to injury when you're already on a 3 year contract, and should be criminal when you buy a phone outright at full retail on a month-to-month plan.

3. Why are subscribers, who are using their own, paid for, unlocked cell phone paying the same price for SERVICE as those using a carrier subsidized/contract phone? The monthly price is supposed to be subsidizing the cost of the carrier selling someone a $700 phone for $0 on a three year plan. Why am I paying that subsidy to the carrier when I bought my unlocked phone outright? This should be addressed.

Those are my big three concerns.

- Call display should be free. It cost nothing to the provider.
- All incoming voice and text communications should be free like many countries.
- Like Australia, provider should not have the right to lock phones.
- Prepaid card money should not expire. (D1.3 option2)
- Providers should not have the right to charge roaming fees if we make a call in their coverage zone. For example, if I have a contract with Bell in Ontario, I should be able to make and receive call from anywhere in Canada where Bell has coverage.
- If provider changes contract, it should be possible to cancel it without fees. (D2.1 option1)
- Providers should not have the right to restrict contracts on kind of phones. For example, lots of cheap contracts are only available for "dumb" phones and not for smart phones. They force customer to pay for more than what they need.

With respect to roaming charges, wireless providers are not transparent enough. Last month I traveled to the US for 2 days and sent a handful of text messages to local numbers. I came back to $54 in additional charges. When I asked for a record of the numbers I had texted and the corresponding dates, I was told that this information is not available to Canadian carriers because the towers are outside of Canadian jurisdiction. So they can charge us but they can't provide us with detailed usage?! I was also told by my provider (Telus) that when text messages are sent outside of Canada, one message may need to be "divided" into several messages (reasons cited were related to the decoding of messages abroad). So if consumers send ONE message, they MAY be charged for 5! Furthermore, there will be no details to corroborate that these messages were actually sent. This is ludicrous practice and it must be curtailed. Finally, no providers in any other industrialized country that I am aware of charge long distance fees in their own country. If I am in Toronto and I call Cobourg (less than 100km away), I am billed at long distance rates. Again, ludicrous! Consumers want more choice and we want lower rates! Open up the market.

@Bell the million old CDMA device comment is misleading as there are areas your HSPA network does not cover and customers wouldn't have service if they upgraded to HSPA

This is exactly my point as well. The carriers would love the CRTC to believe that no one wanted the 1 and 2 year terms, and they didn't, but it's because consumers are smart enough to know the subsidy was so minuscule on those term options that they'd be better off going for an additional year, falling right into the carriers' plans... I've done this myself, knowing full well the scam it is, but also knowing if I didn't take advantage of a subsidized phone, I'd still be paying the same monthly fee for service (since there are no unsubsidized plan savings).

3 Year vs 2 Year contracts

Bell (and others) would like the CRTC to think that they offered 1 and 2 year contracts and consumers didn't want them, subscribe to them, etc. They are right in saying consumers didn't subscribe to them, but the real reason for this which the big carriers don't want CRTC to understand, is that it's because the 1 and 2 year terms are structured in a way that herd consumers into the 3 year.

Take the following example:

On Rogers, a new iPhone 5 on a 3 year term is $179.99. The phone retails unlocked, unsubsidized directly from Apple for $699 in Canada. That's a $520 subsidy from Rogers.

On Verizon, the same iPhone 5 on a 2 year term is $199.99. The phone retails unlocked, in the US, directly from Apple for $649.99. That's a $450 subsidy from Verizon.

So, in the end, Rogers is offering $70 more on their 3 year subsidy than Verizon on their 2 year subsidy. However, if you divide each carrier's subsidy amount by the number of years of the term, for Verizon, they are giving you $225 / year in subsidies for the device. Rogers is only giving $173 / year.

If Rogers was going to offer the same subsidy as Verizon per year, they should be selling the iPhone 5 up front for $25 ($225 subsidy per year * 3 years is $675, leaving a $25 difference from the full price of the device).

By the same logic, Rogers should offer a 2 year plan for $199. Unfortunately all the carriers have taken out their 1 and 2 year plans, but I can tell you from experience, that the 2 year plan would have been more along the lines of $349 or $449.

I think it's clear to see that Rogers is taking advantage of consumers (and so are the other big carriers) by claiming to have offered these 1 and 2 year options and having no uptake on them. The real reason there was no interest in these options is because they made no sense to the consumer. The subsidies were little to none for the device, and consumers were smart enough to know it wasn't worth 2 year lock in to save one or two hundred dollars off the top of the device, when you would save at least double that amount when opting for just one more year.

Give us similar subsidies on 2 year contracts as they have in the US and you'll see consumers interested in those plans.

Why No One Chose 1 or 2 Yr Contracts

The carriers' mantra over these proceedings have been "We used to offer 1 and 2 year contracts, but consumers overwhelmingly chose 3 year contracts". David Fuller from TELUS went so far as to intentionally mislead the commission when he gave an example "We'd offer a phone for $0 on a 3 year contract; $100 on a 2 year contract and $200 on a 3 year contract and consumers chose the 3 year option".

I'm amazed than none of the commissioners have done their homework into the history of carriers' previous offerings. Mr. Fuller's example isn't anywhere near reality.

Let's take the BlackBerry Z10 as has been brought up several times. Without exception, across all major carriers, the 1 & 2 year contract models offered when they used to offer "options" would be:

Outright price: $650
1 Year Term: $600
2 Year Term: $550
3 Year Term: $140

As I said, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, regardless of the outright price of the phone, carriers offered only a $50 subsidy for a 1 year contract and $100 subsidy for a 2 year contract. ALWAYS, ON EVERY PHONE.

That is why people in the past never took 2 year contracts. I hope the commission has the opportunity to understand this before completing work on the draft and I wish they had this information when the carriers were before them so they could more aptly grill the people who were in front of them, clearly intending to mislead them.

We need to get rid of the 3 year contract, which I have always felt is ridiculous. Phone locking should be completely illegal. And last - no charge for incoming text and calls. Simple!

Coverage is a CRTC Policy issue:
In lay terms, current CRTC policy allows the Provider to claim "coverage", and charge fees for full service, if any reception can be detected anywhere OUTSIDE on the subscriber's property.
The policy must be changed:
The policy should allow the Provider to claim "coverage", and charge fees for full service, if reception can be detected OUTSIDE on the subscriber's property AND the OUTSIDE reception is sufficiently strong that a device could function INSIDE a building on the property that complied with minimum building code.

Suggestions for the new code:

1. 2 year contract should be the MAXIMUM contract length. Devices do not last 3 years. 2 years into your contract your device will fail and you will enter into a further contract with the carrier because cancelling with 1 year left is too expensive!

2. When you cancel your cell phone service, you should not have to give "30 days notice" it should be much less than that, if not immediate.

3. Do away with bogus "fees" ie. 911 fee, GRRF (government regulatory recovery fee), system access fee.

4. I don't know how the CRTC can address this in the code, but cell phone plans are absolutely brutal here. Telus, Rogers and Bell (and their sub-brands Koodo, Clearnet, Fido, Chatr, Virgin Mobile Canada, Solo Mobile) are not "real competition". The plans are ALL THE SAME and look like an oligopoly. The plans suck. They include inadequate amounts of data and "minutes". The size of your bill in OVERAGE charges is ridiculous.

5. Roaming fees are legalized THEFT. Particularly voice and data roaming rates for other countries.

6. Locked devices. The carrier should be REQUIRED to unlock the device for a reasonable amount of money after a short period of time.

7. My biggest complaint is that the plans of Robellus just suck. Hardly an acceptable amount of data and minutes. The overage fees turn your cellphone bill into a mortgage payment.

Pre-paid data plans should be exactly that: a per-paid fee for a specified amount of data (which does not expire every month).

Per-paid should not be a way to sneak through a monthly plan under another name, and carriers should be able to provide data on a $$$ per GB basis.

I would go further to suggest that the onus should not be on the customer to request a roaming package in order to obtain reduced rates.

I feel that:
1) International Roaming rates should be significantly lower than they are and only marginally higher than standard, on-network domestic rates.
2) The mobile operators should automatically charge the customer the lowest available rate for their international roaming without the need for the customer to request this.

If a customer moves, they should be allowed to break a contract without a penalty. Currently, some mobile operators allow this if the customer moves to an area that is not serviced by the operator (for example a Rogers customer moving to Whitehorse), but I feel this should be universal.

If a customer moves, they may not have good coverage at their new residence with that provider even if the provider has coverage in the area. There are local variations in coverage. In addition, surrounding areas that the customer would now be visiting may not have coverage with a particular carrier.

I had this very situation when I moved from Vancouver to Dawson Creek: Rogers has coverage in Dawson Creek but it is spotty and there was barely any coverage at my new home. Furthermore, Rogers has no coverage in surrounding areas, whereas Bell and Telus both do. It was very difficult to get out of my contract with Rogers even though their service no longer met my needs because Rogers claimed that my residence was still in an AREA where they offered coverage. I am now with Bell and I have fantastic coverage at my residence and in the surrounding areas. It should not have been this difficult.

To clarify my comment about the contract: I feel that a contract should only be allowed when a phone subsidy is involved. This subsidy should be transparent and clearly indicated on the statement as to how much of the invoice is going toward repaying the subsidy and the amount of the subsidy remaining, which would be equal to any early termination charge. Any new or renewed contracts that are triggered solely by changing a plan with the same device should be banned. Consumers should be able to alter their plan as much as they like under the terms of the contract: only the repayment of the subsidy should be fixed by the contract.

So, in other words, if I sign up for a contract because I have purchased a subsidised phone and then I decide to change my plan because I don't need as much data or voice or something, to reduce the cost, I should be allowed to do that. The portion of the bill that shows the amount I am paying to repay the subsidy (over the term of the contract) will remain the same regardless of the plan I am on (i.e. it is a separate item).

Section B2: I strongly believe Option 1 should be pursued. This will prevent consumers from being taken advantage of by coercing them into contracts before the code comes into force. Since contracts in Canada can be up to 3 years, this is a very long time to wait before the protections of the code would come into force.

Section D7.1: I strongly agree with Option 2. I have a phone that I purchased outright with no contract and I feel that it is wrong for this phone to be locked. I would even go further in that I feel that locking phones to a particular network should be banned outright in all cases.

For International Roaming, I travel often for business outside of Canada and incur a significant amount of roaming charges, even when I purchase an international roaming plan. I feel there should be a strict limit on the amount the provider is able to charge for roaming services (data, SMS and voice) that is only marginally higher than standard domestic, on-network rates. Furthermore, I feel that the onus shoud not be placed on the customer to telephone customer service and request a roaming plan (typically a 30 day plan) when they travel abroad. I've experienced practises in the past where mobile operators limit the hours and availability of personnel to activate such plans, making it difficult to obtain reduced roaming rates; instead, the mobile operators should be required to automatically provide the lowest available rate for international roaming at all times without the need to phone and request it.

Finally, I feel very strongly that 3-year mobile phone contracts are too long. I think that they should be limited to a maximum of 1 year and any contract beyond a year should be banned. There should also be provisions against mobile operators renewing contracts over the phone when you sign up for a new service (with your same mobile device). I feel that the only time an operator may offer a new contract is upon the purchase of a new subsidised device.

We also need better mobile competition in Canada. It is difficult for new entrants to grow, especially outside of major cities, because the existing operators are too powerful. We need to change this.

I would like to suggest that for corporate and government consumers that the service providers be required tools for customers to obtain raw data - in terms of usage (voice minutes, data consumption, text messaging). If you have 50 mobile devices in your company, it is difficult to make intelligent decisions about which service plans to apply to your company's devices (especially with "pooling" service offerings - "voice minute pooling"; "data pooling") when you lack access to the raw data that would permit you to conduct an independent analysis.

Prices for wireless services in Canada are widely known to be uncompetitive as compared to other first world nations, even compared to other emerging nations. Wireless services in Canada are expensive, have poor coverage and onerous contractual terms. I believe this is because there is insufficient competition. While the incumbents continue to oppose foreign investment and competition, they have proven by their actions that they want the status quo to continue, which is for Canadians to pay exorbitant fees for poor service and onerous contracts. Wireless services should be completely opened to foreign investment to create competition where there currently is little or no competition. New spectrum and underutilized existing spectrum should be opened up to new carriers. Incumbents should be mandated to lease their towers and their cable ducts to new carriers for a reasonable rate.

Additionally, new rules should be imposed on all carriers.

Contract lengths greater than 2 years should not be allowed. If the carrier fails to provide reasonable service, the subscriber should be allowed to terminate the contract without penalty.

Carriers should be prohibited from changing the price for service during a contract.

Carriers should be obligated to freely permit subscribers to unlock their phones.

Carriers should be obligated to allow subscribers to terminate their contracts for a reasonable penalty. If a customer elects to terminate a contract, the carrier should be obligated to unlock the subscriber’s phone at no charge to the subscriber.

Carriers should be obligated to clearly disclose the component of a contract that is associated with a phone subsidy.

Carriers should be obligated to provide international roaming at reasonable rates.

I lived for many years in the USA and had a reasonably priced US-Canada wide plan with Verizon. All in-coming and out-going calls whether I was in the USA or Canada at the time were included with NO extra long distance charges to or from anywhere in Canada or the USA, including Hawaii. With the number of Canadians who travel I have been astonished that no similar plan is available in Canada. I believe we have been too accepting of higher costs without a credible basis.

There should be more competition. Simple as that! Why do we allow so many US retailers free access to our market and NONE of the telecommunication companies that would help to bring prices and services in line with other industrialized countries? I fully support Canadian culture in media and publishing, and have my radio permanently set to CBC, but frankly fail to understand why Bell, Tel-Us or Rogers deserve such exclusive corporate protection at my expense?

If Verizon can offer cross border plans at a reasonable rate so too should Canadian carriers make it more palatable for anyone who travels or has family and friends in both countries. Or for those numerous persons who are charged roaming simply because they live close to the border. It is not reasonable.

I own my phone outright, and while I have the freedom to switch between companies at will, I still pay far more than I should for service. One should not have to invest so much time to choosing an appropriate and fair-priced plan. There should be much simpler options for more or less emergency, or moderate or heavy users. It's a fog of anytime minutes or after 5 or after 7 or call your favourites or call locally as if each of these options truly merit different cost rationales.

Companies should not absolutely not be allowed to charge a MONTHLY add-on for caller ID, a service than for some persons and in some instances that amounts to a safety issue. And most ESPECIALLY free caller ID should apply to any plan that charges for in-coming calls. How does one refuse or block a call from an unknown caller or spammer?

All in-coming calls and texts should be FREE. The market is so concentrated among the three main carriers that it amounts to double billing to charge the sender and the receiver for the same call or text.

As a 'newbie' to smartphones and data plans, I would have very much appreciated a REALISTIC guide to what one can do with a monthly allotment of 10 mb. I wonder how many people signed up for what they believed would be an inexpensive $5/month option for a tablet only to find virtually any kind of usage would immediately 'bump' the 'flex' plan to a much higher level and cost!

There should be more options available that are truly unlimited as to borders and calls/texts, or at the very least offer a cost ratio that better reflects the actual costs of the services delivered.

I support other comments calling for an ombudsman for complaints. I would likewise appreciate a reliable source for comparing plans and costs, so consumers can choose what they need and not be charged for features and overages they don't.

Is it because other countries have regulations banning 3-year contracts, or because it's not in the industry's interest to offer 3-year contracts in those better-regulated countries? Please have a look at the linked comment and let me know what you think it's valid:

http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/1699#comment-1699

I definitely agree that locked phones should simply be illegal. Given that the consumer must pay off any remaining subsidy on the phone the moment they end their contract, the phone should be considered fully paid for from day 1 and should therefore not be locked. What is the cost overhead to providers of locking and unlocking phones? Would they not save millions by just doing away with all this locking/unlocking?

I think I have to disagree with everyone about the 3-year contract and would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what I outlined in the linked comment: http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/1699#comment-1699

The phone should not be locked and the length of the contract should not exceed 1 year because every phone manufacturer release new handset every year.

Dear CRTC,

I am Deaf myself and use my cell phone for texting. I have been charged in the plan for voice. What voice??? I don't use my voice and also unable to hear of others to try to speak to me. I do know it's the same for all Deaf people of Canada with this plan. Many of us are not well off with jobs which means hardship with our limited budgets. This plan is discriminatory and unfair. Please consider to have this voice plan eliminated and just the text only plan. Thank you.

All of the strident calls and likes for a ban on 3-year contracts are quite likely from people that have not yet read the proposed Wireless Code.

The proposed Code already states that the consumer can cancel service at any time, and that they just have to pay what remains of the phone subsidy. See http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/read-draft-code section D3.1 and D3.3.

So assuming the same monthly repayment of the phone subsidy, the main difference between a 2-year contract and a 3-year contract is that you pay more upfront with the 2-year contract, and less upfront with the 3-year contract. And with the 3-year contract you have the added flexibility of continuing to spread out your payment of the phone if you choose to continue using it for a third year.

Example: Say the full price for the phone is $700. And say you buy it for $100 upfront on a 3 year contract. That means, according to my understanding, you repay the subsidy at a rate of $600/36 months = $16.67/month. If you decide to change phones or switch providers after 2 years, you simply end your contract and pay the remaining $200 ($16.67 x 12 months remaining.) Your total cost was $700: $100 upfront, plus $400 in 24 monthly installments, plus $200 at the end of the 2 years.

Say, instead, you buy the same phone for $300 upfront on a 2-year contract. That means you repay the $400 subsidy at a rate of $400/24 months = $16.67/month (same as above). At the end of your two years, you've paid $700: $300 upfront, plus $400 in 24 monthly installments.

So with the 2-year contract you have to pay all of the $300 upfront, while with the 3-year contract, you only have to pay $100 upfront and then the remaining $200 only when terminating after 2-years. Either way, you're free to go at 2 years (or at any time before that.)

The 3-year contract gives you the flexibility to choose to continue to spread out the cost of your phone over another year. Instead of $300 upfront and 24 monthly installments of $16.67, you get to choose $100 upfront and 36 monthly installments of $16.67. In the end you still will have paid $700 for the phone, but you got to better choose your repayment schedule according to your needs and circumstances.

Does this line of reasoning make sense? Are the assumptions correct? Or have I got something wrong?

If this is valid, then perhaps the Code should in fact mandate that providers *must* also provide 3-year contracts, in addition to 1 and 2-year contracts. Perhaps it will be industry that will no longer offer 3-year contracts and consumers wishing that they still existed as an option.

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by Rogers and Bell are particularly aggressive. Unlike most of their wholesale competitors, Rogers and Bell seek to convert caps into a profit by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap.

In addition, the CRTC needs to study the impact of such practices and whether or not they produce an incentive for Bell and Rogers to avoid raising their caps even as its own capacity expands and cost of delivery decreases.

Capping the "max overage" or adding "bill shock" protection for mobile consumers is good first step but I would urge the CRTC to further investigate these “flex rate plans” and “data caps” to evaluate their impact on Bell and Rogers competitors and the public interest.

The following questions need to be asked of the ISP’s

• Which ISP-offered services are excluded from the cap
This should include reporting on those services, such as voice telephony and video programming, which compete with internet-delivered non-ISP controlled offerings.

Why for example is Bell Mobile TV Addon data, excluded from end-users mobile data plans while Netflix’s is not?

• How often the cap is enforced
This should include the absolute number of customers who exceed the cap as well as the percentage of customers who run afoul of the limit. Additionally, it should include amount by which the customers exceeded the cap and how many of those customers are repeat cap exceeders.

• Steps taken to warn customers
This should include the steps taken to warn customers, and when those steps are taken. Additionally, the reporting should include data on the effectiveness of these warnings in preventing overages.

• Average penalty incurred by customers
Caps charge additional fees based on how significantly the cap is exceeded. Reporting should include data on the size of the penalties incurred by customers.

• When and how often a penalty is waived
In addition to the publicly announced grace periods, the public would be well served by understanding how often and under what circumstances reporting ISPs grant additional waivers.

• The relationship of enforcement to times of network congestion.
If used properly, theoretically data caps can be a tool in easing network congestion. However, instead of restricting caps to peak times, ISPs have begun to employ blanket caps on a per month basis and charge overage fees.

This has led to the widespread belief that ISPs are using data caps and usage based billing as a pretext to protect legacy services such as cable television and satellite TV from online competition like Netflix.

The CRTC needs to investigate the effectiveness of the current caps on reducing network congestion and if such caps are anti-competitive.

• How data caps are set
What criteria are used to arrive at the cap for various offerings? What criteria are used to determine appropriate overage fees?

This is probably the most important issue for consumers as the link between what the experts theorize the cost of delivery being and what consumers are actually getting charged is quite large.

• How data caps are evaluated on an ongoing basis
Data caps are often defended as necessary to address current network congestion issues. However, network technology is constantly being modernized and made more efficient, resulting in a lower cost of delivery.

Conversely, data usage among consumers has been on the increase. For example, a study commissioned by Cisco systems maintains that the average household worldwide used 26.2 GB of data per month in 2011, and by 2016, more than 84 GB a month will be consumed by an average family.

In light of this pattern, caps that are appropriate for today’s network (in terms of cost and effectiveness) may be inappropriate in the future. How do ISPs evaluate their existing caps, and what are the conditions under which caps are either raised and/or eliminated?

I feel that this is much needed in our country right now. Where the only country with 3 year contracts!

I want new code that Deaf people don't require pay voice plan. Since they force Deaf to pay voice plan therefore we never use voice plan because we are Deaf! Also Deaf need get increase data plan because Deaf people more heavy usage because video chat. Deaf should automatic get 6 GB same pay on 1 GB. How they can proof that we are Deaf? simple the doctor sign the form same thing in America they do.

3,500,000 per MONTH x 12 months = $42 million a year. Imagine. I would suggest that you work on a plan and getting these customers retroactive pay for the past year for the voice charges or asking the wireless companies to fork over what they took advantage of these Deaf customers to fund the Video Relay Services that they so badly want.

Agreed. Thousands of Deaf people were charged for voice plans when we wanted text plans, and these companies took advantage of extra money from people who do NOT use or NEED the service. We are Deaf. Need to go retroactive at least a year refund all Deaf people back what they were paying because they were forced to.

'...the consumer is required to pay for any services provided up to the time that the contract was cancelled' reads oddly, as if the consumer could be required to pay for all the previous services during the term of the contract. It might be better to say 'the consumer is required to make any payment outstanding for services at the time the contract was cancelled'.

Contracts should be equally binding on both the carrier AND the consumer. That's the definition of a contract, yet wireless contracts always include a phrase to the effect that the company reserves the right to make changes as they wish without notice. What you are really signing with these companies is an agreement that you will pay whatever they care to charge you for their service, not a binding two-way contract wherein both parties agree to consistent terms for a specified length of time.

Contract lengths should be negotiable, with 3-2-1yr contracts and buying the phone outright as options, with the monthly payment reflecting the payout required for each option.

As a deaf person, I have no use for the voice plan even though I have been charged for it for years, worth several thousands of dollars. It would be great to have the option to not include the voice plan for the deaf users. As well as get our money back for unused service.

First off, I wnat to thank the CRTC for opening up comments to the general public. I hope this will be a common practice in the future.

Before I continue, each comment/recommendation is made with the follwong three key principles in mind:

I. FREEDOM/CHOICE - Freedom and choice are part of basic economics for a competitive market. It is the opinion of many consumers that this is not the case, hence the need for this code.

II. Fairness - It is the regulatory board’s fiduciary duty to ensure that fairness is in place for the telecom market - for all parties. This is a basic part of government and its extensions, such as the CRTC.

III. Accountability - One of the main roles for government and regulation is to ensure accountability for all parties. Policies set forth should serve this aim.

I believe all of the above principles, while general and high-level, are important and fundamental to the vision and goal of the the CRTC (in general) and the Code itself to promote competitive telecom marketplace that is consumer friendly. Hence, given the above principles, the following are my comments and recommendations (with ALL parties in mind - consumers, providers, and regulators):

1. LIMIT CONTRACT TERM LENGTH - Limit the contract term length to a recommended 2 year maximum. Contracts, especially long ones, stifle freedom and choice (principle I). The current carriers, for the most part, only offer options of pay-as-you-go or 3 year fixed contracts. There is little to no middle ground here. Hence, the option of choosing for pay-as-you-go versus a 3-year contract forces consumers to choose between extremes. This greatly reduces choice, and in my opinion, fairness as well (principles I & II). In addition, the combination of long-term contracts with costly termination fees additionally stifles consumer freedom and puts the consumer “in a corner”. This is also not fair to new incoming providers as they have to consider a three-year period into their plans to entice new customers. This a violation of my second principle (fairness).

2. ALL PHONES MUST BE UNLOCKED - Phones should never be locked. Ever. This is a blatant violation of consumer rights and freedoms (principle I) especially since the customer pays for it, and technically, owns it. It is their right to use it as they wish. Consumers who have to travel are also gravely limited and are subject to roaming fees. This also makes the practice unfair (principle II) as consumers cannot choose the local provider (where they travel) for services. To balance this recommended policy out for provider-subsidized phones, providers should be able to charge recuperation fees should a customer cancel their contracts prior to the end of the contract term. These fees, in addition to the original paid amount of the phone, should NEVER exceed the full price of the phone at purchase time (from the provider).

3. NO CHARGES FOR UNSOLICITED INCOMING MESSAGES OR SERVICES - A consumer has no control over incoming messages or services. Hence, they should never be charged for it, regardless of situation (violation of principle II). The draft Code addresses existing elements of this to a certain extent, but it is not clear. In addition, incoming message fees where a consumer has no control can easily be abused. For instance, malicious users or third parties who obtain a phone number can use it to abuse another person by sending numerous text messages resulting in inflated bills. This can be a litigation nightmare for the judicial system if abuse becomes large enough and wide-spread. It can easily turn a “small claim” to a large claim or worse. To balance the policy, the sender must assume all fees. Providers can set their own sending fees.

4. EXTEND CONTRACT COOLING OFF PERIOD TO COVER 1 BILLING CYCLE - While the current code provides some protection for new customers with fixed-term contracts with a “cooling off period” (within 15 days or X minutes), it does not go far enough. The current code should extend the period to 30 days or 1 billing cycle plus time to respond/cancel (or continue). This allows customers to actually see and experience at LEAST ONE billing cycle for a specific provider. The current policy is quite short and, under some circumstances, does not allow customers to see a bill before it arrives exposing them to “bill shock” and/or hidden fees. It also creates accountability on the provider’s behalf to present a good experience on their first bill. It is similar to current policies for insurance, cable television, internet and consumer products, so why not mobile service? To balance this policy out for providers, customers will be responsible for the cost of the first bill should they decide to cancel a contract. Further debate can be made here for balance, but in general and when enforced, this should promote better billing practices for providers while protecting them from the first bill cost while giving consumers the opportunity to confirm and "lock-in" their contract.

5. ENHANCE SECTION D2.1 (OPTION 2): CONTRACT CHANGES - The current draft code does much to improve existing billing practices, but can go further to ensure accountability and fairness. It is recommended that any billing changes (new contract, existing contract adjustment, or service cancellation) require the provider to issue a transaction receipt (as outlined in section D2.1, Option 2), but it should adjust the policy to include one billing cycle plus X days for a consumer to evaluate and respond (accept or negate the change). This is to ensure invoicing/billing matches the often verbal agreement on the phone. Existing billing systems are quite sophisticated and should be able to produce this. This ensures that a customer knows what he/she should be getting on their bill. It also ensures that providers are accountable for proper billing (applies to principle II & III - fairness & accountability).

6. ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE VISUAL/HEARING IMPAIRED - This is meant to open up debate, but we should be stewarding leadership in this area. The code is a good place to start. This is Canada after all. As a start, it is recommended that all providers have specific plans and phones catered to both the hearing or visually impaired. For instance, hearing impaired users should only use a phone without a voice plan, since they’ll likely use visual tools and data plans. For blind users, this already exists through iPhone features, however, policy should cement the requirement for them to ensure accessibility. All three principles apply here.

Thank you & Regards.
-Martin.

I agree that billing should be transparent and all aspects of the contract should be clearly stated in the first bill, and whenever a change has occurred.

I do not believe a cap or warnings need to be mandated. Unlimited service or a one time fee for going over your rate would be a less complicated method of preventing bill shock. Also, phones themselves already have the capability to monitor usage and give notification warnings. That perhaps is what should be mandated, that the OS of the phone have the capability to accurately do this

Locking phones needs to be changed. It is a form of coercion. If I want to leave a carrier after one year into a 3 yr contract, I have to pay out the phone, yet it is still locked and I am unable to bring it to another carrier. In order to have the phone you want, you may have no choice but to contract with a single carrier in your area which carries that phone. I should be able to buy whatever phone I want, and pick whichever carrier I choose. My phone generally works wherever I go, so obviously system/equipment compatibility is not the issue, its strictly a marketing ploy. If carriers want to offer package deals with certain phones, that is certainly not an issue. But being unable to take your perfectly good phone, with all the data and personal settings, is the same idea as the bad old days when we were unable to bring our number with us.

D2.3 - Change the 30 days to after 1st billing is received and reviewed.

I get tired of hearing the sales pitch "The actual bill you ask? Exactly as we state in our ad, no more, no less". This is usually a attractive lowest price rounded to the dollar. When the actual bill arrives, there are fees, taxes and this and that and it is usually 10 to 15% higher than what you thought you were signing up for. The sales people should be somehow covered by this code, as it is, they can promise you anything to get you to sign up.

Consumer advocates recommend that contracts in excess of one (1) year be avoided. I do not see that this draft adequately addresses the outstanding issue of three (3) year contracts which somehow became the norm in Canada. The best mobile devices are inevitably tied to 3-year contracts and this, I believe, is the root cause of most of the issues around customer dissatisfaction. Canadian consumers do not have much clout if they are bound to service providers for 3 years. In a debate with the service provider, a 3-year contract, by definition, distributes power unevenly to the provider.

I am deaf person with Apple iPhone, I was forced to pay for voice plan even I do not use voice or speak at all. I primary use text messaging and data plan. Carrier forced me to sign up with voice plan with 3 years contract. It would be nice if you could regulate and dismiss voice plan for deaf and hearing impaired people on contract.

1- eliminate the extra 2$ charge to recieve a paper statement - I am a certified computer technician, but still prefer paper statements. this is a lousy eco-friendly gimic to make more cash. if the company wants to be eco friendly, they can stop sending advertisments along with the bill, and a simpler format of the bill could save on paper, or better still, give a 2$ rebate to those that choose the online format.

2- all text received should be free, we have no control over who sends them

3- data plans should be more affordable

My own situation: At the end of my 3 year cell phone contract in August 2012, which contains an unethical negative option clause (that is they unilaterally keep the contact going after termination, unless YOU advise them otherwise), I called to set up a "Pay-As-You_Go" plan, as advertised on their Website. Sounds simple? After 2.5 hours on the phone, the "customer retention department" (!?) charged me $50 for this privilege, and told me I would get $10 credited to my account. After objecting to this in another phone call during my stay in Florida (another hour), they promised a $25 rebate. I tried the cell after my return from Florida, and I have $0 credits. The initial call was in October.

The Code will address some elements of this complaint. However, any implementation that does not remove practices abhorrent to basic principles of contract law is unacceptable (eg. Unilateral extension of fixed term contracts OR any unilateral amendment of the contract without a 0-penalty escape clause).

Specific clauses:

A3. Option 1

B1. Option 2

B2. Option 1 The Code should apply to all existing contracts, not just amended or new contracts.

C2. Recourse for consumers
There are no quasi-judicial teeth here to account for the asynchronous legal relationship between the contract parties. CCTS needs broadened powers. And take out the “or”! They should be able to find in favour of the consumer, if warranted, and decide on remedies commensurate with the seriousness of the complaint. They should be able to investigate, require a hearing and call witnesses, if required. CCTS needs to be able, upon finding for the consumer, to demand compensation; an undertaking to CORRECT the problem, AND provide a full explanation and apology to be made publicly available on the CCTS website.

I prefer legislation within the 13 territorial and provincial jurisdictions consistent with possible amendments to CRTC legislation, which facilitates the launching of class action suits.

Note, in my case, the problem initially was caused by a unilateral contract extension and exacerbated by the inability of the carrier to deliver promised service in a timely manner. They neither delivered the service, notwithstanding 2.5 hours of time spent with them for a very simple transition WITHIN THEIR OWN CORPORATION. How does the CODE account for shoddy attention to basic business practices? It is inconceivable, except through “difficult to access” class action lawsuit remedies, to see how the Code addresses this element. The weakness of this clause does not give me confidence.

D1. I like the Plain Language goal. And limitation of the length of contracts. There is no reason a full contract cannot be kept to two 8.5x11 pages in a 12 point font.

D3.3 Option 1

D3.4 Preferred: remove. Any “automatic” contract amendment or extension is not tolerable . At minimum, express written consent is required well before contract termination, with a full written clear explanation as to what the carrier is proposing.

D. All other clauses: many current practices are dealt with effectively. I especially like the limits put on third party services.

F1.Measuring the effectiveness of the Wireless Code

This is a very weak accountability clause. At minimum a full evaluation based on Canadian Evaluation Society Standards should be undertaken one year after Implementation and updated on the anniversary annually for two years following. Then, another full evaluation is needed at the four year mark, with a new Terms of Reference to be developed by an arm's length group consisting of evaluation professionals, consumer advocates and industry representatives, and chaired by CRTC.

Early termination fee:

On the matter of early termination fees the fee should be proportional to the amount outstanding only for the physical device – telephone – rather than the service component of the plan. The termination fee should also take into account the depreciation of the device – telephone –rather than the full retail value of the device at the time of the initialization of the contract.
Fair or Acceptable Use Policy:
The fair or acceptable usage of the device should be treated in the same manner as what would be expected when one purchases any other product. For example, I purchase an automobile and its primary usage is for transportation, however, I am free to make whatever alteration to the vehicle – features, add-ins, software, recondition it, alter its use, etc. without constraint, compensation or liability protection to the original vendor/manufacturer/service provider– and this principle should also apply to the wireless device that I obtain from a wireless carrier. I should be free to add, subtract or modify the device and/or load any application I think fit and appropriate provided that it does not affect the service and functionality (network connectivity) of the device for which it was originally designed. The current practice of placing constraints on how one uses a wireless set is contrary to fair use particularly if I have purchased the product. If the wireless carriers want to apply a different fair use then the item should not be regarded as ‘sold’ (purchased) to the wireless user but rented/leased and in this respect the termination fees should be pro-rated according to the residual value of the rental. If regarded as a rented/loaned device then the rental should be on a month-to-month basis with no residual or termination fee. Users who give one-month (30 day) notice of intention to cancel or discontinue service and return the device should not incur any penalties or fees. It might be reasonable to provide for a one-month termination fee if less than one month (30 days) notice is made.

Locked device:
If the wireless carrier is selling the device to the wireless user, even on an extended contract, the device should be provided in an unlocked form. This would be consistent with the above point raised about fair usage. If the carrier/wireless operator is renting the device for the period of the contract then it would not be unreasonable to maintain a lock on the device.
No unlocking fee should apply if the wireless carrier is selling the device to the wireless user. At the initialization of a sales contract the wireless carrier should unlock at the request of the user the device without penalty, surcharge, etc.

Minimum monthly cost:
The minimum amount should be the amount including taxes advertised in the firm’s promotional material. If the service is bundled with other features, options the price should also reflect the total cost including taxes.
Carrier surcharges should not be applied on top of this minimum or bundled amount including taxes.
Mobile premium services (MPS) + optional services:
The cost of text messaging, voice mail, call forwarding, caller display is far in excess of the technological or carrier cost to deliver the service. The wireless carriers/service providers exact too high a price for these services, at times exceeding the cost of the basic service. Standardization of pricing is required on these and the pricing must be fair and in proportion of the cost to the carrier of the service. The principle that we apply to utilities in this country should be applied to the wireless carriers. Price gouging should be prevented.

Pre-paid services:

Pre-paid service should not have an expiry on the balance and should reflect actual usage. A balance outstanding at the time the wireless user cancels the service should be refunded to the wireless user/customer.

Roaming:
Roaming charges should not apply unless one is using the network of a competing carrier. Applying roaming charges when the wireless user is using the network of the primary carrier should not be applied. For example, if I am a Fido customer in BC, travelling to Alberta and I connect to the Fido network I should not be charged roaming charges and the only additional charge that should apply is when I call long distance out of the service area. In other words, using the example above, if on the Fido network in Alberta and making a local call within the Fido service area I should not have to pay a long distance call fee.
Unlimited plans:

If wireless carriers advertise unlimited plans they should reveal what the limit actually is or not have any limit whatsoever. Failing to publicize the limit should prevent the wireless carrier from imposing any additional fees or surcharges.

Handling customer issues. I just did a quick scan of the code and did not see this covered. My experience with the two national providers is that local agents are quick to sign you up on a contract but always try to refer you to national office or 1-800 number to resolve contract or billing issues. You should be able to handle them in person at the location that issued the contract; as this is usually the source of the discrepancy.

About Telus and its creative accounting practices on my account, I forgot to add that Telus claimed that me, as a 44 year-old woman who has never texted a day in her life, sent and received over 1579 text messages in less than a month. When I challenged this claim and asked how I was sending 50 texts every 5-10 seconds during the middle of the work day when I was actually working in my professional capacity, the Telus agents repeated the mantra, "We have reviewed your file. All of the charges are legitimate. You made those texts. Those are your numbers."

What is a consumer to do when faced with such ignorance and manipulation? What does the CRTC suggest Canadians do when faced with arrogant, rude customer "service" representatives who frequently call to harass you, despite your request for them to stop bothering you because they have nothing new to add to the conversation? I know from on-line boards that I am not the only one with this type of interaction with this company. What recourse do we have? The BBB and the CRTC have both been contacted but I will not hold my breath that any resolution is forthcoming.

I appreciate the notion of eliminating expiry for prepaid balances, as consumers have invested money and that should not expire. I also support the notion of unlocking a device. If I purchase a phone on a contract, I am already committed to the carrier. My phone is MY phone, and if I choose to leave the carrier early, they still profit from the early cancellation fees that I am required to pay. This is especially unfair if a consumer has to move or is traveling and wants to use a different carrier.

i compare politics like i compare cell phones companies...... who ever puts in the effort to advertise phones wins my vote.

I have been with Telus for years. My phone was ancient (with an antenna) so I upgraded to a Blackberry. I am a "pay-as-you-go" customer. Since I never used my old phone, and I topped up my account every month automatically for $10, I had a significant balance in my account. Little did I know that Telus would take over $400 (the entire balance) in less than a month. I was told when I initiated text messaging that I would be charged $.25 per text. I thought that was fine. Little did I know that Telus would charge for every "attempt" to either send or receive texts. For my 12 year-old daughter to send me a sad emoticon (and no other text), it cost about $14. Telus kept "trying" to send the text. I was charged for every attempt. When I contacted Telus (2 store visits and 4 calls) I was told that all of the charges were legitimate and that they were not prepared to refund any of my stolen money. I had representatives yell, laugh and scoff.

So, the long and short of it is, do something about these companies that charge, not only for outgoing texts but for incoming ones and for their alleged "attempts" to deliver both incoming and outgoing texts. This is highway robbery and the consumer is at the mercy of these telecom giants who seem to have forgotten what customer service truly means. I have never seen such disregard for common decency as I have in dealing with this company!

Deaf should not pay for voice and people should have their choice with phone plan.
I have been used cell phone for many years. I am Deaf myself as I felt that is is not fair that Deaf people have to pay for the voice message. I find that there are many yearly plan that come with the voice. For me I always rely on text message and email for the communication that are important to me. I find it is not fair that we have to be charge for the message that we received. Also when I do research on purchase the phone I find that many company have different prices of plan for example some price are less while other charge more. For example Telus, Rogers pay around 30- 50 dollars for unlimted text message but it is only for across Canada. While Vrign moblies only pay $22.00 for unlimit text message all over world, but include 200 mins voice message that I don't need.
How can we all know what is the reasonable plan prices?
My suggest for the phone companies are those following.
Give people the choices on what plan that match their needs and lock or delete any that people not need or use.
For example: set up reason prices for all of those.
voice message/ talk plan?
text message plan
email
internet.
In addition will be great if have unlimited text plan for all over Canada and all over world at reason prices or whatever text plan people choice.
For those who enjoy traveling or traveling for business or to visit family and relative why do they have to roaming the charge for people who are traveling outside of Canada while some company have the plan for people to use phone outside of Canada without roaming? Suggest to give people more flexible to choice their own plan that match their need for example if a person pay 20 dollars for unlimited text all over Canada want to travel in USA for one week or two week then that person should be able to change the plan by pay 20 dollars or whatever reason price is to be able to have unlimited text while stay in USA so total will be 40 dollars and then when returned to Canada go back to 20 dollars monthly instead of pay for roaming.
. I have been travel lot in USA but not able to use text due to roaming so have to keep my cell phone off.

I am the V.P. of Operations for a medium sized business in Alberta. Recently we had a fleet truck stolen and many of the items were unaccounted for. One of those items was a Cellular Internet USB stick. This stick didn't show any usage for a two week period and after talking with the technician, considered misplaced, not stolen. Today I got a call from Telus explaining that the number/account had been frozen since it hit the $500 mark in data overage charges.

Was it my mistake thinking that the stick was just misplaced - Yes.

Do I think that Telus should have a user defined limit on when this should take place - definately.

As shown in my example, at least Telus has the software technology to set limits and notifications. It's time for Telus to allow the user to define the limits and set notifications on overages. Plain and simple.

I have been used cell phone for many years. I am Deaf myself as I felt that is is not fair that Deaf people have to pay for the voice message. I find that there are many yearly plan that come with the voice. For me I always rely on text message and email for the communication that are important to me. I find it is not fair that we have to be charge for the message that we received. Also when I do research on purchase the phone I find that many company have different prices of plan for example some price are less while other charge more. For example Telus, Rogers pay around 30- 50 dollars for unlimted text message but it is only for across Canada. While Vrign moblies only pay $22.00 for unlimit text message all over world, but include 200 mins voice message that I don't need.

How can we all know what is the reasonable plan prices?

My suggest for the phone companies are those following.
Give people the choices on what plan that match their needs and lock or delete any that people not need or use.

For example: set up reason prices for all of those.
voice message/ talk plan?
text message plan
email
internet.

In addition will be great if have unlimited text plan for all over Canada and all over world at reason prices or whatever text plan people choice.

For those who enjoy travelling or travelling for business or to visit family and relative why do they have to roaming the charge for people who are travelling outside of Canada while some company have the plan for people to use phone outside of Canada without roaming? Suggest to give people more flexible to choice their own plan that match their need for example if a person pay 20 dollars for unlimited text all over Canada want to travel in USA for one week or two week then that person should be able to change the plan by pay 20 dollars or whatever reason price is to be able to have unlimited text while stay in USA so total will be 40 dollars and then when returned to Canada go back to 20 dollars monthly instead of pay for roaming.
. I have been travel lot in USA but not able to use text due to roaming so have to keep my cell phone off.

For those of us living near the US border there is virtually nothing that assists us for a short term trip across the border. The only option is a one month plan that is frightfully expensive so i am forced to turn off my phone and miss any emergrncy calls/texts or keep it on and have a panic attack as each text/call arrives. Canada and the US have fair trade agreements, yet it seems like the phone carriers are living in the dark ages and not recognized our mobile society.

I read your article on cell phones.

Can you tell me where to send this complaint.

I was with Rogers for 10yrs+ they were always paid and they billed in advance. My contract ended with them 3 or 4 years before I cancelled service.

I went with a new carrier.After cancelling Rogers sent me a bill for an additional 30 days (even though I had no contract with them)I told them I could cancel any other bill without 30 days notice-power -water-phone etc.I argued with them they sent the account for collection,rather than ruine my credit I paid them.I contacted Consumer affairs before paying them and I was told even though I had no contract with Rogers I had to give them 30 days notice to cancel meaning I had to pay 2 phone bill's for the first month.????

Thanks

I have had the mobiles phones since late 90s. I also had an experience of travelling across various parts of the world. Based on what I have seen Canada seriously lags behind rest of the world in its Mobile Strategy.
Here is the summary of what, in my opinion, Canada needs to address and work on in order to make Wireless industry consumer friendly:
1. The 3 year contracts should be eliminated altogether.
2. All phones should be unlocked for free after a device (subsidy) is paid off. If the device is still under subsidy then the device should be unlocked for a maximum fee of $25.
3. Unlocked devices should be made available to be purchased outright at the MRSP
4. If subsidies are to be provided then use a clear and simple language to explain the contract
5. Take away all the fine print
6. All the plans that offer “UNLIMITED” calling should actually mean unlimited number of minutes. This term should be banned for using any limit on the number of minutes under the fair use policy. If carrier is so much interested in Fair use policy then they should simply advertise the plan as 3000 minutes plan rather than an unlimited plan. This is cheating with the customers that some Service Providers use with fine print.
7. Users should be able to put a roaming limit while travelling outside on Canada
8. Roaming costs when travelling outside of Canada should be cost effective and not prohibitive

And now for the Details:

A3 – Option 1 should be made mandatory
A6 – Increase 30 days to 45 (or 60) days so that the customer can be given a time to review and confirm everything in details after getting the first bill from the carrier. Thirty days is too little of the time for busy Canadians and it does not provide an ample time to receive the first bill to confirm they got what they asked for. Once they receive their bill then it could be too late to cancel as 30 days are over.
B1 – Option 1
B2 – Option 1
C1 – Please include the details on what action will be taken by CRTC (Paragraph 4)
C2 – Change the verbiage from “consumer with an explanation or apology” to “consumer with a written explanation or written apology within 30 days of CCTS contacting the service provider”.
D1.1 – Please specify the minimum font size or provide better instructions to make it easy for people with bad eyesight to read them.
D1.2 (f) – Change the following “whether it is locked” to “Whether it is locked - if yes when will the device be unlocked or available for unlocking”

D1.3 – Option 2

D1.4 – Add the following at the end of the paragraph. “The consumers should have the ability to cancel the contract , without any penalties, within 45 (60) days after signing the contract or within 15 (or 30) days after receiving the first detailed bill from the carrier.

D2.1 – Option 1. Please do not give Service providers a leeway with option 2 to rip the consumers. Just delete option 2.

D2.3 - Change the 30 days to 60 days

D3.1 - Option 1

D 3.3 - Both Option 1 and option 2 are little confusing for the end user. How about the third Alternative:
Option 3:
Early termination fees are to be calculated as follows:
Pre-Paid – Early termination fees do not apply to pre-paid wireless
Post Paid – Early Termination fees should be calculated as follows
A – The remaining subsidy on the device if the phone was subsidized by the service provider
B – No early termination fees for the contract expiry date of less than 6 months
C - $50 for contract with expiry date over 6 months

D3.4 - Option 1 seems more logical.

D4.3 - Unlimited in plain English means “UNLIMITED” - which has no limit. So treat it as such.
If the service provider wants to hide behind the fair use policy then CRTC is helping them with this verbiage. TAKE THE UNLIMITED OFF THE TERMINOLOGY and Enforce service provider to advertise “limited number of minutes” policy and make sure the UNLIMITED really means UNLIMITED. This appears to me that CRTC is allowing the Service provider to play with the consumers and does not really side with the consumers.

The best way to reword it, in my opinion, is:
“UNLIMITED plans means unlimited use of the advertised technology i.e. Number of minutes, number of text messages, etc.
Service provider must not use the term UNLIMITED unless they intend to offer the true unlimited service. If there is a limited plan then it should be advertised as such without the use or any reference of UNLIMITED word.”

5.1 – Offer the unlocking service to the consumer when they travel outside of Canada. The following verbiage should be changed from
“When hardware connects to a network outside of Canada. The notification will include the roaming rates for voice, data, and text messaging.”
to
“When hardware connects to a network outside of Canada. The notification will include the roaming rates for voice, data, text messaging and the device unlocking service.”

D7.1 –Option 2 (do not offer Option 1)
Change the verbiage from “at the rate specified in the contract” to “at $25 or the rate specified in the contract , whichever is minimum,”

D8.1 Go with option 1
Option 2 will allow the consumers with long term fixed contract with good pricing to suffer if the service provider decides to discontinue the old plan and does not offer it now. The verbiage is purely in favour of the service provider. It should be reworded as such:
“The service provider may cancel a fixed-term service if the service provider no longer provides the service and the consumers accepted, in writing, the discontinuation of service. The service should be cancelled after at least 60 days of mutual agreement between the service provider and the consumer.“

Why do carriers need my SIN? My social insurance number should be treated as highly secure.

.... And should have a published update stating the correction of the error in its advertisement of any false or misleading information.

Unlimited=Infinite. Not 3000minutes! Fines to service providers should be put in place for "false or misleading advertising" of terms or services offered to its customers. Terms like "unlimited" should equal "infinite" useage. Any caps that apply should not be identified by the word "unlimited" anywhere in its advertising message. Instead, caps and/or limitations should be clearly disclosed to consumers regarding limitations of useage, functions, or utility of wireless devices or services provided by any carrier. Failure to clearly disclose accurate information to consumers should be punishable by a fine.

This could be added to either section D6 (warranties) or D7.1 (unlocking).

It's inappropriate for the carriers to lock individuals into a term longer than the warranty coverage period. I would hope there to be provisions to mandate that warranty match the length of the contract period. Cost for this extended warranty coverage can be attributed to the customer, however must be disclosed at the time of purchase. Regular warranty conditions should apply.

Carriers should NOT be allowed to sell contracts or lock for longer than a device's warranty coverage. Either a) shorten the contract length to match the warranty period or b) mandate that warranty coverage be increased match the contract length.

Clear Language Contract Terms and Conditions: All terms and conditions of any cellphone contract between the service provider and consumer should be written in "clear language", both in English and French, and should be easily understood by the average citizen of legal age of majority where English is their first language or French is their first language. Any contract that is not easily understood by the conditions met above should be deemed null and void or reasonable grounds to not be legally binding between the service provider and the customer where differences or disagreements should arise between the terms of the contract and the disagreement of such terms. The CRTC should review and enforce necessary ammendments of contracts that don't meet the "clear language" policy defined in the "Consumer Protection Act" as an example.

Make the new code retroactive. Many of us were needlessly forced into 3 year contract even though we owned our own phone. Why should those of us whom have been treated unfairly in being locked into unjust contracts not benefit immediately from this new code. Please make the new code retroactive for existing contracts as well. Providers will still receive their fair and just compensation under the new rules. Why discriminate?

All charges and plans should be based on adequate and normally expected useage and utility that would be generally acceptable for standard POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) standards where applicable. Where a charge does not yield a certain percentage of utility based on "normally acceptable" POTS useage by the customer, an adjustment should be reviewed, adjusted and enforced from the CRTC to the service provider, should a finding of overcharging for such services be deemed "unreasonable" or "unfair", based on POTS acceptable useage. This should be applicable to customers that choose "voice only" plans without any data plan components. This should include "normally acceptable" usage based on POTS standards and would include 1. unlimited (truly infinite) incoming and outgoing minutes within their service provider's wireless zones from any province within Canada 2. unlimited incomming SMS/Text messages 3. unlimited voicemail retrieval within their wireless zone from any province within Canada 4. 911 service should be included free of charge as part of any cellphone plan

Currently Carriers seem to treat MY wireless device as THEIR property. They sell me the device, I pay for it, and yet the interfere in the actual use of my device often.

First...while I can appreciate and may even use some of the software a carrier loads on my device if I choose not to use it and delete it I expect that the next time I get an update to my device software that the items I deleted STAY DELETED. Either that or the carrier should have to offer their software applications as optional in the device app store or such and NOT be preloaded.

Second...Device updates released from the manufacturer should be provided by the carrier in a reasonable time. If they fail to provide the update in a reasonable time, or not at all they are impacting my enjoyment of my device, it's value, and even my safety and security. Especially in this age of identity theft and viruses security updates and bug fixes are very important. I can accept that they want to test new software and they can have some time to do this, but it cannot take too long. As well...I can also understand that they wont want to support older model phones forever, however in this case the solution is easy, pass along any manufacturer provided updates as-is.

There is no reason why I should not have the latest updated software from the manufacturer. Currently carriers are slowing down or stopping this and they have to stop this behaviour.

Out-of-country travel with your wireless device: Any customer travelling outside of the country with their wireless device should be able to obtain clear instructions from the service provider, via website, or telephone, or publication, on how to make sure their device is configured in such a way as to not incurr excessive phone charges in any way. Any customer that enquires on how to do so should be logged or recorded with their service provider and protected from any overcharges equalling the cost of providing an out-of-country roaming service that would set a fixed maximum for such service, especially if all reasonable attempts were made with the carrier to inquire on how not to incurr overcharges when travelling outside of their coverage area or to a foreign country with their wireless device. When a device is enabled out-of-country, the period is chargeable to a maximum of 30 days, with extension of each period no more than 30 days each time, until the customer disables the device for communication for the duration of their out-of-country wireless device use and enables their device within their home country and within their service area of their service provider.

One of my pet peeves regarding cell phone plans is when my provider of 13 years straight decides to change one or more of my plan's services without notifying me, the paying customer, of such changes to my plan. The service provider chooses to make the change and wait for the customer to "notice" on their bill and call them to address the change before anything is done about it. This has happened numerous times with the service provider offering to credit me only a portion of what they already billed and received payment for. It is deception plain and simple; to buy one thing and have it taken away from you for something else you have to pay more for. I believe that a cellphone service provider should make all reasonable attempts to notify the paying customer (SMS, Email, Phone call, letter in the mail) that a change to their rate plan or any package within their rate plan is going to be changed, prior to making such change to a customer's rate plan, only on the basis that it can be done after their contract term expires or is renegotiated for a renewal term period.

First of all Canadians must make sure the CRTC is working for Canadian consumers not companies (service providers) or this commission must be terminated.

it comes down to the fact that despite what the big 3 would have you think. The Market is really not competitive at all and if there is going to be no / barely any competition then there needs to be serious regulation instead. You either let people come in and compete (ahem Canadian Government) or you get seriously regulated.

We need big changes in this draft, we need although all the carriers will complain about 50$ or anything where they are forced into a position where they would not take in as much money you will of course find resistance. We absolutely need 2 year contracts and we need immediately either the ability to unlock phones as we purchase or the phones come unlocked. I could care less about the 1 percent fraud excuse used to justify phone locking (Telus) it no where near justifies locking, its simply a tool to keep you on a specific network, same as 3 year contracts. Current 2 year contracts from Telus offer a terrible phone (3 year old blackberry anyone) and again force you into a 3 year plan because 2 year plans offer hilariously bad or old phones. This did not come up clearly in the Telus presentation.

There are three extremely major points to fix:

1. You should NOT allow any company to claim "unlimited" services when they are not truly unlimited (aka what's going on in the United States right now, where data is "unlimited" but you get slowed down to unusable internet when you pass a certain amount of data).

2. You should ban 3-year contracts just like in Europe. The world is moving fast right now and we always need new things. 2-year contracts (or lower) will help improve competitiveness between companies as well as making the market more consumer-friendly. The economy will benefit from this because there will be more money moving from place to place.

3. (Most important for me) You should ban or restrict companies from imposing ridiculous bandwidth limitations. Think about it this way: we now have LTE almost everywhere, but most plans are around 1-2GB. Most LTE networks can get at least around 20 mbit/s in download. At that speed, it takes around 13 minutes to reach the average limit of 2GB per MONTH. It is ridiculous, especially considering that we have newer services where we need to stream data, send large amounts of data to the cloud and so on.

You must also consider the fact that wireless companies have a lot of bandwidth and these limits represent nothing but price gouging (their network is NOT clogged, especially not the LTE ones).

Thank you for listening and PLEASE make Canada a better place for the Internet era.
We used to be the Internet central, now we are behind less powerful countries such as Romania.

Not Sure If This Helps …

On Rogers PayGo you can set up a plan (best to use automatic credit card payment) where you are billed $10.75 per month (includes ‘911’ fee). You can add a $10.00 text package thus leaving you with no minutes but you get 2,500 outgoing text per month and unlimited incoming text.

They also have a plan for $20.75 with no talk minutes but Unlimited Canadian Texting and 100MB of Data that can be used for internet, apps, BBM etc, if you have a smart phone.

Somebody posted yesterday about a Data only plan on Telus as well.

I've read the wireless code, the intent of clarity and understanding is welcome but the code does not go far enough. Reading through comments its clear that the CRTC need to make some significant changes in many key areas. CRTC please step up, demand more for consumers and add policies that work for the Canadians. Make real changes.

CRTC there have been many eloquent consumers who have explained clearly that you need to do more, but let me add my two cents worth:

a) ELIMINATE phone locking, its anti-competitive, its abusive, its a travesity for Canadians. Unlocked phones must be mandatory. Many of us buy our phones outright; but even if we didn't its still ours (try returning a broken phone on contract). We must have the right to put any sim card in our phone we want at any time for any reason. This is true competition.

b) Contracts must not be mandatory other than for the service provider to provide 'no fuss' pay as you go service. When contracts are required, they should never be allowed for more than 1 year. Renewals must not be automatic, rather explicitly asked for by the consumer.

c) Data prices need to be clear and inclusive (social media is data, text is data). Providers need to charge exactly the same price for each. Further, data prices should be regulated to a level that reasonably represents actual cost. 20 cents a text is ridiculous--data cost a fraction of 10th of a penny to transmit.

d) ELIMINATE incoming data and voice charges.

e) Canada wide calling needs to be regulated down to a reasonable cost.

f) Abolish roaming charges in North America.

Consumers who are reading this message, please take the time to like this comment and similar comments in this forum. Send the CRTC the message to man up and make real change.

Is this for customers who do not have a text plan as well?

BELL changes 20 cents for each incoming message and it is frustrating for me as someone who do not text often. I don't want a txt plan as I don't txt often, and am fine with paying 20 cents for each txt I send, but it drives me nuts when I receive spam txt and I get ding 20 cents for this. I have called BELL numerous times and they are NOT willing to do anything to protect consumers. Like the OP said, I can reject an incoming call and not use my minutes but I cannot control incoming txt. ALL incoming txt should be FREE to protect consumers or implement so sort of technology similar to caller ID telling the user who is trying to text them and have an option to receive or reject the text.

Voice plan for the dea/hard of hearing/hearing impaired/late deafened/hearing loss:

I have tried to be as inclusive of all people who has any form of hearing loss who are forced to pay for a voice plan when we hardly use it for various reasons. We can't hear enough or can't hear the cell phone at all, we can't even begin to maximize the purpose of the phone. I find it unfair that I can't maximize my 200 minutes, free unlimited after 6pm and weekends, yet pay for it. There should be many other options for people like us. It's feels like a gag order where we have absolutely no choice as a result of our 'hearing disability' that we have to pay extra $$ to use a service that is useless to us.

Eliminate pre-paid credit expiry as it essentially converts the prepaid service into an ongoing one.

One issue that has barely been touched upon (only one mention of it in the Top 100), is long distance rates.

The Canadian wireless oligopoly that exists today can afford to provide no-charge long distance rates. In fact, in the United States you can get plans for $35 that are nationwide unlimited. To call from San Diego, CA to New York, NY entails no additional charges other than their initial monthly plan.

In perspective, I have been additionally charged over $50/month for long distance rates between cities that are less than 150km apart.

In 2007, aggregate revenue from long distance rates were $4.3 billion dollars, meaning that no matter what we discuss in this forum, that number is simply too big to disappear for shareholders (though it has been decreasing).

However, this is a democratic topic that does not concern itself with the profits or interests of large corporations. Rather, we must amend and change long distance allocation or better yet, abolish it completely.

The monthly plan fee should be much lower for the those who are using a fully paid phone or unlocked phone. Since the customers pay below the true cost of the phone for the first three years in exchange for the higher monthly bill, the customer should receive a hefty discount after the contract or the customer has a fully paid phone. I know Bell give a 10% discount for customer who brings in an unlocked phone. It is still too little of discount. It is also good for the environment because it discourages people just throw away a fully functional phone after three years.

There should be 1 set of rules for the country. Ultimately this is in the best interest of consumers because the added cost of dealing with different rules in different jurisdictions will be passed on to consumers.

Carriers should be held to comon usage definitions for terms used in their advertising. If a phone is subsidized, don't call it free. If a plan is capped, don't call it unlimited.

Subsidies should be clearly indicated on the contract. People who bring their own phone and are willing to commit to the same term should pay a rate reduced by the amount of the subsidy.

Phones that have been paid for should be unlocked at no cost to the consumer.

People who are willing to commit to a 3 year contract in order to get a larger subsidy, or reduced rate, should be allowed to do so. Penalties for early termination must be clearly defined and easy to find on the carrier web site.

Please add a section about length of contracts. Here in Canada most providers require a 3 year contract on new phones. In Europe, Australia and The United States most providers require a 2 year contract.

I have been a mobile phone user since it was first available in Canada. I still have the first bag phone. In my opinion, there are many unnecessary hindrances imposed by the carriers that makes the users angry.

1. Locked phones. The phones remains locked even after the contract expired. Since the customer already signed the contract. The customer has to pay the carrier a minimum monthly bill regardless of the usage. Why do the companies lock the phone so that only their sim cards can be used? When I have to buy another unlocked phone when I travel to Europe and Asia. I know the Canadian carriers want their customer to use the roaming feature so they can charge such unreasonable fees. What if I do not want to use that feature even if I do not have a contract? The phones are locked even I paid the full price with no contract. It is MY phone. I did not rent it from the carrier. I paid full price. I should have the right to use whatever sim card I choose. Also, I could not find many willing buyers for my used phone because it is locked.

2. The bill is confusing to read. (self-explaining)

3. Receiving messaging should be "free". I have no control of who is sending me messages. I did not and never will sign up for "premium" messages. The carriers should acknowledge that there are many scams going on. They allow those "premium" messages to be send so they can share a big portion of the proceed. All such messages should have a warning for the customers before the users actually receive them.

Users who provide the phone should pay less than those with subsidised phones
I buy my phone (an iPhone 5) because I travel a lot so have to buy foreign SIM cards to avoid Rogers abusive data roaming rates. Yet Rogers charges me the same for service as a customer who is getitng about $20/month subsidy on his smartphone.
Not fair

By chattering about $50 caps etc on roaming charges, the Wireless companies are wasting the CRTC time and drawing attention away from the real issue. CHARGES FOR DATA ROAMING ARE ABUSIVE.
Data is becoming the big traffic generator for wireless, more important than voice. EU studies have shown that the extra cost for a wireless company to provide data roaming are only a few percent higher than data services in the home coiuntry.
The European Union has limited voice roaming to 29 cents/minute for calling and 8 cents/minute for receiving, and have given notice that they are preparing limits on data roaming rates.
If the wireless providers charge a modest premium (say 50%) for data roaming, to cover more expensive billing procedures etc, fair enough.
Currently, I buy 3 Gb of data in a month from Rogers for about $45. Rogers publicises that fact that I can use it in the US. If I use the full 3 Gb in the US, the charge is $1/Mb, equal to $3000 for the 3 Gb. That is an obscene markup.
I am a small businessman, and generally support free market pricing. However, this is a case where the gross profit margins should be curbed. Anyone who thinks that there is not collusion between wireless companies in maintaining these absurd mark-up on data roaming has to believe in Santa Claus.
The numerous complaints about contract length etc, are valid, but deal with relatively small costs to the consumer. By arguing about them, the Telcos are drawing attention away from the great data roaming ripoff

All cell phones need to be unlocked and the fee structure lowered . Phones are a necessity today not a convienence , as a regulator we need you to act strong in this matter and let the service providers know that they are making hugh amounts of profits and it is time that the CRTC will insist that the consumer is not over charged for a necessity like a cell phone and contracts are limited too one year.

Section d 5.2 tools to monitor
My cell provider online monitoring tool:
24+ hour delay in data minute txt usage
Mixes txt and data usage
totals & minute types are not grouped or sortable
All users on shared account are unsorted until end of bill cycle.

This tool is a kludge. Please have cell phone companies tender a $500 contract to any of the millions of excellent Chinese or Indian coders who are starving.

I would also like to see the CRTC force carriers to let people out of their contracts if the carrier changes any term or condition while the contract is in effect. The carrier should give you 30 days notice to decide if you want out of your contract because they changed a term or condition. And they have to notify you within 14 days of them making the change.

I would like the CRTC to eliminate telecom companies from charging us AFTER we have ported our number to another service. For example, I am NOT under a cell contract, I am a month to month subscriber. I have decided to port my number from a big company to a small one. The big company has now sent me a bill for 30 days of usage starting the day that I moved my number from there. How is that fair? I have no way of using that service, but they are requiring me to pay for it! If I call and give them my 30 days notice, then I will lose my ability to port my number. If I just port it to another provider, then I have to pay an extra 30 days! There is NO possible way for me to use the service that I have to pay for!! That is nuts! Its a cold, hard, cash grab.

Also, I would like to see this type CRTC solicitation every few years on the wireless industry. I mean Canadians are voicing their opinions now, about the problems they are facing... however, who knows what new scam the industry will come up with after these discussions are closed. We need this to be a revolving door, where the wireless code of conduct can be updated and amended from time to time, to combat the industry's corrupt practices.

I am very pleased that the CRTC is finally attempting to protect us from the wireless industry that has taken advantage of us for years!

I travel frequently to the US and overseas and see how much cheaper wireless plans are all over the world compared to Canada and its very frustrating knowing we are getting gouged and up until now there was nothing we can do about it.

Here are some of my requests/comments:

1. NO MORE 3 YEAR CONTRACTS. This is only in Canada and completely unnecessary, 2 year contracts are more than long enough to recover hardware costs as it is done all over the world with much CHEAPER Monthly plans, usually about half of what we pay here.

2. Ability to unlock phone after 30 days not the 90 currently offered by most carriers. I am currently with Telus and have unlocked my phone for $35 which I think is pretty reasonable as I remain on my contract but have flexibility to use other carriers when I travel without worrying about additional charges. This is a win win option and no need to wait for 90 days as you're still bound to your contract anyhow.

3. I do not agree with capping your bill as suggested in the act but would much rather see UNLIMITED PLANS like in the US and other countries at more reasonable prices. With most carriers in the US you can get and unlimited plan that includes unlimited talk, txt and web for anywhere between 50-60 dollars and to my knowledge the closest plans to that here are about double the price and you're still limited in most cases to 3 or 5 GB of Data.

I also want to clarify that in most countries including the US,
There is NO ROAMING within their borders! Why should I pay long distance because I am in my car and travelled from Kitchener to Milton or Mississauga or anywhere for that matter! Calling within Canada is extremely inexpensive now compared to when wireless started and there is no justification for having what is referred to as "local calling". All plans should include NATION WIDE CALLING.

Thank you!

Unlocking

When reading section D7.1 there provides little information on used handsets. The market is flooded with older smart phones which cannot be used because they are locked to a specific provider. And in all cases, the cost of unlocking the handset is more than the phone is worth.

In case and point, a friend had purchased a Bell iphone 4 used. Bell says, that in order to unlock the phone, she must pay a $35 activation fee, pay for one month of service (about $30) and pay a $75 activation fee. The total cost is $140 plus taxes. The phone was purchased used, it has been completely paid off and is no longer on any contract, for $175. Her intention was to use the phone on prepaid credit with services such as 7-11 speakout.

The length of the contracts should never be more than 2 years as it is rare to find hardware that lasts 3 years and you feel obligated to renew in order to get the new phone you need.

Also, a cap on the cost of roaming fees must be in place. Warnings should be issued when you are approaching the caps.

Unlocking a phone should be a basic right. It is ridiculous that locking has ever been allowed.

Once you have paid out your contract the wireless provider should automatically unlock your phone at NO COST. They are making money on you throughout your contract so why should they get to charge you again to unlock your phone. Their also should be a minimum offer of at least One Gigabit of data for all wireless devices. The rates being charged for data are ridiculous. Quite often the wireless industry offers Six Gigabits of data at no extrs cost. If they can offer this then why can't or shouldn't One Gigabit be the minumum. Compared to other countries we are being raked over the coals for long distance and everything else...enough is enough!
Thank-you for taking the time to read this and it is with the upmost importance that are cell bills come in line with other countries, so that people will be able to spend money on other consummables to boost are econmy.

This is incorrect:

4)Calls received should be free, same as landlines: There are no countries in Asia or Europe that charge a fee for calls received

England as an example charges for received calls

I have one more suggestion. Prohibit the big 3 telecomm companies from being able to report to the two canadian credit bureaus. It is clear from this reading this forum that they do not provide the service at the price agreed to. As such they have no credibility to report on non payment. The consumers will then force the telecomm companies to change simply by consumers not paying the erroneous bills.

While having a code is a positive move forward, I am really surprised and saddened to see our beloved Country as one of the least developed countries in the world in terms of services offerings and pricing.
While technology by itself is not in question LTE launch is on par with many emerging world countries (as an example, Armenia launched country wide LTE back in 2009 so did lots of others before Canada) the average cost per minute and the ARPU (average return per user) are one of the highest in the world.. This is due mainly to the Triopoly the country is under and the revenue this sector is generating, while the new entrants are not given the fair advantages of competitions neither foreign capital and talents are properly allowed to work on liberating this market and give it a healthy competition.

Until then we will see such unique in the world codes drafted, while in healthy competition the market dictates the rules of game and those get geared towards the consumer..

What you do notice in many competitive and healthy markets are:
- No charging of incoming calls and text, this is a double charge as the operator is getting paid by the other operator as per the intrconnection agreements.
- no Contracts breach penalties without a handset (quebec already abolished this)
- Contracts with a handset should clearly split the cost of the handset from the plan
- Advanced selfcare
- No hidden fees and costs, clear ads, no hidden descriptions and rules.
- Realtime rating an charging
- Arpus around 20 to 30$ for voice, text and Data for an average monthly 500 MOU and 20-50GB of data (MOU=minutes of usage)
- Data rating and charging based on the quality of service and not best effort.
- More prepaid and hybrid realtime accounts penetration rate, Canada has one of the lowest prepaid penetration level
- Wireless penetration rate! While most countries are at 100 and 150% penetration Rate, Canada is at 50-60% the most cristal clear indicator of a non liberated market.

If the big three are so good why won't they venture outside of Canada?.. Or let some of the real Global wireless players get into the market like Vodafone, Orange or TeliaSonera to name some.. Even in a minority share to give this market the hot blood it needs to wipe out this stagnation.

By experience If a healthy competition is allowed, and the Arpu is allowed to drop by half, the revenue stream would stay the same due to the increased penetration rate.
Not to mention that it is proven that the increase of wireless penetration rate directly leads to increase in GDP !

Over 15 years experience in the global wireless market and supervised the rollout and success of 6 wireless operators outside of Canada.

'Wireless free zones' needed for electromagnetically sensitive individuals and those who become unwell because of the Wi Fi and cell phone tower radiation. Who will be accepting responsibility for the involuntary radiation of communities and the resultant cummulative health effects that are known from this radiation? What laws are there to protect these individuals whom are adversely affected? Is griding the entire planet, then homes and turning buses, trains and planes into travelling microwave ovens prudent?

Max 2 year contract. This is what the Canadian consumer is consistently saying. CRTC take notice, you missed this completely in the draft document. It is a standard of practice around the world.

There should be "NO" fee to unlock phones at the end of your contract, the phone is completely paid for at this point. If you choose to unlock before the end of the contract, then sure, there should be a reasonable fee.

The service providers have had such a long ride without regulation and taken huge advantage of the Canadian consumer. One only has to look at the " access fee" that was illegally charged for many years by every company. They can't be trusted and need oversight.

If I call in to cancel a service, it should be effective immediately not 30 days after. The 30 day notice is just a way for telcos to squeeze our wallet for the last time.

Would be nice to see a provision for people who bring their own phone to a provider. At the moment it's difficult to get an inclusive plan without having to pay the same rate as someone who is paying off a subsidized phone.

You mention contract length, I don't see that as the issue. The issue with a three year contract is the device is not covered for the entirety of that time period. Most, if not all, warranties only last 1 year for the 3 year contract. I find this to be unacceptable, as I expect the device to last as long as the contract. Any other situation, if the device breaks before the end of the contract, it is covered by the company. Why isn't this the same for Telco and cellular providers?

I see no issues with 3-year contracts, it's clear that I won't be going to a different provider and will be using a phone for three years. That being said, as I am signing up for the designated length of time, it should be a reasonable expectation to have the device that I purchased to be covered by warranty for the length of the contract, which is not the case now.

I've had a combination of four phones with my current provider, three phones I had was disfunctional and was repaired countless times. After the fourth time, the carrier offered to change the phone for free because of the issues, but had to resign a new contract. While bothersome, I was able to get a new phone which lasted longer without any major issues; however, it failed by warranty covered defect. A day after warranty, with 2 years left on my contract. The carrier gave me the option of spending 150 dollars just to get someone to look at the device, and then charge me for each component that it requires. The cheapest option was to buy out the plan and go with new phone, while signing another plan, with device warranty under the length of the contract. So, I purchased a new device, which lasted over the one year warranty period and died due to a warranty covered defect. Again, the carrier offered me the option to buy out the plan, get a new phone, which costs a significant amount, or repair the phone for a similar significant amount.

Alternatively, since SIM cards had became an option and was easy to transfer to a new phone, I purchased a used one and continued on with my plan.

What I want to see changed is the warranty period for devices to last as long as the signed contact. If I want to have a three year contract, I want the phone to last three years under normal use, not last a year and a half, then not be covered by warranty, where the Telco extorts incomprehensible sums of money to be their customer and fix a device that should last as long as the period.

At Rogers Telecommunications customers who attempt to change cell phone service to 'pay as you go' are consistently transferred to a department that has no service agents and the phone 'clicks off'. The first attempt at this process the charge was $50 for the change which I refused as the contract binding limit had expired. Three months later the cell phone service was changed to a lower rate without a service fee. This last process took 3 different phone calls over 3 days with one time period of 1 hour and 15 min. This customer service by Rogers Telecommunications agents and company I find unacceptable.

Was reading comments made by Telus and Rogers that it is too complicated to implement the limit of $50 etc., with my knowledge in Germany they used to provide a running log of long distance calls at home in 1980 with time of day discounts. If this was possible in 1980 dont you think these carriers in 2013 should be able to accomodate this very easily. It is also pointless implementing a limit of $150 or $200 as most customers wont reach that amount unless they use the phone for business use or are roaming so the effect will be not there of the proposed benefits by implementing a monthly limit notification.

Attached are two considerations for your consideration during the process of review of the code.

First

Currently people who do not subscribe to unlimited plans are required to pay extra for Caller ID. This amounts to a $5.00+ charge monthly that must be paid to their service provider. If, however, they choose not to subscribe to Caller ID, then they have no choice but to answer the phone whenever they receive a call, and in the process are forced to use up their limited pre-allotted minutes. What we have here, then, is a classic Catch-22 in that if you do not pay for the extra service, you are forced to use up allotted time on callers you may not wish to talk with, or you miss calls.

I would propose as an alternative that either response to incoming calls should not be counted against minutes used, or that Caller ID become a standard free service in all plans. Either of these solutions would solve the problem that is currently costing Canadians either time or money – or both.

Second

In the United States there exists a problem regarding mobile phone providers that (to my knowledge) currently does not exist in this country. I raise this concern because it could well exist here in the future and this consultation provides a useful opportunity to deal with it expeditiously.

The ability to track people and listen-in to their cell phone conversations has become a hot-button issue in the United States, where cell phone transmissions are classified as ‘public sphere’ and their contents not protected by the requirement for a warrant. In contrast, conversations that take place using a landline are classified as ‘private’ and their contents can only be accessed after issuance of a court warrant .

I would propose that the CRTC bring some consistency to this issue in Canada by determining that those companies that provide cell phone service have a duty of care to their clients to protect their privacy from all breaches, except in such cases as police warrants have been issued and their existence proven to the satisfaction of the service provider.

Are there subliminal/addictive frequencies associated with the cell phone wireless technology that may impact the behavior and thought processes of users? If so is it legal, ethical and morally right? It does seem odd that on average many users are checking their cell phone every 30 seconds and this is often tied to the automatic downloads the phones receive. Could these high cell phone bills be related to these addictive frequencies?

the carrier charges us for using additional minutes and data after the given limit ,what then for the unused minutes and data? they will able to add that on the succeeding month or at least a refund in any sort will be a good idea.

3 years is too long a contract and I disagree with the idea that customers don't want caps on their cell phones. Please reduce the contract length, have some limits in place regarding the costs of data, text messaging and please put in a cap. a $150 or $200 cap is too much for most people.

1) The current "Pay-As-You-Go" option is more like "Lose-As-You-Go-if-you-don't use it. This is deceiving the consumer. To be truly pay as you go, there should be no expiry date, ideally. The most that would be acceptable would be 12 months

2) "Locking of phones" - this is a travesty. I have travelled worldwide and even in poor, developing countries telecommunications companies do not lock phones. Rogers, Bell, Telus are bad, shameful examples. Please have the companies unlock the phones within 30 days. I purchased a smartphone to benefit communication during travel (by purchasing a local SIM card, as I did not want to incur astronomical roaming charges), but due to the locking of the phone, I had no choice but to purchase another local phone. Please, please change this practice.
3) Contract Cancellation Fees: I totally understand that contracts are necessary when the cost of a mobile device is subsidized by the telecom company. The consumer knows this, so it is understandable. However, the cancellation fee should be based on the cost of the phone and proportional to the remaining months in the contract. For example, if the cost of an unlocked phone is $720 and the consumer enters in a 36-month contract and wishes to cancel after 2 years, the "cancellation fee" should be no more than $240 ($720 divided by 36 months x 12 months remaining = $240)
4)Calls received should be free, same as landlines: There are no countries in Asia or Europe that charge a fee for calls received. With landlines, if we receive a call from someone (even if long distance), we do not incur charges. Then why do we get charged with wireless service? Where is the consistency? What's a justified explanation?
5) Caller ID, Call Forward, Voicemail: Charging extra for these BASIC features is another scam to overcharge consumers. Again, I do not of any country in Europe or Asia where the telecomms sector is competive, where consumers have to pay extra for these features. They are BASIC features; they should be included in the service price at no extra charge
6) Internet Data Cap: Data caps in internet service (or differential pricing) demonstrate how anti-competitive our internet companies are. Go to Europe, Asia and learn how they do business. There is no data cap in their plans.

CRTC comments:
The current situation in Canada with regard to numerous complaints overcharging and abuse of consumers by Wireless Service Providers (hereafter WSP's) has arisen, in my opinion, from the failure of the CRTC and the Combines branch to ensure adequate competition in the market place. Clearly, these two bodies have failed the public interest by allowing excessive concentration of ownership to build up in this sector of the economy. In the early 1980's, the U.S. broke up AT&T to facilitate better technical and pricing options for U.S. consumers. This was extremely successful, and it's my fundamental position that no truly effective solution to the current problem will come about until Canadian regulatory bodies do the same to Rogers, Telus, and Bell.
Only when they are broken up into smaller entities will there be truly effective price and service competition in the Canadian marketplace.
Having said that, Canadian consumers have never been the beneficiaries of such bold solutions, therefore, the best that can be hoped for is to extract through a regulatory process an improved treatment of consumers. The following are my comments on the draft proposals to do that:

General Comments.
Having dealt with each of the three major WSP’s over a period of 12 years, I have unfortunately found each of them to have been at times manipulative, conniving, deceitful and spiteful. One would think with their reported large profit levels, they would have no need to treat consumers with any disrespect, however, far too often the opposite is true. The level of avarice and grasping for the last nickel is shocking. This is the basis of my opinion that far tighter and more punitive regulatory control of the major WSP’s is mandatory to curtail this unwarranted and excessive behavior.

Section A1 and A2 are appropriate.
Section a3’s options make no consumer friendly sense. Only Option 1 is acceptable.
Section A4 is essential.
Section A5 is essential.
Section A6 is essential.
Section B1 is unacceptable in the case of both options. The code must come into force within 30 days of publication; no exceptions. Why would you give the WSP’s six months to create as many unfairly priced enduring cash flows as they can? They have vast cash flows, legal and human resources. They know this is coming. More importantly, with their profit levels, it is what they should have been doing all along. The very fact that there is any hint that it would take six months to implement is almost prima facie evidence of extensive systemic abuses which would require investigation by the Competition Bureau and the seeking of significant criminal penalties. If that’s not the case, then why wait?
Section C2 No limits are set on time from the offending incident or incidents to file a complaint, for the WSP to respond, for the CCTS to respond. This enables WSP's to grind down consumers as, from personal experience, I can attest they are now doing, and effectively use their large size and double teaming to wear consumers down so that people give up and the rules become meaningless and ineffective.
Enforcement of CCTS compliance orders should be facilitated by punitive fines for non compliance. Given the large WSP cash flows, minimum fines of $100,000 per day after 30 days to comply should be mandatory. Any thing less will just be viewed as rent by the WSP’s and result in numerous excuses but no compliance.
Section B2: Option 1 is the only acceptable option. All existing contacts must be covered. To do otherwise is to effectively judge the current contracts as being fair, which they are not. Most are a clear abuse of oligopoly power.

Omissions that should be in the code:

There must be effective penalties for use of grind down tactics on the part of a service provider. For example, upon exercise of the buyer's remorse clause, a full and correct bill must be submitted within 30 days of notification, setting out all charges and reasons for same. Failure to comply will entitle the consumer to deduct 10% from the total of the bill for each month the bill is not submitted. Administrative inertia cannot be an excuse from this obligation, as all that will result in is deliberate understaffing in this operational area resulting in an effective flouting of the rules.
Acceptance by the provider of a new contract must clearly terminate the old one, with no recourse to the provider to re-instate the old contract if the new one is cancelled under the buyer's remorse clause.
The provider may not threaten a consumer with credit rating reporting in order to leverage or intimidate the consumer into paying an unfair, inaccurate, or exaggerated bill. Notice of intent to refer to collections should occur only after 120 days of expiry of the normal payment period without any contact by the consumer or attempt to resolve the bill. This is a problematic area of any retail business relationship, because any attempt to word a rule in favor of those who are naive or inexperienced will be used by the cunning and devious to defraud the WSP’s. On the other hand, unfortunately the WSP’s are suspect in using the instances of fraud as a justification for abusing their collection rights to intimidate people into paying unjust or exaggerated or severely erroneous invoices.
The consumer has the right to claim through the CCTS against the provider, with supporting documentation, for lost wages for time required to resolve bill disputes.
All recordings of conversations with billing staff must be retained for up to 2 years after the expiration of the contract, or, in the case of prepaid phones, 2 years from the date of the last prepayment received, and be made available on written request to the consumer within 30 days from a secure FTP site, or, in the case of a consumer without internet access, in CD format.
Failure to comply or "lost" recordings must result in an immediate $10,000, non recoverable fine, payable to CCTS, for each date for which the recording was "lost", and automatic finding of fault in the complaint. Given that kind of incentive, the WSP's will make certain that multiple redundant copies of the recordings will be preserved, and accurate adjudications will result. In some cases, the recordings will not favor the consumer, but that is entirely reasonable.
The consumer shall have an unfettered and unlimited right to record all conversations with any and all WSP staff, without any requirement to provide notice of such recordings. WSP staff should conduct themselves in such a fashion as to assume that they are being recorded by the consumer at all times.
Given the superstitious reverence that the law renders to written documents, eliminate the paper billing fee entirely. Lack of paper documentation leaves the consumer without effective legal recourse against a carrier in egregious cases because the proof required must be paid for, and most consumers will not be aware of the importance of paper documents until a dispute has escalated to a serious level.
Three year terms must be outlawed immediately. They constitute rampant consumer gouging. The U.S. industry is quite healthy on half the profit per minute of the Canadian industry (6 cents per minute versus 11 cents per minute, per the Globe and Mail), so claims of severe harm to Canadian providers are clearly exaggerated.

Section B.1:
The hearing and consultation process is notice enough. The code should come into force the day it is proclaimed.
It would be naive to suggest that all consumers are blameless in their treatment of their WSP's. Some are verbally and or financially abusive. However, the perception remains that a relatively small number of abusive consumers are misrepresented as to their effect on the WSP's staff turnover or financial circumstances in order to rationalize a much larger amount of abuse of honest consumers by the WSP's. Therefore all WSP's should be required to file quarterly and annual reports of the total number of consumer accounts written off, the total dollar amount of the consumer accounts written off, and the percentage of write offs compared to total gross cell phone revenue of the corporation. Additionally, the total number of complaints must be listed as well as the number resolved and the number outstanding at the end of each quarter and for the entire year. This must be public information. In my view, the three large WSP's lost their right to private information when the became part of an oligopoly. Note that the definition of "large WSP" should be 20% or more market share nationally or within one region. National market share shall be defined as percentage of total cell phone accounts active in the country; the regions should be defined as the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and the Western provinces.
Section D1.3 Option 2 is a minimum requirement. Refunds of balances upon consumer request should be mandated. This of course, would terminate the agreement and require the consumer to agree to a new contract in order to use the phone on the specific WSP’s network.
Section D1.4: Personalized summary: This document is pretty good, but the problem I have encountered is a WSP trying to grind me down to pay an excessive termination fee (it should not take 11 hours of phone calls over 2.5 months to get an accurate and appropriate bill. ) This is why I have advocated fixed time limits for complaint resolution in other comments above.
Section D2.1: Option 2 is preferable, because it sets clear time limits for notices. However, the consumer notice of cancellation portion should be 60 days, to allow for people on extended vacations or whose mail is being forwarded after a move, and may be delayed in receipt.
Section D3.1: option 1 is preferable. Option 2 allows WSP’s to grind extra money from clients leaving by claiming non receipt and demanding extra money for more days of service than actually provided.
Section D3.3: Option 1 is mandatory. Option 2 is far too complicated and consumer hostile. Moreover, no incentive should ever be based on what is effectively a four year term; 24 months should be the maximum.
Section D3.4: Option 1 is far preferable.
Section D4.1: This is welcome and long over due.
Section D4.2: This is welcome and long over due.
Section D4.3: This is welcome and long over due.
Section D5.1: This is welcome and long over due.
Section D5.2: This is welcome and long over due.
Section D5.3: This is welcome and long over due.
Section D6.1: Add: The service provider must supply the consumer with any claims made about the quality of the manufacturer’s warranty service in writing upon request. I’ve personally witnessed a retailer making false and exaggerated claims about the manufacturers service in order to sell their own.
Section D6.2: No contract extensions due to repair service suspensions should be allowed. This binds the consumer to a device which may be unsatisfactory or obsolete beyond the normal opportunity for change of providers, and is extremely prejudicial to the consumer. It’s also redundant and unnecessary if Section D3.4 Option 1 is implemented, because if the consumer is happy with the device and contract at the end of the contract period, they will agree to month to month contract extension. If they are unhappy with it, why would you bind them to an unsatisfactory contract for any period beyond the normal expiration date? This is only rewarding the WSP for the provision of a defective or damaged device, and is clearly unfair.
Section D7.1: Option 2 is preferable, because it is clearer on non subsidized devices.
Section D8.1 is only fair if maximum 24 month contracts are mandatory. Otherwise a lost or stolen phone becomes excessively punitive.
Sections D9.1, 9.2, 9.3, Security Deposits: welcome and long over due.
Section D10.1, Disconnection: No one disputes the right of a business to discontinue supply of services or goods for which a customer is evading payment. Nonetheless, the very existence of such regulations at all is prima facie evidence of telecommunications provider’s abuse of such rights going back several decades to the provision of land line services. I have had bills submitted to me which were approximately six times the final agreed upon amount. Therefore, the following additional protections to Option 1, the one I strongly prefer, are clearly required:
The right of any contracting party not to make any payment of an invoice which is significantly incorrect should not be compromised or reduced. Therefore, it should be recognized that only invoices which are demonstrably correct may count towards any time limits on referral to collection agencies or disconnection. To invoke this, the consumer must either write the WSP with a detailed disputation of charges, or return the invoice clearly marked up with which charges are disputed and why. To avoid WSP’s stalling and delaying to attempt to collect unwarranted charges, they must be required to provide:
A mailing address to which a consumer may send paper copies of correspondence disputing charges;
This physical address must be compelled to accept double registered submissions to document receipt for the consumer;
An email address to which a consumer may send scanned and attached documents detailing disputation of charges;
an acknowledgement of receipt of the email within 5 days of submittal;
a response to disputes within 15 days of documented receipt, upon penalties of up to $5,000 for failure to do so.
b. Option 2 is flagrantly open to abuse by WSP’s to intimidate consumers, and to arbitrarily abrogate contracts to gain improved margins during rising markets on phony pretenses. All they have to do under option 2 is issue deliberately incorrect invoices, wait a couple of months while the consumer protests and declines to pay them, then exercise option 2 for “non payment”. Then they only have to provide services under more favorable contracts to other consumers signing up later thus increasing their overall rate of return. Simple, easy, and very effective for them.

30. Section E is necessary as it is.
31. Section F should have a 36 month review.

The telcomm companies love you. You should at least get a card on your birthday. My parents are in the same boat as you. You have lots of company.

It's hard to imagine any other industry who does this. Imagine rent to owning a car which comes with 3 years worth of gas for $1000 a month. And then after 3 years, you still have to pay $1000 per month for gas. ..or in telus case, you can ask for a rebate, and only have to pay $900 per month

Unbelievable

Dear CRTC:

Please consider the following recommendations for ensuring competitiveness in the Canadian cell phone marketplace:

- All Canadian consumers should have what consumers in Quebec have had since July 2010: a consumer can end their contract at any time and only have to pay what remains to be paid on the phone rebate they were given. For example, if the full price of a phone was $700, and you paid $100 for it through a 3-year contract, the phone rebate you received is $600. This rebate is paid off over the 3 years at a rate of $600 / 36 months = $16.67/month. So if you end your contract with one year left, you only have to pay $200 (12 months x $16.67/month). (If there was no phone rebate involved, then the cancellation fee is at most $50, and will be less if 10% of the remaining monthly bills in the contract amounts to less than $50. For example, if you cancel a $30/month 3-year contract with 12 months remaining, then you would have to pay a cancellation fee of only $36 (10% of $30/month x 12 months.))

- The top of each monthly bill should clearly inform the consumer that they can terminate their contract at any time and show the amount they would have to pay to do so. Using the examples above, a bill might state: "To terminate this 3-year contract at this time, there are no cancellation fees, but the phone rebate you have remaining to pay is now $200." Or, in the example where there was no phone rebate, it might say "To terminate this 3-year contract at this time, your cancellation fee is now $36." A properly informed consumer increases competition in the marketplace.

- Competing service providers should be allowed to offer to assume all or part of this cancellation fee or rebate repayment when a consumer transfers their phone service over to them (just as the consumer's phone number can be transferred to the new service provider.)

- Consumers should be allowed to choose between 1, 2, and 3-year contract lengths, or to subscribe to a service without any contract. Service providers should not be allowed to refuse to sell a phone at full price without a contract.

- Voice and data prices should be advertised and charged independently of the phone rebate repayments. A consumer subscribing without having received a phone rebate should pay less per month in total than a consumer subscribing with a phone rebate to repay. Why should a consumer that paid full price on a phone (for example, $700,) still have to pay the same amount per month as someone that received a phone rebate and only paid a fraction of the phone cost (for example, $100)? This makes no sense at all, and the sole purpose of this is to drive consumers towards anti-competitive multi-year contracts.

- Having voice and data prices advertised independently of contracts and phone rebates would also make it easier for consumers to compare prices between service providers, increasing competition in the marketplace. As the CTRC states on its website, "Informed consumers are a key element of a competitive marketplace."

- The costs of text messages are ridiculous and should be regulated. Why should it cost $0.15 or $0.20 to send a text message, and the same amount again to receive one, when such a small number of bytes are being transmitted and received? According to a recent CNN news article: "The actual cost to carriers for sending a text message is about 0.03 cents." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/tech/mobile/sms-text-message-20) What Canadian consumers are being charged for text messages, relative to what it actually costs the cell phone companies, should be properly scrutinized and regulated.

- The cost of caller ID is ridiculous and should be regulated. Caller ID is an even tinier number of bytes than text messages, yet consumers are typically charged a completely-disproportional $5 per month for this. The actual cost to provide caller ID is probably so small that the CRTC should quite simply regulate it to being free.

- Bundle discounts are anti-competitive and should be disallowed. By having one product tied to another, consumers are less likely to change providers, reducing competition in the marketplace. (For example, both the US and Europe went after Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows for this reason.)

- Bundle discounts should be disallowed, but as long as they exist, a time limit for advertised bundle discounts to be applied to a customer's bill should be mandated. In my case, I've been repeatedly asking Bell for the $10/month bundle discount I should have received well over a year ago, but they just keep telling me "it will take another two billing cycles to appear." With everything processed electronically, why should this take two months (let alone 12 now) while charges to me, on the other hand, get applied immediately? That's now over $120 that I consider Bell has cheated me out of through this scam.

- The practice of advertising and offering promotional prices that last only for a few months before rising back to regular rates should be disallowed. These marketing practices meant to fool consumers make it more difficult for most consumers to properly compare prices.

- Locked phones are anti-competitive and should be disallowed.

- The automatic renewal of contracts without a customer's written approval should be prohibited.

- Companies should not be able to increase fees during the life of a contract, or change the terms of a contract.

- An industry watchdog, not an industry lapdog, with a mandate and will to put consumer and public interests ahead of industry and corporate interests is needed.

- For effective regulation of such a powerful industry that generates so many consumer complaints, the watchdog agency needs to have the power and mandate to levy and enforce significant monetary penalties.

My Rogers contract is 3 years! All contracts in the states are 2-years or even less! Canada needs 2-YEAR contracts!!!

I would like to thank Ms Molnar for her good questions for the telcos today. Some of the answers did not make a lot of sense:
1. Telus yesterday indicated anyone can already get out of their contract by paying out $20, presumably the device subsidy. But then today telus said if you are still with them after your contract ends you can go in and ask for a 10% discount (why isnt this automatic?) . The question is: why don't I get $20 of my bill every month? If my plan is $50, I'm only going to get $5 off. The rest is gravy for the Telcos. Once again, ripping off the consumer. There is an easy answer to this. Forbid the telcos from selling hardware. Google already sells their phones direct. Too bad I can't put it on a telus contract without the subsidy.

2. Doshi also said that for the launch of the BlackBerry Z10, the three-year contract offered on Rogers was more popular than the two-year contract offered by Rogers-owned Fido, although there was a $200 price difference in the up-front cost of the phone.
No kidding, why wouldn't people if you do not reduce the plan price after two years? It costs them less on the 3 year. If the telcos actually reduced the cost after two years by $200(plus the interest) maybe more people would take the 2 year. I don't need Telus or Rogers to Finance a phone for me. Banks do that and credit cards do that. The only difference is at least I know the interest rate I'm paying with the banks and credit cards.

3. But my favorite comment was from the Telus person:
'I think a lot of customers don't want a cap [on their monthly bill]," David Fuller, chief marketing director for Telus Corp., told a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) hearing Tuesday in Gatineau, Que'
...unbelievable, he should be asked how much Telus writes off because people complain about their absurdly high bill.

If this is what he thinks, he should live on another planet. This type of statement merely infuriates people. He should reconsider this laughing stock statement. Who wouldn't want a cap? I'm sure he would even agree his wife/kid/sister/brother would want a $10000 cap on their bill.

My comment regards what I was told by a Rogers Customer Relations Agent. I called because I didn't think it was fair that Rogers changed the terms of my cell phone contract (without my consent), in the middle of the term, so that I could only get a hardware upgrade after 3 years from the original 2 years. The agent stated that they had to make the change because Rogers was losing too much money on hardware upgrades. He also went on to state that because of the changes that the CRTC was looking at implementing where cell phone contracts would be limited to 2 years, "Rogers is just going to raise the cost of phones to compensate". When I stated that in other countries they have 2 year limits and allow for hardware upgrades after less than 2 years and yet charge the same or less for the same phones that Rogers offers, he stated that "Canada is a big country and the costs to provide service is greater".

I don't think cell phone companies in Canada should be allowed to make changes to the terms of our contracts that raise our costs without our consent. I have yet to see once in my life where the cell phone companies ever DECREASE a customer's costs when they change the terms of the contract, it's only ever to INCREASE our costs.

I also do not for one second believe that Rogers is losing too much money on hardware upgrades. Look at their financial records or stock performance - it's obvious they're not losing money. They continue to gouge customers because they know they can get away with it. And when they're challenged by the CRTC, they look for ways to circumvent the rules and gouge customers in other ways.

The CRTC must ensure that this type of behaviour does not continue. Do not let the cell phone companies use loopholes to find ways to continue to treat customers as cash cows.

I welcome the introduction of cancellation of contracts by consumers that allow service providers to charge only a reasonable fee based on the recovery of subsidies not already paid for over the existing service period. When a consumer renegotiates some terms of a contract for any reason during the life of an existing contract I want the service provider to be obligated to email an accurate and costed description of the new service. In the spring of 2012 I asked to have the data limit increased on a FIDO phone and for 6 months after that each bill over charged me as other changes to the service were made without my knowledge or consent. Promises to remediate the problem were not kept and efforts to escalate the complaint were met with efforts to placate me. Each time I succeeded in getting agreement to reduce the costs to cover only what I had asked for but in my view FIDO would have let me overpay and has inadequate internal controls to catch and repair these kinds of errors.
Bell Mobility and I imagine other providers arbitrarily prevent relatively new users from joining networks in Europe I presume because they are afraid customers will run up huge bills and then resist paying them. I understand this but when this happened to me I found it out in a painful experience because the restriction was buried in the contract and in my view these types of restrictions should be presented to every new customer as an alert. I also can't believe the Canadian providers cannot cut better deals for Canadian consumers in the US or abroad or for that matter charge less for service in Canada and still make handsome profits. Let’s have some real competition.

Many the points in the draft code are focused on providing greater visibility to consumers (eg breaking out subsidized costs for handsets). I applaud this and would go further to suggest that the effective total cost of a handset is very clear at the time of purchase as it may be much more than the cost of buying a phone outright. Any individual that maintains the phone beyond the 3 year contract is basically giving free money to the telco. If you knew you were going to pay $1200 for an iPhone after the one time cost, tax and subsidized monthly fees, you may just go to the apple store and get a cheaper contract.

The requests by many on this stream are rightly requesting shorter contracts (or the option thereof), more flexibility in unlocking phones however these are not going to come from this policy. That would require BCE and Rogers to recognize that consumers are willing to pay a premium to own a phone in Canada (this seems inevitable) but would like greater flexibility to do so (eg pay a small premium for a 18 or 24 month contract while still clearly understanding the payments for the subsidized handset will be amortized over whatever length contract an individual signs up for. Seems like a win win.

Final point is to address some points that seem illogical from consumers. If you take your phone abroad and run up a huge bill, well that is your fault - you sign a contract and should pay attention to the charges. Having a cap is a great idea that will help out undisciplined consumers and prevent these soap opera stories from getting in the news.

I have lived in both the UK and North America and very familiar with US having worked there for many years. I would love to benefit from the telco and media contracts available in the US. How can someone have unlimited data plans in the US for the prices they get. Same land mass. Same barren space in most of the country. It is simply a case of competition like many have stated and until the government gets more flexible in allowing more competition into both telco and many other industries, Canadians will continue to pay a heavy premium compared to our neighbours in the south.

Overall the code is great in providing more visibility. The next step is consumers should continue to petition for the wants that this code can not and will not address.

We must change our wireless contract length from 3 years to 2 years! Consumers in Canada are constantly being screwed by all the major companies.

Next up after wireless the CRTC must address cable television with the same companies that are screwing us over with wireless.

I fully support where most of this is going. Phones need to be unlocked, we pay for them so it only makes sense that they belong to us. For the last 13 years till now, I have bought all my phones out right, I should have the choice of what to do with them when I'm done using them, or in my present case, take my SMART phone to my new provider (I couldn't do) which now I have a paid for smart phone paper weight. That all being said, the issue of "grandfathering" contracts is not fair. May of us have paid for our phones out right and had no discount on service, which is my case for the last 13 years. The service provider has taken advantage of the people that didn't want to be in a contract. The only advantage for buying the phone out right is having no contract, after all there is no discount for doing so, and if you're not happy with the service and decide to change providers you can't take the phone with you due to it being locked.

Since service providers have been in screwing us for so many years in this way, its only fair that ALL contracts are included in the new plan. The longest they would be "screwed" for is only 3 years.

Great idea in principle, but unless the CRTC has the balls to back up the bark with a bite it is futile to even go forward with this endeavor.
Certain things I like is having no expiry on pay as you go, as my mother has over $600.00 worth of credits and if she doesn't top up she will lose the money. This is a must as I have lost over a thousand dollars because I forgot to top up on time.

I am disappointed to see things like round up to the nearest minute instead of using actual time and the issue with pay as you go long distance fees. When I first got my pay as you go phone long distance was 0.40 cents and they brought the price down and then added air time. They still say that long distance is 0.35 cents when in actuality it is 0.75 cents. When in my opinion this is just another way of the phone companies stealing from their customers.

I like that in the draft copy the companies would have no choice but to actually inform us of changes to our "plans" instead of doing it on the sly. It is nice that any fees also have to be disclosed, I find that if I think I have a certain balance only to find I do not have what I think I have because of some supposed fees.

This process will only work if they will hold the phone companies to the fire and stop them from playing their games with customers. By harshly penalizing these companies and making the executives from these companies personally responsible only then will they start to act in the best interests of the customers and not their shareholders.

The phone companies should provide an agent that you can contact each time so that you do not need to explain any issue that you have had every single time you call. They say they will take notes but the notes are never sufficient or detailed enough and some agents will tell you that the last agent was not authorized to make whatever changes they did to your account (bait and switch). Last time I got a contract it took over ten hours of my time with multiple calls before I got what had been agree dot with agent number 1 and a copy of my contract. They have Bell stores but it appears Bell limits is responsibility by having them run by dealers who do not have access to the Bell customer notes system and cannot follow through on the promises the phone agents make (such as you will get a copy of the contract at the store when you pick up your phone) but are easy to blame and deny responsibility when they say anything different than Bell. It should be mandatory that a customer get a direct line and email address for a particular agent that is empowered to follow up on a customer's issues and they should be required to record every call so that it can be proved what each agent said to the customer.

This is very timely for me. I just arrived home from a vacation to an $8,000 Rogers bill. This was for iPad use. I had turned off my 3G and used WiFi exclusively at the resort for the full 2 weeks. I did not even bring my phone (fear of roaming charges). I have successfully negotiated my bill down to $255 (a travel plan that I didn't know existed was my bottom line). Too many details to explain here.

Therefore, this experience had me looking at the Code specifically for TRAVEL beyond Canada (not just references to out of region etc.) and also some mention of iPads which also use cellular service. I would like to see some type of obligation on carriers to educate their customers on what to do to their iPads etc. before traveling. I appreciate how far this code goes but an expectation that a carrier service must use the necessary language and directions in their print advertising, contracts and billing so consumers always are well informed.
Going through this made it feel almost like a "scam" of sorts.
I agree with so many of the previous writers but wanted to emphasize this particular issue

I agree. These companies are gouging us as customers, and I am skeptical. I think this is another "look at what a wonderful government we are" bunch of BS! I seriously doubt that we are going to see much difference in the long run. I doubt that any of this feel-good bunch of hogwash is going to result in any extra money staying in your pocket... If they really gave a crap, they wouldn't let these few companies hold the monopoly. Who's getting kick-backs here, anyway??

I want to tell Canadians a story about Bell Canada.

Last year my iPhone 4 died 2 years into my 3 year contract. I needed a new phone, so I bought out my contract and started a new 3 year contract with my new phone. But being an inventive person and quite practical I ordered parts online for my old phone for 11$ and fixed it! But I already had a new phone. So I decided to be a nice son and give my parents my old iPhone 4. But they were with rogers and it was locked to bell. Now let's be clear. I played 200$ to buy my contract out. The iPhone 4 is my property now.

But its locked to bell. and they want 75$ to unlock it. Even though its no longer on contract.

So I would have to pay 75$ to make MY property use able on another network even though I am on a new contract with a new phone.

This should be illegal. I should be able to sue bell for refusing to release my property.

1. If a phone is no longer under contract with a provider is shall not be legal to keep the device locked to their network.

2. 3 year contracts shall be banned. 2 year maximum.

3. Cancelation fees may not exceed the subsidised value received by the customer of their phone under contract.

how about plans that can cater to people who have disabilities. The people who have to live on the edge of society. The people who have to struggle every day to live a not so normal life. From one check to another...they hope. The people who can only concentrate on surviving that day...let alone even a one year contract. All...CRTC and the major telecoms are not helping that segment of our society at all.

After being a very recent victim of incurring a Data Service Agreement Charge of $200 for requesting a change of my data plan, I recommend that any changes verbally agreed to by the Wireless Provider and the consumer be future dated to the next billing date regardless of the date the changes are requested so that the Wireless Provider can email or mail (whichever the consumer prefers) an outline of that verbal agreement. This allows the consumer time to review the changes and the Wireless Provider to send a new contract, any fees associated with changes to said contract (if any) and effective dates of inception and expiry of said contract.
I was recently told over and over again, you signed a contract that said if you changed your data from this to this or combo plan to unlimited plan (or whatever the language was) and it was a contract I signed over a year ago and I didn't understand and wasn't told the difference between the plan that I had and the plan I wanted to change to. In my eyes I was requesting a change to increase my data and did not delete any part of my data. Something about you received a subsidy, blah, blah, blah. The new Wireless Code seems to help give the consumer a better understanding of their contractual obligations but I would add that changes be recapped and sent to the consumer prior to inception of any changes.

I think the draft is a great start.
I wish it would come into effect in 3 months, and be reviewed in 1 year.
I have been with Bell for a long time - I have a prepaid for my son and a regular plan for me.
The only thing I don't care for is that I have to go online or call every year or so check for the new plan so I can lower my monthly bill (in the past 3 years myplan has gone from $115 to $65 for same features) when I think they should be telling me that. But they are in it for the money - not for the customer. One thing I like about Bell - I can actually get to talk to someone within a few minutes - I used to deal with Rogers for cable - and I am so glad I no longer have to - always a 30-45min call to get anything done.
I can't believe the deaf/HH are getting ripped off so bad.
Prepaid minutes should have no expiry - if you pay for them then they're yours!
No more 3 year contracts.
I can't believe the BS the spokesmen for the wireless company's are saying to the CRTC - and keeping a straight face.

I was reading some of the Reaction of our 2 Biggest Wireless Companies Rogers and Telus ..I dissagree with them asking for the new rules to be implamented only for the use of new customers signing in..If there is going to be rules they should be for all customers new , and existing customers..If you are having new rules they should apply to all not one or the other ..This is like this adds from Rogers for Atlantic Canada but they only apply for new customers ..so everyone else has to pay higher wonder who is making the big money here .I have a business and will nevr get way this kind of relations offered to my customers and don't know how they get away with it .
My second point is that yes I would like to see 2 years contracts and after the 2 years my montly fees should be lower ..Not continuing to have to pay the same fees after my device is paid off ..And the cup of $200 which Rogers is proposing is absolutely ridiculos ..These companies made billions of the dollars on our backs it should be stopped .. Thank you

Under Implementation - B2 The Wireless Code should apply to all contracts new and existing.
Under Recourse for Customers - C2 Monetary Compensation should extend to the limit of the costs incurred by the consumer when the Service Provider is in error.
D2.1 Consumer can cancel without penalty if service provider amends the contract.
D3.1 and D3.2 and Option 1 of D3.3 are good. Simple is good.
D3.4 Option 1 is good. Simple is good.
D4 Stays. See comment re: Simple above.
D5.2 cap monthly bills at $150. Ever been to the US??
D6.1 Warranty info is important.
D6.2 Providers should not extend contracts for duration of hardware repairs.
D9 Maximum deposit should be three months of minimum charges or total subsidy provided to the consumer by the service provider - not both.

Section D4.3
The very definition of an unlimited plan is that it is unlimited! If limits are employed, it is no longer an unlimited plan and should not be allowed to be called unlimited!
The service should be independent of the device. If I have a 6Gb plan, it should be the same price for that plan whether it is in an iPhone, Android, Blackberry, Data Stick, iPad or my car etc. If I choose to change phones or devices and transfer the SIM card, that should be my option without extra charges. I am paying for a data service similar to the internet line into your house. Dumb it down and make it simple so the service providers can't extort money from us. Example, I went to a Bell store and got a new SIM to fit my iPad to replace the SIM in my MIFI device. Bell then proceeded to charge me usage fees on top of my data plan because of the iPad even though the ipad plan was in fact cheaper, they still charged on top of my MiFi plan doubling my bill when I used 1/5 of the data capacity of my plan...... Bell did the switch for me..... extortion, plain and simple.

CANADIANS ARE UNIVERSALLY FED-UP WITH BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY 3 YEAR CONTRACTS.
YOU, THE CRTC, ARE THE ONLY PROTECTION THAT CANADIANS HAVE AGAINST USURIOUS 3 YEAR CONTRACTS.
SO, THE NEW RULES SHOULD ONLY PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF 2 YEAR CONTRACTS.
PERIOD.
THANK YOU.

Limit contract length to 2 year. It's really embarrassing, no other country in the world have contracts that long.

Maximum limit of a contract MUST be 2 years.

This code of conduct is a good attempt at trying to protect the Canadian consumer, but it does not go nearly far enough. How much money is being spent on this process? Further, the CRTC should provide Canadian consumers with the opportunity to address/refute the comments made by the Canadian wireless industry.

With that said, I have some concerns with this Draft.

D2.1: If a consumer is under contract and opts to cancel because the service provider, the code needs to address what happens to a cellular phone that has been subsidized. Why should a consumer be forced to pay an early termination fee or penalty when the wireless provider is the one that is not honouring the terms of the contract?

2) D3.1 - I recommend that cancellation be effective when it is provided or at a later date requested by the consumer.

3) After the end of the subsidy period, a bill should be appropriately reduced without requiring the consumer to commit to another contract.

4) D5.1: Wireless providers should be compelled to address situations where people live in border towns and could incur charges by virtue of inadequate cellular service in their region. Further, the roaming rates should be examined to ensure that they are fair and competitive.

D10.1 (Option 2): This is a little unclear. If a service provider must cancel the service, why is there no consideration offered to the consumer? Consumers are required to pay fees when they cancel their contract and this is considered being fair to the Wireless provider. Should the reverse not also apply? This is another example of where the code does not go far enough to protect consumers. Further, does this provision of the draft protect a consumer when the service provider no longer provides a service such as "unlimited long distance" or similar?

Canadians appear to have lost faith in the wireless telecommunications industry. Understandably, there are challenges related to Canada's size versus population when compared to other countries, but there is little to nothing done to protect consumers from the flagrantly non-competitive nature of this industry.

I agree with the separation of fees for device and service. The service providers are baking in the financing costs of devices into the subscription rates over the term of the set (i.e., 3-year) contract but for someone who already owns a device is forced to pay the same subscription rate.

This is a major issue that this draft code fails to address. This needs to be part of the final code in order to promote clarity in what and how consumers are be charged for in these subscription rates. I highly doubt that service providers are taking a loss on "subsidizing" the cost of devices, and as profit-seeking companies they should be able to charge for the option financing the device. However, as in auto-leasing and the financial services the cost of these financing options should be clearly spelled out and for the consumer. With these costs hidden within the subscription rates, consumers have no way of knowing whether their wireless provider is gouging people who have their own fully paid devices or charging excessive financing rates that would amount to criminal usury in the financial lending industry.

2 simple things:

1) I am happy to see the CRTC making changes marked as NEW to the code - these changes help protect Canadians and move in the right direction for fairness.

2) I am happy to know we Canadians have already real choices, companies such as W_nd and M_bili_ity offering unlimited services and contract free options, which place competition on the bigger Networks like B_ll and R_g_rs.

- Multiple contract lengths and options should be mandated (eg 1 yr, 2 yr) rather than the emphasis on the 3 year plan.
- All phones should able to be unlocked by the user at any time (with a fee due if a phone is subsidized).
- Privacy protection should be defaulted to "opt-out" not "opt-out on request".
- No unilateral contract changes should be allowed by the service provider, including automatic rollover.
- No hidden text based fees (eg Text XXXX for jokes)
- Roaming voice/data fees should require a clear opt-in by the user.
- Phone manufacturers should be allowed to push OS updates directly to purchasers of the phone.

If the CRTC Doesn't respect that the fact that over 70-80% of the people taking their time to comment are asking for 2 year contracts. Then I really don't see a point in why even asked for our input.

At what point does this represent a majority vote? Do we need to storm the rogers, and bell gates and burn the buildings down before they get the point?

I honestly truly believe if the ONLY thing this wireless draft did what ban 3 year contracts you would have almost no complaints from anyone.

Mary, that is great news but does it also apply to Rogers Pay-as-u-go (pay-per-use) customers like myself as well? IMO... I think it should, given that whether I have a plan or not the same holds true - I do not control the incoming text.

Also, please clarify "all our in-market plans". Does that mean that people on older existing plans are stuck with paying for incoming texts?

I still take issues with forced data plans I do need, also any who knows your number can enroll you in text that ends up costing you $5.00 text the service provider must be held accountable for this cost, also FIDO charges no access fee but ROGERS does it is under the same company umbrella, this is pure and simple discrimination that any fool can understand, why do I have to wait to renew any type of plan

Consumers should be able to purchase unlocked phones if they pay the entire cost of the phone upfront. If the consumer is paying off the phone through a contract, after the phone is paid off, it should also be unlocked for free.

Also, there should be no cancellation fees if you want to switch service to another company if you have already bought the phone outright.

Pay-as-you go time should not expire! This is outrageous. You have paid for a service, and if you want to be frugal with your time and save it over long periods, that is your right.

I have a limit on how much my cell phone bill is allowed to go to before they disconnect it I think it's very fair. What I don't like about being in a contract is the fact if the phone is broken you still have to pay the bill for it every month or pay a huge fee for having to get out of it before the time is up. It's not fair to have to pay for a phone you can't use. The contract should be null and void if the phone is no longer useable. I'm dealing with an issue like that now where the phone I have is not working properly the cell phone provider I'm with won't fix it as it's no longer under warranty, I can't have a new phone until Aug and I can't get out of the contract without having to pay a huge fee to do so. Phones don't last as long as they think and they get you with these fees that you can't do anything about to leave the contract so you're stuck with a broken phone and a contract you can't get out of.

i would buy my phone up front if I got a discount on the monthly bill. Why would I pay a full monthly rate that we all know includes payment towards a subsidized handset. If you read my last paragraph it included a perfectly plausible option for purchasing a device upfront at full cost as well as amortized across the length of a contract length of your choosing.

waive fees for voice data. after at least 5 years of paying and complaining to Rogers about paying for voice data, on behalf of my son, i finally gave up. how is that the CRTC hasn't realized that the 'gouging' by certain cell phone companies has been going on for years and the deaf population in BC continues to be held hostage and told to accept whatever fees they want to charge?

Showing the cost per payment of the phone; an amortisation schedule in other words should be mandatory as well.

My provider Rogers has repeatedly misled me, and since there is no financial consequence, is likely to continue to do so.

In one case I discovered I had been over-charged for many months, but they would only fix it going back 3 since "that was their policy". If it is their mistake, and a clear over-charge, should the 3 months not apply?

Just three weeks ago I was put on a cheaper plan after I asked for ways to trim the bill, and was told that the cheaper plan would not cost me any features whatsoever. A week later I discover that my voice mail service now would store only 3 calls. When I phoned about that, I discovered they had put me back on a 3 year locked in contract as well without telling me!

Both problems were fixed after my phone call, but where is the financial disincentive to the company to cease these activities?

I would like to see real financial penalties, or am very skeptical that anything will change.

I think the plans that we have should be selected by the amount we are willing to subsidize the hardware on a 1 ($150), 2 ($300) or 3 ($500) year plan. If the latest and greatest technology comes out, we should have the option of changing to the new hardware by surrendering the present handset we have to the provider and terminating the service contract early with just an administration fee. If the provider does not want the hardware back for a discounted resale, then charge the customer for the phone, the admin fee, unlock it and have a nice day.
This way, the providers can sell more handsets and get them out into the market and provide the older generation items at a discount to the people who may not necessarily be able to afford them.
The service providers should sell all phones unlocked form the get go. It is not necessary to lock them to the network… and yes, I did think that people will just stop paying and go elsewhere and cannot do so if the phone is locked to the providers network. They are going to go because of poor service or lack of support, not to intentionally rip them off. If I am going to contract for service over a set time, I expect to pay a premium for the hardware I selected. If I terminate the contract, I should pay what needs to be paid in an admin fee and/or pay out the subsidy of the hardware if it is not returned to the provider. This way, I can choose the best provider and hardware for my situation. If I want to purchase a phone and only a phone, I should be able to do so, no matter the hardware (Blackberry, iPhone, Samsung,etc.) and use it how I see fit.
On the plan side of things, some providers are listing plans at over lapping price points for selected services. These are confusing... why do I pay $60 per month for a Canada wide calling plan with 1Gb data and have $300 taken off the purchase price of my new phone when $55 per month lets me take $500 off the base price of the hardware but a set limit on voice time and very little data? If I select a plan for $XX, I want to pay that amount be it 1, 2 or 3 years. If I want extras like the Canada wide calling, voice mail, unlimited calling, etc. then I should see the increase in what I am billed for service, and not the removal of these services to subsidize the hardware purchase.
In other words, plan the subsidy based on the length of the contract (1, 2 and 3 years), not the level of services provided. And have the plans set in a way that allows for flexibility of service and is easily understood.
At the end of it all; unlocked phones (more hardware for the masses), subsidy based on length of contract (set fee schedule for hardware buy out and admin fee schedule), higher cost for higher levels of service and billing that is easy to understand.

contracts to get products seem ok in principle, but what happens when the salesman tells you are are getting the greatest phone, and then it dies, and then they send it away for repair and try to give you a 10 year old phone worth less than the 50$ deposit they force you to pay, it is complete BS because I didn't sign a contract to get service with an old phone I signed a contract for a nice piece of new hardware that is supposed to last my entire contract. It took rogers 6 months to replace my phone ( i had to buy another phone in the meantime because the one they supplied was a complete piece of crap, and they actually lost my phone while in repair) and they wouldn't remove any time from my contract or give any kind of compensation for taking my money and not replacing my unit in a reasonable amount of time.

There needs to be rules about replacements on hardware, why is the consumer locked into a contract for a piece of hardware, but the telco isn't locked into making sure the customer gets to actually use the hardware they are being gouged for??

I would like to see the end of being penalized for switching carriers.

rogers likes to try to force customers to pay an extra month when switching to a new carrier, even though I called them and told them a month ahead of time that I would switch they said that the only real 'notice' i could give would be to switch and then pay the penalty. I don't understand how a verbal conversation letting them know my intentions doesn't count for anything...when I signed up they said they needed a months notice....when I rent a house and move I can give notice, not have to move and pay rent when I'm gone....

With so much of the forum being visibly (and rightly so) supporting the ban of 3-year contracts, I'm not going to reiterate this feeling, even though I do fully support it.

Rather, I suggest some recommendations regarding ease of understanding about someone's plan.

1st off, would it be possible to show (for example a sliding scale) of how much we have left to pay off a cellphone? If we go into a 2 yr contract, and the phone being sold outright is $600, with a charge of $24/month going to the phone, would we be able to see on our profile on the carriers website, how much we have left to pay. This in turn would limit them from being able to charge us additional fees if we do leave a contract early, giving us some proof that we may only have several months of payment left, and not what they deem is left on the phone.

Another would be basic prices for services. I know a lot of people who get phenomenal deals because they negotiate and call customer retention call centers and not customer service centers, or it may be dependent on the person who is taking a call is having a good day and will provide cheaper or free options, rather than someone who is having a bad day and will not give out these services. Basically, say to the carriers 'Why', someone can receive more for less and be allowed for it, while someone has to pay more for less services. Investigate why these prices are inflated and look into what a reasonable rate would be, all in the visible public sphere.

Currently I subscribe to a pre-paid account. The sole reason is because I know that the most I will lose is the maximum credit I put on the phone. Even so, there are hidden fees and I am not informed when I am out of my "zone", etc. However, I would highly support removing expiry dates because many people have "emergency only" phones (every single person in my family) in their vehicles and continuously adding credit that is not being used has proved useless.

I would consider a smart phone subscription once these rules go through, if in fact the cap of amounts charged per month can be decided by the consumer ($50 is not too low), if contract length can be decided by me, the consumer, and if minimum canada-wide calling was included.

Currently, I do not believe that any of the companies (particularly the big 3) have any plans that suit the needs of a consumer. I had a plan with one of them once (only month-month) and I called them every month because of fees I did not agree to. All numbers need to be 100% clear with no fine print, all contracts need to be able to be personalized and all phones should inform users if something unusual is happening (ie, roaming zone, or long distance fees) before they are charged.

If that happens I will happily become a subscriber; however, in my experience travelling to many countries around the whole, our system in Canada is severely behind the rest.

I'm not seeing anything having to do with bundling of cell and home services and the related misinformation. For instance, CCTS is able to attempt to resolve part of a problem I had with Rogers cell phone charges but could not deal with a related problem having to do with (what I was informed of later) was a 6 month "promotional" rate I received for bundling cell, cable, home phone and internet services. Suddenly my bill will be $60 more per month and I cannot cancel because apparently my cable is on a 2 year contract...$20/month charge to cancel and I'm only 6 months in.

Contract lengths should not be secretly extended because customers are agreeing to an offered hardware upgrade or other such change.

Humans should be available to sort out these problems. I agree with the service cost interruption for faulty hardware. Data use should be easily monitored by the consumer. Secret limits (max bill) or border limits should be made known to the consumer - my cell bricked as I crossed into the United States with a bus full of students expecting to maintain contact with me using texts and I expected to use the mass of data I had planned for the trip. US plans should be able to be set up ahead of time - not through an obscure text as I cross the border.

Cell providers should rate right away without 2 hours of negotiations and threatening with Customer Retention - maybe people will stop hating you.

And stop lying.

having different price caps for every user is not difficult, it is simple programming to do this, and telus saying that it would be too hard is just pure lies. They just would rather cap people at 150 or 200$ if they have to at all rather than letting consumers cap themselves which could bite into their earnings. I've had more than a few BS 400$+ bills over the years..please open our markets and stop protecting the canadian telecommunications oligarchy.

I agree with many other comments that demand 3 year contracts be reduced to 2 years and subsidized amount should vary according to the length of time a consumer has stayed and paid to the company.

Another thing that companies should be able to disable services that a user does not want and would incur charges on unintended use.

For example, I asked rogers to disable text-to-speech land line messaging, but they did not. They said we cannot turn that off. What happens is sometimes I mistaken text to a landline number, and then I am charged for that, even though I have unlimited texting plan. I don't want a roboting voice to narrate what I texted accidentally to a land line.

I agree that paper billing should be free. The unmitigated forcing of people to take ebilling when they have no way to print the bill off or have computer access to it is unwarranted.

And to top it off I have owned this phone for at least 7 years maybe more... :(

I can't believe it! Telus has been charging the subsidy when I paid for my phone outright in I think 2006. I have been on 2 3-year contracts for who knows why when the phone was paid for within a month. They never once told me that the subsidy should go away or that I could get a 10% discount. I pay outragous prices even now. Rediculous.

I think the CRTC needs to look in to the years of overpayment by Deaf people for 911 monthly fees and for voice time (none of which they could access), and consider offering Video Relay Services as compensation.

I think the CRTC needs to look in to the years of overpayment by Deaf people for 911 monthly fees and for voice time (none of which they could access), and consider offering Video Relay Services as compensation.

The Code needs to specifically address the fact that Deaf and Hard of Hearing people are required by all carriers to pay for voice time and this is simply wrong. Deaf/HH people have been paying for voice time on their cells phones for their years as the only way to get text messaging and data. (you can't add on text or data with voice time!). In addition, up until recently Deaf people have not had any text message access to 911 services, yet have been paying the 911 fee on their cellphones for years as well. It seems this community has been overcharged for years for 911 and voice time. A Deaf person should not be required to pay for voice time in order receive accessible services (text and data). The major US cell phone carriers all have plans for Deaf/hh people and Canada needs to look at that model.

Here is my feedback:

Implementation of the Code
- should apply to all contracts including those that were entered into prior to the effective date of the new code
- should come into force 3 months after publication (6 months seems excessive)

Contracts
- standard contract length should be set to 2 years maximum with option to have longer contracts (for example where you have a higher subsidy for the handset) to give consumers choice of contract length and especially how much they are willing to pay for handsets

Pre-paid minutes/credits
- no expiry on pre-paid minutes/credits purchased

Services
- inclusion of 'basic' services in base packages - it is ridiculous to charge the prices providers charge for call display and voicemail when they cost very little to provide. In Europe these are included as part of all packages including on pay as you go plans

Unlocked Phones
- phones should be able to be unlocked for a reasonable service fee while under contract
- when out of contract expires a phone should be unlocked for free
- phones purchased at full price (not subsidized) should be unlocked for free

Changes to contract by service provider
- consumer should have option to cancel a contract without penalty if provider changes terms of contract

Cancellation of contract
- should be effective on date of receipt of cancellation or date chosen by user
- cancellation penalties should be limited - repayment of handset subsidy plus a flat fee or % (max $50)
- one cancellation fee only should apply - there should be no separate cancellation fee for voice and data

Contract Renewal
- renewal of fixed term contract on a month-to-month basis at end of term.
- renwal based on consent of user
- provider should notify the user that the term expires 60 days prior to end of term

Pricing
- monthly contract pricing advertised, displayed and promoted should be all inclusive pricing with no additional fees, service charges etc.

I am disappointed to see that Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association is defending 3-year contracts during the hearing. The CWTA CEO said, "If that was really the choice that consumers wanted ... someone will provide it in the marketplace". Currently, none of the 3 major national carriers are even offering 2-year options on their website for their most popular phones. Telus are currently offering some phones on 2-year contracts but only for outdated phones; they did offer 2-year contracts on all phones; however, their 2-year price was sky high (compared to 3-year) such that nobody will opt for the 2-year option.

3-year contracts must end - period.

Also there must be provisions for unlocking of phone for free when 1) when the handset subsidy is fully paid, 2) when a phone is paid at prepaid or no-term price.

Accessibility issue - PLAN for disability: I want the plan that are specifically made for the individual needs as for example Deaf. As for example why are the companies REQUIRE deaf person to purchase VOICE plans in order to use the text or data plans. In the past, I had to argue with them to remove the voice plan because I cannot speak on the phone to communicate. Why do I have to pay $40 dollars for something that I cannot use because of my disability.

yes i would like too see in keeping the three year contracts but without an payout penalties of that contract of your cellphones line numbers and what i would like to see disappear is the spending cap they make lots of money and the spending cap causes more problems for the users low costs of the phones so many can buy them that have contracts in getting a new phone if the one has been damaged or stop working while in a contract and keep the zero down for cellphone users and customers . and stop charging for paper bills should be free and stop forcing customers into e billing it should be up to the customers not the companies .

Clear, concise billing! Receiving an 8 page monthly bill then there is no abnormal activity is indicative of the problems with this industry. Wireless providers are hiding behind paper, small print, and unclear policy and practise. Billing info can be presented to the consumer in a simple and clear fashion that is intentionally avoided. With regard to data, billing needs to be in the same unit (Gb) as the quoted data plan--don't leave it to the consumer to try to figure out where the decimal place should go. The billing format should outline contract minutes (e.g. 200) and minutes used (e.g. 135 or 210) and the corresponding overage rate where applicable. Same for texts and data. This doesn't need to be so complex!

Suggested additions:

- One should not be charged for receiving calls. If one Telus customer calls another, and both are charged, how is this not double dipping? In Germany, cell phone calls are only charged to the one placing the call. The recipient only pays when they are outside the country.

- I would like to see some discussion on the elimination of long distance fees. The German system has no long distance fees for instance. Higher fees are only charged to the person placing the call when they use a cell phone to call a landline, or if a landline user calls a cellphone. Landline to landline is included in the regular rate. Cell phone to cell phone only charges (at regular rate) the one who placed the call.

- length of contract term needs to be addressed. 3 years is too long.

Regarding what is already in:
- the notification of additional fees is a very good option

- the cap monthly bills is also a very good option

Bell, Telus, and Rogers occasionally offer unlimited plans, however once the contract is up they jack up the price every few months. They do this so that you re-sign another contract with less services.

Bell did this to my home Internet and then my cell phone! This should be criminal!
Get rid of phone subsidies and contracts! This the only way to allow free market competition.

Cell phones only last 1-2 years anyway. Why must I sign a three year contract? Just give me a cheaper better plan.

We must ban new 3 year contracts, Period.
We must ban all system access fees, activation fees, miscellaneous charges
We must ask for unlimited incoming text messages AND unlimited incoming calls.
We must ask for advertisers not to contact us on cellphones under any circumstances
All carriers should have unlocked phones at open market prices ( not 40% higher) for those who will pay up front for the handset. Some phones like Blackberries are sold through carriers only. All should be in a "factory unlocked" state. Often carriers unlock the phone but it does not allow for hardware locks on MMS and wifi hotspot functionality of the handset.
Every wireless bill should prominently display the date of contract end. " Your Commitment ends on <this date>"

Okay, I will change it. You are wrong. You own the phone when you walk out of the store.

In regards to the device subsidy, carriers often won't add a discount to a plan after the phone is paid off without requiring a plan change. This can also result in higher rates for consumers as they may not be able to benefit from a reduced rate on the plan they've been committed to for 3yrs while paying off the device.

-I like that cancellation fees are tied to what is remaining of subsidies. That's fair. Tying people into three year contracts is absolutely abusing consumers, particularly when subsidies are paid off.

-I did not see anything relating to data specifically, but maybe this is covered in your concellation policies. When I bought and paid for a smart phone I called Rogers to add a data plan to my services. The data plan came required a 1 year contract and a cancellation fee of $100 or $200 even though they were providing no subsidy for anything. There should be no cancellation fees when no subsidy is provided, or if there is no subsidy remaining on a service.

-Services should be available without subsidy. People who want to buy their own phone should not have to pay for services that include a subsidy. Likewise, once a subsidy is repaid the consumer should not still be charged for it. Everybody knows the cost of the phone is wrapped up in the monthly bill, so lets be upfront about the portion of the monthly charge that is for the phone and what's for services. When the phone is paid for, stop charging the subsidy. That's like the bank charging you car payments even after your car is paid off. Paying a subsidy when you are receiving nothing for it is a ripoff of the consumer and it's money for the carrier for providing nothing.

-Since there are cancellation fees that make you pay whever is the remaining amount due to your carrier for your phone subsidy, there is actually no reason for any phones to be locked that I can see.

-Charging $7 for name and number display is insane. This may have made some sense when it was a new offering, but I doubt today there is any additional cost to providing this service. Roll it into the plan if need be.

-I think the out of coutry roaming fees are totally outrageous. (I'm with Rogers.) Carriers charge them because they know you're not going to switch carriers over it and it's a fee you can't avoid short of not using your phone abroad. I think this needs to be addressed. For instance how can you have to pay $30 per MEGABYTE (without a roaming package) in any developed country? That is an absurdly small amount of data for the cost. Even with a roaming package rates are extremely high and consumers are getting abused.

This is a step in the right direction and this will help many wireless service users throughout Canada.

My take on some of the concerns are -
1. The length of the contract - 3 years seem to be way too much to be bound in a specefic contract making freedom to switch/cancel difficult. I feel the contract should not be more than 2 years where consumers have a chance to decide wether they want to stay with the current provider or change providers.

2. When talking about some of the Unlimited monthly plans - Say If I want to go to a different province for a week, and I want to make use of their Unlimited calling for that 1 week. I should not be charged the fixed amount for the whole month, rather the amount should be pro-rated so that I can use fair service and be fairly charged for the duration of the use of the service and this should be written down on the contract as most times customer service won't tell you about this.

3. The phone wether bought under subsidised price or not, once it has fulfilled the contract/or once the price of the device has been paid in full (say for an early upgrade), then the old device that is no longer in a contract should be unlocked by the service provider at no charge, since no liability from the consumer exists on that device. However if consumers want to unlock their device in the middle of the contract, then yes providers can charge a fee agreed upon.

4. When a device comes in the market, it has different prices for each service provider on the same 3 year contract, with the addition of plans that are not friendly to consumers. For eg if Telus gives caller ID included in the plan then Rogers may not give that feature making it difficult for consumers to choose fair plans without hiking up the price. I say that all plans should be made so that they are quite similar to the ones offered by other providers and there can variations, but variations to an amount which is unfair to the consumers should be prevented. If there is certainity and predictability in the plans offered by providers throughout Canada, irrespective of the province then consumers would know what to predict making it fair for both parties.

4. When renewing contracts with the same provider, one goes through the loyalty department where you bargain for the best you can get, sometimes calling dozen times to get what you want. Consumers try to take as much advantage as possible and providers are reluctant to give out much. This area can be improved as well.

5. Finally also as other have mentioned their concerns over lost/stolen or damaged phones - providers should give some consideration to consumers who are in a contract and their phone has been stolen/lost/damaged. The consumer bears responsibility for any of these and its just fair to be so. However if a consumer still wants to use service of the current provider and has no option of getting a replaced phone, can be hard on consumers. Providers should give some options or have some refurbished phones that they can give to consumers say for a price that is affordable to carry on with their contract.

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see anything about unsolicited messages coming in from the service provider. We have several phones on a family plan with Rogers. Only 1 has a data plan that is not shared. Unlimited multi-media texting is part of our plan. All phones have to have "data enabled" in phone settings to receive pictures via texting. The phones without data plans constantly receive what I now consider to be HARASSING messages from Rogers telling us the phones do not have a data plan. I have battled with Rogers speaking with countless employees in the organization trying to get these messages stopped without success. Imagine how you would feel if you bought a product from Sears or another store, and then they phoned you twice a day.. forever. I think there should be a mechanism to stop this harassment in the new code.

SUBSIDY = CONTRACT!!! Same different work used

Whats the Difference with 3 years contract and Subsidy what they want to call it now.

Its still 3 years!!!!

Why does it take 3 years to pay for a device here in CANADA while everywhere else in the world 2 years!!

This is what People want to Know!!!!

As per TELUS's comment

Earlier, TELUS Chief Marketing Officer, David Fuller, tried to explain the concept of device “tabs” to Elizabeth Duncan, the CRTC Commissioner for the Atlantic region and Nunavut.

Fuller explained from their data, customers opted for three year tab balances instead of one or two, to defer any up front payments for cellphones. This offer of tab balances (which decrease by a percentage every time you pay your bill) resulted in a decrease in customer escalations by over 30% (compared to dealing with breaking contracts for early upgrades) as it allowed users to upgrade immediately to the latest smartphones, such as the iPhone.

Even the short, summarized explanation caused Duncan to be confused, as the amount of details involved overwhelmed her. Wireless customers in Canada can probable relate when it comes to the fine details users have to read and agree to should they sign contracts.

Consider that cell phone and wireless internet are becoming more common as standard services required in today's world. The time when these services were a luxury or an option for many users are long past. Carriers may interpret growth in market as natural adoption but the reality is that many users simply do not have another option

The carriers are not competing in a world market, only Canada, so they can pretty much do whatever they want and they make tons of money from ancillary fees and charges which are mostly hidden because, if the requirement to advise the user is not present, then the carrier will try to get away with whatever they can

See this corporate press release about Bell profit:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/918609/bce-reports-2011-q4-and-full-year...

With profit into the hundreds of millions, there's money available to help the small percentage of users who do not live in the urban setting where most users live

No to long contracts - longer than the useful life of the device

No to locking, contract is binding

No long distance for incoming calls

Incoming call number must show on phone bill - as it is, the company says the number is not shown for "privacy" reasons

No charge for incoming text

If carrier sells a phone - the onus is on the carrier to verify that service is available and is actually working consistently

For users with restricted or no service at their base location (home or office) - contract is cancelled

Warranty period must be identical to contract period

NO!!!, THE COMPANY, PROVIDER OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO CALL IT, CAN NOT FOR ANY GIVEN REASON CHANGE THE CONTRACT OR SERVICE, UNLESS IT BENEFITS THE USERS OR CUSTOMERS IN A FACTUAL AND TRUTHFUL WAY, NOT ONLY BY "WE SAY SO" IN A STATEMENT, THE BACK OF THE BILL OF SERVICE, A NICE LETTER OR COMMERCIAL MEDIA BROADCASTING PROPAGANDA.

Also if a user wants to switch to another provider, that individual should not be asked to give 30 day notice, and that person just had to be charged for the use of services till that very moment where services is given, not a second, or minute, or hour, or day EXTRA, and if any additional fees had to be paid in regards to hardware subsidy, then those will be added to what the service charges were till that exact moment of the PORT.

If a customer brings his own hardware, that person should be given a better rate since there is no hardware subsidy involved.

Plans should be only 1 type, get rid of prepaid.

Voice services must be charged by the second.

Data services must be clear about caps, speed and throttle, if they offer 5 Gigs at full speed then it must be that, if the service is unlimited data download at full speed it must be that, and overage charges can not exceed $50 on top of the data fee for the base service.

No extra fees can be charged aside of the services provided and tax, if a company creates a surcharge that somehow relates to "Government", that provider MUST relinquish such fees to the Government, and the Government MUST investigate and fine any company that creates fees for outlandish reasons that somehow appear to be made by the Government.

Contracts must be at 6 months, or 12 months, or 18 months, to a maximum of 24 Months.

Any cancellation fee should remain at $5 x month Max, that way nobody will have to sell it's kidneys in the black market, this fee will apply to the whole service, regardless of the service including a combination of Voice and Data, or just voice, or just data, if there is any subsidy fee involved, that must be added to the total cancellation fee.

I think that's all so far.

1. Plans would have to be identical for any term.

2. The subsidies would have to be scaled fairly. If an iPhone 16GB is $179.00 on a three year it is not unreasonable to charge $299.00 on a 2 year.

These stipulations need to be part of the code. If not you are correct ... ain't gonna work.

Consumers penalized for not buying data plan.

Consumers are being forced to join more expensive plans and longer contract terms in order to get a reasonable price on some usable cell phone. If you want a cell to do voice and simple txt msg, you don't have any choice at all. Rogers, Telus, Bell... give you horrible device for any contract under 3 years term. The price they charged on voice + txt msg is really unreasonable. As a parent, I have purchased cell phone for my children and has to enter into 3 years contract with big bills to pay every month in order to support their daily cell usage need. I wish some regulation can be in place such that there are true competition between the wireless companies; may be we should open our market to companies from south in order to get real competition. Being a consumer in Canada, we're being forced to the corner with no choice. We always have to choose among evils !

No to grandfathering of contracts there must be a fresh start, or commission is useless!

I have quickly looked through the draft code and noticed that there is nothing about rural cell phone coverage. My issue with my cell phone is that when I purchased my plan from Rogers when I went away to university, I was never told that my phone did not work in my home town in northern Ontario. When I called and inquired as to why my phone did not work, I was told that Rogers has nationwide coverage, which was quite obviously not true. More recently I have move back to my home communty with two years left on my Rogers contract, when I clalled to get a local phone number I was told that I could nt get a localo number because I bI lived in a rural community. When I attempted to cancel my service and go with a local providet, I was told that I would have to pay a $500 cancellation fee. I feel that a cell phone company's coverage should be apparent up front, and I feel that these companies should not be able to lock you into a contract when you have to pay long distance to call next door.

Compare Australia then. Large area small (relative) population and they pay less then Canada.

I simply think that 3 year contracts should be eliminated. Why is it even a question when virtually everywhere else on earth limits contracts to a maximum of 2 years.

Spearation between device and service.

If somebody has a fully paid, working device. It should be possible to get the same price for services as someone getting a new financed device (minus the fianced amount).

I do not understand why there is no provision for separating the device from the services.
The carriers have all the right to finance the devices and make money while doing it, but the rules should forbid to tie in any way those financing deals with the service contracts.

The service prices should be the same if there is a new device of if using an existing device (fully paid or not).
It should be illegal for the carriers to give a better montly fee if there is a new device involved in the deal.

Raising your cap limit. I would like to be able to raise my cap limit in increments. When traveling if I hit my cap of $100. in roaming charges I may want to get in touch with them and raise it again by another $100. vs phoning and removing the cap entirely.

I know this is a problem with ATT in the states they will cap your roaming charges but if you want to actually go over the cap it means you have it wide open with no limit at all. Also you should be able to specify how long you want a higher cap to last.

My contract is with Bell. They would not even provide me with a copy of the contract when I signed on (turns out a store with the Bell name is not really Bell but some dealer network that does not have the same privileges as Bell employees despite the fact that the person i spoke to by phone had assured me it would all be taken care of at the store when I picked up my phone).

I welcome the new code and recommend:
1. All companies must provide a copy of the contract.
2. The terms should be yearly maximum (no more 3 year terms).
3. Companies should be encouraged to lease phones so that they can retrofit/repair/upgrade them instead of creating lots of e-waste.
4. Very stiff penalties should be in place for companies that do not comply and they should be publicized.

I agree with changes, it's long overdue.
it's about time we stop some carriers the ability to rip off people.
1) Take away all 3 year contracts - Old contracts should even be considered out of date
2) Take away all early cancellation fees - If service providers was being "honest" they should not need to worry about losing customers.
3) Don't charge for services that customers do not use all of, only for what is used
4) Hire English speaking people into the call centers who understand and listen. Key WORD - LISTEN
5)Perhaps, allowing some american service providers to enter the market to create more competition. Perhaps this would force canadian service providers to clen up there act.
6) HOPEFULLY WITH ALL THESE CHANGES, PRICES WILL IMPROVED ISTEAD OF RISING.

Text messages received in the USA. I get charged 60 cents if someone decides to send me a text while I'm across the border (I live in a border town). I have control over sending text messages in this situation, so I don't, however I don't have the option to turning off delivery of these messages, neither through a hardware setting on my phone, or through my provider. I don't see this as fair. All the major cell phone companies extend my local calling area to the Detroit area, so I can make a local (essentially free) call (incoming or outgoing) from the border area in the USA, but I have no means of avoiding high costs for incoming text messages.

With the emphasis today on not phoning when operating a motor vehicle, I believe all plans should include caller ID or Call Display. Essentially you should know who phoned you if you can't pick up right away. This way, people would be less tempted to grab the phone when they're driving, because they could check their phone later. Many companies charge $5-7 per month for this service.

I think the portion of your bill that is paying for the cost of the phone should be clearly labelled and when the phone is fully paid for your bill should be reduced accordingly. Right now they keep charging you the same amount even after the phone is fully paid for and try to suck you into getting a (yeah right) free phone and locking you in for an additional 3 years.

Now that I think about it they shouldn't be allowed to tell anyone that they are getting a free phone period because that is blatant false advertising anyways and again I'm not sure how they even get away with this in the first place.

Actually the whole idea of us having phone coverage over a larger area is a myth made up by the phone companies. They try to give the perception that they have to cover this entire vast country and down in the states or in Europe they have people everywhere.

The truth is that the phone companies here only provide coverage where there are population centers and the corridors that connect them. The number of customers per square kilometer of coverage is probably no different here than anywhere else.

This is just a myth to try and justify unreasonable high prices in comparison to the rest of the world.

This is what i think
1.Carrier should offer unlock for free after the contract is over.
2.Carrier should honor the same plans they offered on contract even after the contact ends. 3.
3.The 3 robbers should not be allowed in bidding in new spectrum.This will create competition with new carrier.
4.Upgrade to smartphone should be allowed without data plan as all new phones are smart phones.

I am commenting on D5.2 - I'm actually really happy with the draft code because the main thing I wanted to see was caps on plans so you don't have to worry about surprise bills for thousands of dollars.

This guy here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2007/12/12/cell-phone.html
got a bill for $85,000.00 and to this day I'm not sure how the phone companies got away with billing like this. It would be like the plumber coming in to fix a leak and then sending you a bill for an entire new furnace. It's just ludicrous that they have been able to get away with it for so long. I think all Canadians have a cap limit whether they know it or not.

The other thing I like is the ability to simply disable features (such as premium messages) I know I will never use and for some reason the phone companies charge me for. I have personally had a premium message charge appear on my bill and I am 100% certain that I did not subscribe but when phoning the phone company they simply say so "Well you must have done something, these things don't simply happen on their own." I have no recourse but if I am able to simply block them before I ever receive them their will be no misunderstanding.

I would like this section D5.2 to be amended so that a consumer can block on one phone and not another rather than it simply being an account blockage, but if you do want it blocked on all phones that would be doable too. ie I may actually want text messages blocked on my phone but want to my daughter to be able to get them. I'm nervous the phone companies will say if you block it it's blocked on all phones, the only way she can have it is if you have it. I think this would also be an issue for businesses that may want features on some phones but not all.

The only other thing I have a concern about is the whole idea of this being a final draft. I think after the code comes into affect it should be looked at in a years time to see how well it is performing and whether or not consumers think anything has been overlooked.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment

Definitely Canada needs another carrier, this oligopoly favours the carriers and not the customer.

Prohibit locking, contract is adequately binding

Contract and service information shown on the user account information on the carrier web portal must be the same as the contract - no conflicting or misleading wording or information

Paid airtime must not expire, like a gift certificate, the value is already paid to the carrier and the carrier must be bound to honour the airtime until it is used

The carrier must support the customer in dealing with issues concerning the working integrity of the device. If a device is suspected or has been shown to be intermittently non-functional, it should be replaced.

eMail address must be bound to the customer, not the device. For example, if the email is with the carrier, switching from a land-based modem to a cellular modem will probably discontinue the email address.

Throttling must not be permitted

Warranty must include the service on which the device depends

For everyone supporting 3 year contracts or justifying their existence I want to let you know that the "full" or "off-contract" prices are overblown to make 3-year contracts look good and discourage 1 and 2 year contracts. Example: Nexus 4 from Google is $349. Nexus 4 from wind is $549. I feel sorry for the person who commits to paying off the "Wind Tab" when they could get the device outright for $349.

Did you know it costs Apple $167 in parts to make an iPnone5?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57512904-37/iphone-5-may-cost-apple-$167.50-to-build-says-one-estimate/

Even if you double the price to include labor and marketing it is nowhere near the off contract price of $699. But it sure makes those 3 year contracts look enticing...

What I would like to see changed with pre-paid plans.

The CRTC should be putting rules in place to stop the major Canadian wireless providers from ripping off consumers on pre-paid cell phone plans that pay by the minute for voice calls. The advertised rate that the cell phone provider indicate you are charged per minute is not effectively the rate that you are paying. Here is why. The cell phone providers always round up to the next min before they charge you. Therefore, if I talked 1min and 30sec I get charged for 2min. If I talk for 1min and 2sec I get charged for 2 min. Given this over time, like a year, the effective rate of my per minute rate is much higher than the advertised rate. This practise does not favour the consumer at all. To be fair to the consumer, the cell phone providers should be charging to the second especially in this day and age of technology. If the providers can't do that then at the very least they should be rounding down or up on the 30sec time point. To be fair to the cell phone providers, the first 0-60sec is rounded up so the provider would not loose revenue on a <30sec call. The CRTC is aware of this practice and has done nothing about it. As a consumer in this type of plan, I believe this should be changed in the new wireless code.

Also, although I am not sure, perhaps that is how the major wirless providers charge consumers with contracted plans as well. If this is the case, then are you really effectively getting 100mins in a plan that has this limit?

If you have a smartphone you can try a tablet plan for your device. The secret is you don't really need a tablet... check out this plan from Telus - http://www.telusmobility.com/en/ON/ipad_plans/plan_ipad.shtml
You have to change the APN settings but it is straight forward just google it.
Calls are $1 per minute if you really need one (like 911).
If you are looking for a good cheap phone get the android 4.0 Samsung Galaxy Discover prepaid for $99.00 (no contract) -
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-telus-samsung-galaxy-discove...

A better phone would be the nexus 4 straight from Google $349.

Well done! I hope they take your suggestions for consideration also!!

Compared to both countries you mentioned we have a big landmass and a small population.

Apples-to-oranges comparison.

In the US and the UK where 2 year contracts are the maximum allowed, people are not paying $699 or $599 for their phones. Rather they come in around the same price as our three year contracts or cheaper in a lot of cases.

I support that :

As one of three hundred thousands Deaf Canadians, I would like to address several important issues based on my experience in dealing with mobile phone companies that CRTC MUST tackle down in best interests of Deaf customers across the country.

1) WAIVER FEES FOR VOICE DATA - It is one of the most audist and discriminating actions that the companies have ever done against Deaf customers. I was once told that I cannot have text number if I wanted to remove voice from my Blackberry smartphone during my discussion with Telus!

2) PLAIN ENGLISH OR FRENCH LANGUAGE IN CONTRACT - English and/or French language is not our first language as our first language is American Sign Language (LSQ) or Les Signes de Quebecios (LSQ). The legal lingo in contract is too hard or difficult for us to understand.

3) NO FINE PRINT IN CONTRACTS! - The contracts in fine print tend to be confusing and too hard to read. We have had some DeafBlind customers with limited visibility to read, who use mobile phone to text to their family, friends and colleagues.

4) A FLAT, REASONABLE RATE FOR UNLIMITED VIDEO DATA - Since ASL/LSQ is our native language, it is extremely important and must for Deaf people to use video on mobile phones to communicate each other, through video relay services or with their family or interpreters. At one time, I witnessed my friend to limit his use of video chat on his iPhone to talk to his wife and daughter to two minutes only because the mobile phone company gave him a very limited monthly data.

5) NO THREE-YEAR CONTRACT! - It is one of the most unfair and disadvantageous take or or leave options that the mobile phone companies have ever imposed on customers especially Deaf clients.

6) NO LOCK! - It is our ultimate right to switch to another mobile phone company from the mobile phone company that we find their services and/or plans unsatisfying. Also, it is a great disadvantage and unfair to us if we could not switch to a foreign mobile phone company during our oversea trip if our local mobile phone is locked. I had similar experience in my trip to Australia when my Blackberry smartphone was locked by one of national mobile companies.

7) NO PENALTY FOR BREAKING CONTRACT - We shall have rights to break the contract with the mobile phone company which fails to honor the contract that we agree upon or accommodate our needs without any penalty fees.

8) add the protection plan and put on blacklist for the stolen phone require to add IMEI.. so can track the phone. once into the system of all the company such as telus, bell, wind, etc. when a customer comes in and say want to purchase phone plan. IMEI will show up and "stolen" so they cant sell to customer and report to Police and who report stolen so can get it back the phone either way.. im single mom.. my children's phone stolen twice.. can not afford to buy new one and wasnt inform me that they do have protection plan..
Thank you

No more three year contracts! This has been banned in both the UK and the US. Why is there no traction in Canada on an issue? This needs to change.

Add me to the very long list of people who think contract lengths need to be shortened. To be honest, I think one-year should be maximum with the option of longer should people want them.

I also think phones should be unlocked at point of sale.

Price to pay for widespread networks in the 2nd largest country in the world with a tiny population size.

Disclaimer: I don't work for carriers. I think we already stiffly innovation and investing in this country and reducing the revenue streams for private sector companies is not going to help create jobs in a recession.. it may however cause these companies to cut back.

The title should read 99.9 % of all cell phone contracts....apologize for the typo!

Since 9.9% of all cell phone contracts are verbal in origin, clear, detailed description of the purchased product is a MUST. A HARD COPY needs to be issued.
Fixed contracts NEED to either be shortened (3 years is definitely too long) or abolish them all together.
Consumers need the flexibility to opt out of the cell phoine contracts within a given period of time, with no penalties.

I sympathesize with you but you need to make an effort. If you have a data problem don't expect the PM to call Rogers to fix it for you. If you call after the month is up... that's a little late.

I have been a rogers costumer for over 15 years.Paying ALL my bills on time and yet whenever I HAVE TO talk to them,they talk to me like i'm trying to ripe them off. I cannot wait to get rid of their wireless service.My son got a phone that never worked properly and by the time I was told by him, they calm it was too late.But when I was at the rogers store, the service person informed me that phone was discontinued because of the issues I mentioned.Should Rogers not be getting a hold of me that the phone is defect.....like car companies do.Rogers was to send me a used phone , luckly I had them text me that info because every time I called (took an hour) they knew nothing about it.So when I told them they took TOO LONG to send it, they told me I took TOO LONG TO COMPLAIN (1 HOUR EVERY TIME I CALLED).I finally came up with a solution , but was basically told no.....ALL I could get was a 50.00 credit for a 150.00 phone I paid for plus NO discount on a new one unless I took a 3 year contract.....My penalty for cancelling will end in a few months. Rogers service called back saying the same thing.....no deal to be made.When I said I cannot wait to cancel she just said maybe we can help you then.....knowing I am complete without choices here.....I have to ride out with a company who could care less if I am happy or not.We need 1 and 2 year contract.....3 years gives them way TOO much power, regardless of less fines/penalties or small perks.Make them prove to the costumer that we would like to stay with them for 3 years NOT FORCE US to stay with them.

Nobody is forcing you to sign a 2 or 3 year contract.
I bought my phone upfront. It cost me around 350$ used. I then proceeded to find a month to month plan and have none of the problems people describe here.

Complacency is probably the biggest problem in Canada from what I've seen. People don't go looking for the month to month plan. They also don't want to pay for their phone upfront and they end up accepting the 49$ iphone 5 and accept a new 3 year contract. If you sign a new three year deal to get the flashy new phone the only person you should be blaming is yourself. There are plenty of options out there. Like I said, I bought my smartphone in 2009 (fully paid for it) and it's still very relevant. It may not be the newest version smartphone but I chose wisely and it works very well is still very relevant in 2013.

Also to all the gadget addicts... an iPhone 3 is still very relevant in 2013. If you upgraded then you deserve to pay for it. End of story.

Summary: there are a lot of option. The big 3 aren't the only carriers out there. There are also month-to-month plans. You can also buy your phone upfront and find a month-to-month plan and then you won't need to sign a 2 or 3 year contract. Putting in effort pays off.

What I've come to understand the 3 year contracts are in place because you get the phones at a discounted price, so in turn by the time the 3 year is up your finished paying for your phone...I currently have the iPhone 5 my phone bill is around $300-400 per month even more at times!! I would say I've paid off for the iPhone 5 which retails at $730 from apple! I hate that I'm locked In for 3 years and in order for me to cancel its $20/month! Cell phone company's make a lot of money! We are so behind in everything we do take notes from Europe or the US when it comes to cellphones!

Nobody is forcing you to sign a three year contract.

Contracts are neccessary for people who want to finance phones.

If everyone could afford a 599$ or 699$ phone upfront, then I'd agree with getting rid of contracts.. but that's not realistic.

You're not being exploited in anyway. If you don't like the 3 year contract.. don't sign it. No one is forcing you too.

There are plenty of month to month plans. Go find one! I have one. Try Mobilicity for instance. I'm not with them .. I'm just giving you a hint!

1) I have a contract with Rogers Wireless and iphone model.
2) I had subscribed to a text plan only because I am Deaf and cannot hear the voice well enough
to carry a conversation on the phone.
3) The Rogers Wireless contract INSISTED that they cannot remove the voice feature on my
subscription therefore it is a waste of my "extra" dollars per month.
The average $10-$15 extra dollars per month x $120 per year.
4) There are approximately 35 million people living in all of Canada. Our best estimates that
at least 1% of this population translates to 350,000 are Deaf people who are primary sign
language users who just prefer to use the text messaging on their data plans.

5) It means the Wireless Companies across Canada are using the extra money of $120 per person
times 350,000 people = $42 million dollars profit.
What does those companies use the extra profit ?

6) With the extra profit in those Wireless Companies: Rogers, Telus, and Bell shall contribute
to the Disabilty fund the same amount $5 million dollars per year towards funding to the
establishment of the VIDEO RELAY SERVICES.

7) CRTC, would you consider an another alternative ? Advise us to go ahead with a CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT againist the wireless companies for profiting off us with forcing us to use the Voice
portion of the data plans with that average extra $10-$15 per month that we dont use at all ?

8) TWO options:
a) Class Action lawsuit and this lawsuit would individually refund all Deaf Subscribers the
portion of their "voice" on their data plans.
OR
b) The companies remedy the problem of the extra profit to be returned to the Deaf Community
by establishing the $42 million fund per year to support financially the Video Relay Services.

We have had it enough.

Whooaa.. of course you are going to pay more for a 2 year contract! Of course.
The carriers are giving you a deal to sign up with them for 3 years. It's a deal!!

If you don't like the 3 year deal.. then you must not like buy 2 t-shirts get one free deals either!

What you are asking for is not sensible. You're asking for the 3 year deal but applied to a 2 year deal. Uhmm. Sounds like getting your cake AND eating it.

1. 2 year contracts will cost you +95$ per month. Few people can afford that. 3 year contracts actually include deals and are far less 55-60$/month.

2. There is no oligopoly. You just need to look harder. Most people are complacent and keep falling for the 0$ or 49$ down iPhone 5 deal that the big 3 offer then complain. Nobody made you sign that deal and get that free or 49$ phone. Look at Mobility for instance. They are not part of the big 3. Options exist!

3. Agreed. Sender should be charged for sending the text

4. Incoming call charges should be free for the first minute. After that you are clearly into the conversation and anything after the first minute should then be charged again because you are using a service. 1 minute is plenty to find out who's calling and then hang up.

5. There are option.. Mobilicity is one, look for others, I'm not going to do all your work for you.

6. Maintenance, equipment, electricity costs exists. When you buy minutes the carrier is maintaining a network 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You are paying so that the wireless carrier makes spectrum available for you. It's like renting a home. The landlord gives you a key. If you don't use the home during your lease that is not the landlords fault. Spectrum is a limited resource and when you get a SIM card and buy minutes, the wireless carriers give you a key (in your SIM card) and they make the spectrum available. If you don't use it they still incur costs.

"I think you are wrong here. The title to the phone passes to the consumer at the start of the contract, unlike a lease of a car. If you buy a phone, even a subsidized one, it is yours. You own it."

@mdburges... starting with "i think" immediatly reduces the validity of your comment. The fact is you don't own the phone that is why you continue to pay for it after damaging it until the end of the contract.

but one of the main concern here is that We only have 3 years contracts and there is no choice available to consumer when choosing contracts. having both 2 years and 3 years contract priced fairly is having choice to consumers... Can you find me even 1 carrier which offers fair 2 year contracts... Umm I dont think so.. Plus i want to add to what you said "3 year contract may be 30$/month less than a 2 year contract" thats the whole point that carriers are exploiting 3 years contracts and forcing consumers to go with 3 years contracts.. P.S. Financing a car and Subidizing a cellphone 2 very very very different things.. Financing and Subsidizing are 2 different words and have 2 different meanings.. Please dont mix them up.

Having 3 years contract only does not offer choice, but having both 2 years and 3 years contract priced fairly is having choice to consumers... Can you find me even 1 carrier which offers fair 2 year contracts... Umm I dont think so.. Plus i want to add to what you said "3 year contract may be 30$/month less than a 2 year contract" thats the whole point that carriers are exploiting 3 years contracts and forcing consumers to go with 3 years contracts.. P.S. Financing a car and Subidizing a cellphone 2 very very very different things.. Please dont mix them up.

Absolutely agree with you. The chargers should be common for all phones! Great comment.

This already exists... just buy your phone upfront yourself. Done deal!

1. 3 year contracts allow some people to afford phone that they normally could not. It's financing. If we took financing away from the car sales industry, very few people could afford 20,000$ upfront. So I don't agree. Second, nobody forces you to sign a contract. I know many people that are month to month including myself. If you take the 0$ or 49$ down iPhone 5 and sign the 3 year deal that's entirely your fault. many people buy their phone upfront and don't have the problems you describe.

2. I agree with you here. There's no reason we should be paying for caller id.

3. I partially agree. Anything incomming should be free to a certain extend. The first 2 minutes could be free but after 2 minutes you are clearly enjoying the call/conversation and should pay for it like any other service or gadget.

4. There are many options, a lot of folks are just to complacent to leave one of the big 3 telecoms. Honestly, I've convinced many people that services are better at other smaller outfits but in the end they remain with one of the big 3 telecoms because they like getting the 0$ or 49$ down iPhone 5 upgrade.

Been doing the math, if there are 35,000,000 Canadians, at least 1% of this which is 350,000 can't even use voice or talk-time, which we pay $5-$15.00/ month. Again, emphasize we do NOT use voice or text talk, we can't anyway, we are stone Deaf! So, in sum if you consider the math, it means that wireless companies have been RIPPING the Deaf people off, to the tune of $3, 500, 000.00!!! With this astonishing number, a suggestion for a remedy, is to either force the wireless companies to refund the identified Deaf people the monies they've been paying for nothing, or collect the money to use toward other ACCESSIBLE modes of communication that the Deaf people want, like Video Relay Services, and that money is put forward to mobile apps or Internet based video relay services on the go. thank you for taking this into consideration!

Three year contracts offer choice to consumers.
Some folks could not afford 699$ or 599$ for a phone so it doesn't make sense to ban contracts. In fact a shorter term contract would only be more expensive and fewer people would have smartphones. Thank long term contracts for getting phones into more people's hands and also providing people with deals since the difference between a 3 year contract may be 30$/month less than a 2 year contract.

This is the same as allowing financing options on vehicules. To ban contracts would not be very smart.

I have noticed while watching this live streaming, that Telus, Bell , Rogers are really sucking up to this commission, but attitude is not the same when you contact them or their people on 611 further training needed and the group has not explained if get a defective hardware, retailers are lax on this and do not listen to service provider Future Shop is the worst.

I could not agree more. This is truly a discriminating policy. Time for this to change.

In addition to the able I would also like to clearly see, on each and every monthly statement, what the outstanding balance I have to compete the purchase of the device. I believe there should be a separation between the financing contract (for the device) and the service contract, the latter should have no term associated with it, the only "penalties" for early termination should be for the repayment of the financing contract in the device.

I completely agree with the OP, Highest price compared to other countries and longest contracts. Telecom companies in Canada are really enjoying milking poor consumers who are left without any real choice. Big 3 control all with almost same high price. Where is the real competition ?

When purchasing a phone on a subsidized plan the plan should break out clearly what portion of the monthly payment is going towards paying for the phone and what portion is going towards paying for service. When you finance a car in a similar fashion it is realitively easy to determine how much you are paying in financing fees, currently there is no such clarity in the pricing. This would allow people to make a rational comparison to decide whether to purchase outright or finance the phone in this manner.

Please ban this 3 years contract, no where in the world except Canada this kind of contract exist. We already paying such high prices per month compared to European and Asian countries, and these telecom companies also need to tie us in these long contracts.

The chances are that they will!

Remember this code should be in place under 6 months there are no excuses for not doing this.

And the other issue is who sets the pricing for the hardware? They are no longer selling cell phones that is wi fi only why is that, it is called greed, if I do not want a data plan that means that I do not want it.

Mitch, do your research. We pay the same monthly rate on our three year plans as other countries pay on their two year plans. We are getting ripped off.

Ummm wrong there "Myth Buster". Two year contracts for the same phones in the US (and elsewhere) run about the same monthly rate as our three year contracts. We are simply being ripped off.

- Follow Wind Mobile 'S Policy
- GET RID OF THREE-YEAR CONTRACT

Hope this includes not just prepaid cards, but when the provider tops you up every month with your credit card.

I would like to suggest that in the code it should be clearly specified that unlocking of devices should be done automatically by the original service provider, after minimum period of time and at no cost.

There should be no fees to have the phone, you purchased, unlocked. Subsidized phones should be paid off in full by contract end or cancellation of contract. At the that time, the unlock code and instructions should be text to the device. At the time the phone is paid off, the device belongs to the customer not the provider

What I'm opposed to the following 1. Access Fees 6.99, Forced Data Plans absolutely useless, I prefer wifi faster and more available, I have just paid $75.00 to Rogers to break a forced data plan that we have never used since the beginning they have made 25.00 per mth for 3 years this is more of a scam than a reasonable plan, also this committee which I have been watching at 1:39 pm pacific is conducted far to much in French, 2 or 3 years is not problem I'm in my third 3 year plan we have 3 smart phones under one account only 1 has data plan now, I use wifi only connected to my shaw combo modem system. There is no excuse for having this code up and running under 6 months, I do not know where this woman from Telecommunications came from on the live streaming, but gives the impression this people are lazy with nothing better do, like most Civil Servants in a department

GET YOU FACTS STRAIGHT

“Markets at play here”? Since when is an industry that has been protected by the Government for nearly 30 years resulting in 3 dominate players and little to no competition defined as markets at play or capitalism in any form?

Cellular providers in Canada must have majority Canadian ownership so were not giving anything away to foreign competition.

The Canadian Government invests hundreds of millions of dollars in small to large business, industry etc. every year. In this example instead of writing a cheque they would not collect a cheque on a one time basis. This would give new networks the same advantages Bell and Rogers received when they started out.

You clearly have not gone online to look at Bell, Telus and Rogers’ financial statement which are available. These companies are making billions every year and buying sports teams and radio stations instead of lowing prices for their customers and investing in infrastructure.

LTE and other technology is not developed by the networks. It is developed by outside companies and implemented by the networks.

The reality is, if Canada had 5 large national carriers bidding on spectrum in the future, the increased competition would bit up the amounts collected by the Government. Right now you have 3 major players and several smaller players whose future is in doubt. Giving them a one time exemption to catch up is an investment that would benefit every Canadian who owns a cell phone and would eventually allow the Government to collect higher fees.

As one of three hundred thousands Deaf Canadians, I would like to address several important issues based on my experience in dealing with mobile phone companies that CRTC MUST tackle down in best interests of Deaf customers across the country.

1) WAIVER FEES FOR VOICE DATA - It is one of the most audist and discriminating actions that the companies have ever done against Deaf customers. I was once told that I cannot have text number if I wanted to remove voice from my Blackberry smartphone during my discussion with Telus!

2) PLAIN ENGLISH OR FRENCH LANGUAGE IN CONTRACT - English and/or French language is not our first language as our first language is American Sign Language (LSQ) or Les Signes de Quebecios (LSQ). The legal lingo in contract is too hard or difficult for us to understand.

3) NO FINE PRINT IN CONTRACTS! - The contracts in fine print tend to be confusing and too hard to read. We have had some DeafBlind customers with limited visibility to read, who use mobile phone to text to their family, friends and colleagues.

4) A FLAT, REASONABLE RATE FOR UNLIMITED VIDEO DATA - Since ASL/LSQ is our native language, it is extremely important and must for Deaf people to use video on mobile phones to communicate each other, through video relay services or with their family or interpreters. At one time, I witnessed my friend to limit his use of video chat on his iPhone to talk to his wife and daughter to two minutes only because the mobile phone company gave him a very limited monthly data.

5) NO THREE-YEAR CONTRACT! - It is one of the most unfair and disadvantageous take or or leave options that the mobile phone companies have ever imposed on customers especially Deaf clients.

6) NO LOCK! - It is our ultimate right to switch to another mobile phone company from the mobile phone company that we find their services and/or plans unsatisfying. Also, it is a great disadvantage and unfair to us if we could not switch to a foreign mobile phone company during our oversea trip if our local mobile phone is locked. I had similar experience in my trip to Australia when my Blackberry smartphone was locked by one of national mobile companies.

7) NO PENALTY FOR BREAKING CONTRACT - We shall have rights to break the contract with the mobile phone company which fails to honor the contract that we agree upon or accommodate our needs without any penalty fees.

I had an issue with Bell Mobility because they charged me $128.00 for services after I had cancelled the contract. I refused to pay and they sent the bill to a collection agency. I resolved the issue by threatening legal action against the president and vice of bell and the collection agency. Companies should be required that a bill is valid before they can send it to a collection agency. The phone companies use this measure as a means to extort customers.

The biggest issue with the draft code is that it continues to ignore the problem with "long distance" and cell phones. When you leave your defined geographic region, which corresponds to a map on a wall somewhere, you are charged long distance to answer your phone, without being correspondingly notified that it is long-distance. This has always irked me. There is no principled reason why the cellular networks should not have to notify consumers about any long distance charges, and in fact, there already is such an obligation. The carriers use long distance charges in the way that roaming charges used to be applied, they are simply rebranded. This should be fixed.

There should never be an additional cost to answer your cellphone within Canada, regardless of whether your network is based in Halifax or Vancouver. There is no "additional travel distance" that must be compensated for. Alternatively, if there must be a charge, it should be on a notification system.

And i totally disagree with You and the part that manufacturer decide the price.. First go and check how much is Nexus 4( which is google LG phone) is sold by the Carries around 500 dollars and then compare it with how much google sells it for, which is 349.. go figure... BUt I do agree that the contract lengths should be limited to 2 years only..

The cellphone companies are arguing that the cancellation fees will fix the pricing issue automatically but why dont they want to reflect the fair pricing for 2 year contract upfront?? they are arguing that the 3 years contract are more popular among people, this is completely wrong. People choose 3 years contract because they are forced to by not giving any other options. The subisidy on 2 year contract is nothing and they still dont want to fix it. they just keep on saying that 2 years contract exist and people dont like them, which is completely worng. WAKE UP CRTC.

listen to the people...no 3 yr contracts, no locked phones.

also most of the "Suggested" draft is already being offered by cell companys...for instance reminder text for data usage...explantions about the contracts and the "unlimited" plans being "limited"...nothing new
great they have to explain this stuff to you; but they still have you handcuffed to locked phones with high rates and longterm contracts.
also no phone should be locked...
your saying that any phone bought without a contract must be unlocked, well they already have a way around that in such that they will not sell you phone without a contract. and in regards to the fee for unlocking your "subsidized" phone....
" unlock the device after no more than 30 days of service, at the rate specified in the contract " -so whats stopping them from charging a person an absurd amount of money to unlock "as per contract"

the entire draft is full of crap that bearly touchs on the issue on how were being ripped off.

As a retail cell phone salesperson I have seen and heard one wireless contract horror story after another and have lost my ability to be shocked at the treatment of some customers by their carriers. Ending 3 yr contracts plus all of the other recommendations for the Code must be adopted ASAP to prevent more abuses by wireless carriers here in Canada.

Despite the fact that many of the issues highlighted by the CRTC reflect a concern regarding Canadian consumers' ability to be flexible within the wireless market (move freely from one carrier to another), I submit that consumer habits and preferences indicate that flexibility isn't the primary concern for customers, its transparency. Canadians just want to be treated fairly by the carrier they've chosen. They want the service they're promised, at the price they agreed to and they want to receive adequate customer service when there are issues and questions, not 20-40 minute hold times, (more if a supervisor is required to satisfy the customers needs) and endless loopholes between customer service, retention, or other departments.

Not to belabor the point, but I would also submit that wireless carriers do encourage consumer flexibility through both their poor customer service, or outright polices. The carriers themselves admit that existing customers are a lower priority, and that new customers will always be treated better than existing ones, especially on subsidized (rebated) phones and more. For example, despite 3 long years, and often more than $1800 invested in a carrier (whose profit margins are significant), existing customers hoping to renew are told they will have to pay as much as double the new activation price on the phone they want at the point of sale, plus they will not be eligible for gift cards or other incentives awarded new customers.

As a renewing customer, many feel they are faced with a tough choice, and often go with the "devil they know", choosing to pay more in the store rather than deal with finding a new plan, or thinking about mastering another self-serve account and mobile app, or bill paying process.

Great to finally see some action on this issue. I look forward to informing customers of what they can expect from the CRTC.

I was listening to the CRTC hearing and the member of telecommunication association gave an example of how Galaxy S3 is offered for $99 on 3 years in canada and $199 on a 2 years contract in US. She for forgot to mention that how much is it offered on 2 years contract in canada which is $400. Is this a Joke??

Lowering will never happen because it is so hard to determine a fair price. 3 year contracts should be abolished though.

To be fair I disagree with your statement. It is rare that carriers increase device costs. It is the manufacturers that determine the cost of a phone.

They loose money on each phone they sell outright.

What should be illegal is the fact that after your contract is done you still pay the subsidized contract price on your bill each month. Also to add the fact that our contracts are 3 years in length are disgusting.

If the CRTC truly wanted to help canadians they would decrease the length of contracts allowed.

I use a prepaid service. They do not provide a usage meter or time remaining meter that is accessible on the internet and this is totally unacceptable. If an emergency arose it could be that there would be no time left and the call could not be made. The user would never know this until too late.

I suggest that this lack of a usage meter and time remaining is rather like owning an automobile with no gas gage. Fill up then drive until your car just stops because its out of gas. That is what your cell phone does with these execrable providers.

I will go further and state a way to provide the best gage, every time the cell phone is turned on to make a call, the network should send and display the dollar amount remaining and the time remaining based on the known location of the phone. If it is a roaming and in long distance location, the network knows the charges per minute and can let the user know the time based charges.

Of course the networks don't want their users to know how much a call will cost or how much time is left on a purchased usage basis. Force the network owners to drive automobiles with no gas gages and see how they like this type of "service".

First off. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart thank you for actually reviewing the almost illegal practises Rogers and Bellus hold over Canadians.
Secondly I don't believe you are fully hearing what we are asking for. Yes our bills are high but that is not what we are asking for.
We are asking for choice and the power to leave on REASONABLE terms.
Three year terms are almost exclusive to Canada, It's down right illegal in most countries but in Canada it's the norm. I have read hundreds of these comments and blogs online and almost all the comments are the same.

We just want shorter contracts and no fees to cancel our account AFTER we have served out our contract.
Can you imagine if after you bought a house and finally finished paying for the mortgage only to find out if you want to stop paying your monthly fee you have to pay a cancelation fee?

This business practise is killing competition as large companies such as rogers and bell use up front sales to attract new customers to sucker them into never leaving because it's almost impossible to leave the contract without a 200+ cancelation fee.

Please. PLEASE hear Canadians voices. We don't want better understandings of our contracts. We understand them FULLY. what should be illegal is 3 year contracts and cancelation fees after your contract is served!

Maybe 10% of all Canadians unlock their phones to move to another carrier but 99% of Canadians want to know they have the freedom to try another service without being penalized half their paycheque for the availability to do so.

Cellular companies should have to show, in detail, on customers bills/invoices, how much they are charging for a fee, how much it ACTUALLY costs to provide that fee and show how much profit the provider had made on the given service.

Cellular companies claim they are charging reasonable fees, which happen to be ludicrous if compared to fees ANYWHERE else on Earth, NOW is the time for cellular providers to prove their claims.

Cellular companies in Canada should have to show how much we are charged for cellular services, how much it ACTUALLY cost the cellular company/provider to provide the service AND show the difference between the two, the profit the cellular company/provider makes for the service.

The idea behind this is to make aware to every Canadian just how much money Canadians are spending on their cellular contracts/services. Cellular companies have continued to dictate to Canadians that they are charging "fair" fees for the services they provide, now it is time for them to PROVE their claims.

Nowhere else on Earth are cellular fees so high. It is time that the Canadian government step in to put an end to overpriced cellular fees/contracts.

One of the main issues NOT addressed at all is the issue of device plugs! It should be policy in Canada as it is in Europe that ALL devices operate useing the same commen USB plug for chargeing and inter device/computer interface.
This would MASSIVELY cut the number of chargers going into the garbage and would also mean that any after market accessories would work with ALL devices. This should apply to all electronic devices that require an interface (i.e. Ipod, Ipad, phones, mp3 players, computers and any other electronics). This would mean that an individual would only need one duel (socket/12 volt Auto) adapter for all the devices they own and would simplify the after market purchase arana for manufactureres and consumers.

This is a group response from the CCT219 Culture, Change, and Innovation class of the Interactive Digital Media program at the University of Toronto. We have discussed the Draft Code and these are the concerns and recommendations that we believe should be included or considered.

Options for the design of the Wireless Code when distributed to customers:
1) Paper-based code
A paper based code is immediate. The design of it should be aesthetically pleasing (using colored paper and 12 pt Arial font)

2) Digital version
This can be in the form of a video, website or mobile application.

Website: The website should be interactive with links to new updates of the code

Interactive contract sign-up: A standardized, web-based contract for mobile customers to sign up manually. The contact will provide the set of terms that all mobile companies must to adhere to. Users can agree to these terms online and select their contract settings and options. The completed contract is sent to the company and by email to the users with the option to print out the form. Users should have access to this contract at will.

Avatar: Each provider can have an iconic virtual avatar which appears on the newly acquired mobile phone or on a website that the customer is directed to upon signing up for the contract. The avatar will be customized to reflect the marketing scheme of the particular provider. There is the chance for avatars to diminish the seriousness of the contract and it may be better to keep a simpler design like the interactive contract sign-up. However, avatars can keep viewers engaged and also help to explain certain terms in the contract that someone may need clarification on. User testing will be necessary to see if this avatar works for all users.

Combination of Avatar and online sign-up: Possible concern with this is that the avatar may not be appropriate for all audiences, age groups, and demographics.

Combination of a paper based contract and an online version

When discussing the content to include in the wireless code and the flexibility and content of mobile contracts that will be distributed to customers, we have gathered these suggestions:

Contracts
- Three year contracts are too lengthy; contracts should be a year in length
- The length of contract as well as price based on length and use should be made clear in contracts
- If you are paying for a (x) year contract, phone providers should provide you with a working phone at all times
- Penalties: consequences of terminating service early should be clearly outlined
- A notification by text and by bill should tell customers when they are due to renew their contracts
- If a contract ends without renewal, customers should be billed monthly
- Option for no contract should always be available

Devices and Damages
- A list of the details and specifications of the mobile phone itself; including applications and pricing; damage contracts; reasons for the company not agreeing to fix a damaged phone; warranty information and what this covers; policies about natural damages; what comes with the phone and what does not

Flexibility
- Customers should have the ability to block numbers and services that they do not wish to be included in their bill

Privacy
- Customers should know what providers do with the personal information on phones (if taken in for repair, etc.); customers should be given the option to opt out of any privacy invasions done by the provider
- There should be a guide for customers to mobile phone privacy
- Informing customers of mobile privacy should be the responsibility of the mobile phone providers
- A mobile privacy test should be given to customers before they sign up for a contract; those who complete the test should get credit on their phone bill

When designing the look of the wireless code and deciding on the content to place in it, the following are important to keep in mind:
- Keep the design and content standardized and simple
- Question how to standardize something across a diverse audience (age, language, etc.)
- Reflect on where people often stumble in reading contracts: why do they not read them; how may the design limit some users from interacting?

We hope that you take our suggestions in to consideration!

When a company says that you should get a certain upload and download speed they should have to guarantee that you get that speed no matter what the conditions are have to give back portion of the fees that you pay for not supplying the speeds!

I was told we in canada have some of the highest cell phone rates in the world. Anything we can do to lower that at all?

Completely Agree with this. We pay for the phone whether it is Subsidized or Cash. It is like financing a car and having your gas tank locked on and the dealer telling you where to fill the gas.

The providers have us on contact and they have the means to collect. Why also lock our phones?

Yes. It is annoying to pay for services such as "unlimited after hours and weekend usage" when I am in my home with a "No Service" message. Why am I being charged for 911 access when I need to be capable of leaving the premises to call for emergency help?

CRTC Should seriously think about carriers charging customers for incoming calls. In most countries, charging customers for incoming calls are considered illegal and are stipulated by law. When operators charge for incoming calls, they make double profits because they charge both the caller and the person called. This is totally unacceptable. I invite CRTC to explore the corresponding legislation and best practices around the world to help making Canada's telecom market more competitive.

If reasonably good outside reception was the standard for the Provider , then the subscriber has something to work with and take responsiblity for inside.

Prohibit 3 year contracts! Pretty much every other developed nation only has 2 year contacts and some nations even ban contracts exceeding 2 years. I feel like i'm held hostage in a 3 year contact. most phones only tend to last 2 years, which means you either have to pay ridiculous cancellation fees, expensive costs for a new device to purchase outright, or you have to sign into a new 3-year contract with your carrier to get them to allow you to get an "early upgrade" thus starting the 3-year cycle over.

Majority of phones from the big 3 in Canada are ONLY available on 3 year, without even the option to pay a bit more up front to only have a 1 or 2 year contract. Then if you ARE able to find a phone that allows 1 or 2 year - the cost is completely disproportional to the cost of the phone. For example, one of the few phones even available on less than a 3 year from Bell is the "Samsung Rugby II". 3-year contract: $80, 2-year: $250, 1-year: $275, no contract: $299. They have purposely made the upfront cost of buying the device on a shorter contract disproportional higher just to rope you into the 3-year term.

One alternative is to uncouple the phone from the plan. For example: The plan itself costs $40/month, then the device costs $600. So if you chose a 2 year contract you would divide $600/24 = $25, then you add that to your $40 plan for a monthly bill of $65/mo. Of course you would have the option to select a 0 or 1 or 3 year contract and amortize across the length of the contract. This also prevents people with less expensive devices from essentially paying for expensive devices owned by someone else as is the case in the current system.

Prepaid service.

Thank you for addressing the termination date of the prepaid service. I think it is unfair that they will cancel you service if you do not add time before the termination date.

Mr Jean-Pierre Blais,

I honestly feel insulted by the the Draft Code. Thousands of Canadians have voiced their problems with the wireless industry and it seems you have completely ignored the important changes that are required.

I will repeat the same three points that come back often:

1) No more 3 years contract. It is totally unaccceptable that we are locked into 3 years of contract. At the very least, people with no contract should be offered a rebate per month because they were not subsidized for a new device.

2) Caller ID should not be an option! More wireless carriers around the world have it included, why should we pay for it? There are no expense attached to it for the carriers.

3) Anything incoming should be free, Europeans laugh at us when we mention ''Unlimited Incoming'' plans. It does not make any sense that we are charged for incoming calls.

4) Please stop this oligopoly between the three major carriers. Is it not an illegal practice?

Device unlocking fee

Most of the Canadian wireless operators subsidize the devices with multi year contracts and in turn put device locking in place. When subscriber want to disconnect the service he is left with portion of subsidies of remaining term, which is completely understandable that has to be paid. What I don’t understand is that wireless operators charge fee something like $50 for providing unlocking password for device.
To start with subscriber already signs the contract for multi years, then why to lock the device. I would say keep device unlocked, incase of locking then operator should provide unlocking key after 90 days for no cost. By charging for unlocking, wireless operators are adding to price of already expensive smartphones.

I would like to suggest that in the code it should be clearly specified that unlocking of devices should be done after minimum period of time and at no cost.

Thanks.

The real problem I have with the locked in contract is the cost of replacing your phone should it become broken or damaged

Once you are outside your phone's warranty period, if something happens to it, you are forced to pay the "off contract" price or worse, resort to things like Kijji to buy phones outside the "regular markets"

The cellular companies should think about this, you have me locked into your contract, do you really want me to buy a phone from some one other than you because it is much less expense OR do you want to give me a fair price for the new phone and most likely keep me as a customer at the end of my contract because you were reasonable with me when I needed you

Paying over $700 for a phone when I have 8 months left in my contract is NOT a fair business practise nor is making continue to pay for services I can't fully unitlize because my current phone is broken

I would like to see this issue adressed as well as I know I am not the only person in this situation

There should be no charge for incoming texts and calls. Only outbound calls and texts should be charged.

I believe it is critical that pre-paid should not expire... you have given money in good faith and it should not have a timelimit as it is in other countries...as possibly suggested in Option 2: Before an agreement is made for pre-paid services using pre-paid cards, the
service provider will inform the consumer of the conditions applicable to the pre-paid
balance, including usage period (what does this imply?), and explain how the consumer can check their
remaining pre-paid balance. The service provider will provide this information
separately if it does not appear on the pre-paid card or certificate. The service provider
must indicate whether they charge a fee for the purchase of a pre-paid balance. The
service provider may not apply an expiry date to credits purchased for the use of
pre-paid service.

Devices should never be allowed to be sold locked regardless whether there is an incentive to be on a contract. Once the payment terms of the contract are being fulfilled, the device should be able to be used by the consumer however he/ she chooses. This means being able to change SIM cards whenever the consumer wants. The only purpose locking phones serves is to limit consumer choice and milk them for more fees.

1)BAN THREE YEARS contract. A three year old cell phone is obsolete.
2)Wireless Carriers must include Call display, and voicemail in all plans, no exceptions.
3)Long distance charges should go away soon. They have gone away everywhere else in the world.
4)Cancelling charges - cancel them. pun intended.
5)Remove sim locks.
6)lower data usage fees

Thanks!

I live in a rural area and one thing that will happen is that the large companies won't expand high speed Internet into them because of the density of population when the wireless code is adopted. To make this equal for rural residence they should have to supply unlimited usage for wireless Internet! This would help develope equality between urban and rural areas.

Where you are proposing a notification of over usage this could be a easy fix by requiring the wireless carriers to supply a usage icon on the screen when wireless is in use showing on going up to fade of data usage than the onus would be on the consumer to curtail the usage! Bell has a usage mete on their sticks for laptops?

Issue: Unacceptable definition of "Service Standard" for Coverage.
I live in a community of 1,200 people about 40 kms from Ottawa, ON. Even though we have "full coverage" on the map, we have fair to poor coverage and no reception inside the house. The Provider agrees that we are near a "dead zone" among several area towers. I can get cell reception on my driveway or outside in the backyard. The Provider considers this acceptable because they have met their "Service Standard" if they can provide reception anywhere on the property.
As a small business, I can not include my cell as a contact unless I am prepared to work outside. I would look silly working at my desk on the driveway during the winter.
Surely the "Service Standard" should include reasonable reception inside the dwelling.

Other people have explained it more eloquently, but three year contracts are ridiculous!

Two comments:

1) I don't think the unlocking rules are strong enough. It should always be free of charge to unlock your phone, subsidized or not. Early termination fees cover the subsidy costs if you switch carriers. You shouldn't have to pay extra if you want to put in a local SIM when travelling abroad. Carriers should be required to make unlocking services available at no charge to all subscribers after 30 days. Prepaid phones should never be locked.

2) We need a restriction on term length (no more than 2 years).

Listening to the hearings on the draft wireless code, I have two thoughts:

1. The Chair discussed not knowing whether additional costs are added for buying devices unlocked. This information should be discovered and as I suspect it is a preference that the carrier requests at an additional cost. This means requiring unlocked devices only should cost the carriers less and they can provide the savings to consumers, although will hurt carriers by allowing easier churn. This should be investigated as part of the hearings on the code.
2. If 3 year contracts are allowed, amortized 1 and 2 year contracts should be required. However, a 2 year maximum should be required as we see in other countries.

The draft code include some welcome ideas but overall I think the CRTC has not been bold enough on behalf of consumers.

The sorry lack of competition is what has brought us all here in the first place. To me, the wireless code is really just a band aid to the sad fact that Rogers, Bell and Telus have a wireless cartel. I would gladly move to one of the smaller carriers but none provide service for where I live, notwithstanding the difficulty in moving to another carrier.

An issue which should be incorporated into the wireless code is that all incoming calls should be free. This is the model used widely in Europe. It is a comment that several submitters made in the first round and is just as important as those covered in the draft wireless code. The carriers are able to make money from both ends of a phone call (receiver/caller). When one uses a landline, we do not expect to pay for calls that we receive. Why should mobile phones be treated differently? I have a "pay for each minute used" plan, no free minutes, so incoming calls cost me, even if it is a wrong number or it is a call from a marketer.

In the first round of comments, the majority of comments seemed to have identified 3 big issues: (a) contract length, (b) roaming charges and (c) locked phones.

(a) Most people seem to be demanding the end of 3 year contracts but the draft code is silent on this. The wireless code can not be considered of any use to consumers unless this issue is addressed, that is, a limit is placed on contract duration. I believe it is wrong of the CRTC to think that given consumers more information regarding billing and cancellation fees somehow makes up for the negative effects of 3 year contracts.

(b) The wireless code must include some limits on how much the carriers can charge for roaming. It is not sufficient to just ask carriers to provide notification, as specified in section D5. These exorbitant fees are totally unrelated to any real costs. Again, look to Europe and how the EU has put a stop to massive roaming charges people were incurring. Giving people the ability to put an upper limit on their bills so that they do not suffer from huge charges is admirable but still does not address the real issue of how roaming fees are not justifiable. Case in point: I joined Fido in 1997 and roaming fees in Europe were only 10 cents/minute! When Fido was bought by Rogers in 2004, the fees went up to $2/minute. There is no transparency as to the reason why roaming fees are as high as they are and the carriers must be forced to stop overcharging. Do I really need to buy a foreign SIM for every country to which I travel?

(c) Section 7 Unlocking Wireless devices. What more can be said about locked phones? All locked phones must be unlockable free of charge, especially when there is no subsidy owing. I have a drawer full of 'locked' phones no longer in use but yet my carrier is still asking $250/each to unlock them, some 5-7 years after I stopped using them. Carriers must not have the ability to sell a locked unsubsidized phone nor can charge for unlocking a phone. Therefore, in section D7.1, option 2 is better than option one. However, carriers should never be able to sell a locked unsubsidized phone as it just continues the anti-competitive nature of the big 3 carriers.

The hearing begin today. It will be interesting to hear if the most mentioned comments from Canadians, 3 year contracts and locked phones, are even mentioned.

I'll mention that allowing locked phones at all, though they have not one thing do to with the contract, is clearly and simply allowing restraint of trade.

That snippet from the ToS only applies to Rogers. Bell has not yet implemented anything of the sort. Rogers only implemented it because they smelled the regulation that was already being passed and read in various provinces.

Cell phone contracts should contain the breakdown of the costs between the phone and the service.
The phone cost should include all the amortization details, just like any other loan. Service contracts, or month-to-month service, should not be allowed to double dip and charge higher rates because the phone was not purchased. The difference between purchasing a phone up front (from the carrier or not) and going month-to-month and buying a phone on contract should be very similar, taking into account the amortization of a phone purchased on contract.

If this isn't the case, it essentially allows the providers to charge you for not accepting their crap and advertising package software on the phone that they likely receive more money for. If the amount of the phone subsidy is not clearly defined, it allows them to charge more for purchasing a phone up front and discourage people from not locking themselves in.

That phone amortization amount is the biggest hidden fee in cell phone contracts at the moment.

This is non-sense. As the original poster stated very clearly, if you get a subsidized phone and leave your contract early, you are obligated by law to repay the carrier for the subsidy. In a society governed by the rule of law, it is wholly unnecessary to force a consumer's hand by locking a cell phone.

The bank that holds your mortgage or car loan relies on the rule of law to protect its rights, surely this can work for a cell phone carrier as well. After all, a mortgage holder or car lender could be out thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a cell phone is worth much less than that!

prepaid minutes or the $ amount should not expire under any circumstances. prepaid means you use what you own, if they expire then it should be named monthly prepaid where you pay first then use it and should be allowed to add in any $ amount not a fixed $ amount. such a rip off

I really hope new implementations have an effect on cost.
Personally, I believe that perhaps getting sucked into a 3 year contract wouldn't be so bad if wireless rates were much more reasonable. $70/mo. for a basic data plan with voicemail, caller ID, 500 MB data, unlimited txt, and 200 week-daytime minutes would be put to shame across the rest of the world. It's un-economical, but It's the best my carrier has to offer. If we were able to look outside of our north american bubble, we would note that costs for simply keeping a basic data phone active month to month are substantially less around the would compared to what we pay.

There is also quite the amount of fine-details (in terms of costs) that are not relayed over to the consumer, such as the consumer's airtime is affected when people leave voicemails, and it affects your airtime when checking voicemails on your own handset. None of this information is ever presented to the consumer when setting up the features, or the contract itself & is ultimately a financial trap for the consumer.

Lower rates. That's what I'd like to see.

I think you are wrong here. The title to the phone passes to the consumer at the start of the contract, unlike a lease of a car. If you buy a phone, even a subsidized one, it is yours. You own it. You can smash it into the ground if you like and it makes no difference to the telecom. Of course, you have to keep paying a monthly bill for 36 months, because you are contractually bound to do that. A lease works very differently.

Even if a lease didn't work differently, the use of the lease as an argument to allow phone locking is weak, at best. Car companies don't restrict how you can use a leased car. They give you the keys and say, "See you at the end of your lease. If you go over your mileage allowance, you will have to pay extra, but you are welcome to do that if you want to." In other words, as the driver of a leased car, you can do anything you want with it. You can buy your gas from Petro-Canada, Shell, Esso or not buy any gas at all. A locked cell phone works differently. It basically says, "Okay, take your phone away and we will see you at the end of the contract for you to buy a new one, but you can only buy your minutes from us for the next three years, even if you pay your phone off early or terminate your contract any repay the subsidy." In the car analogy, this is like being restricted to only buying gas from Petro-Canada.

Draft should also include phone hardware warranty same as the contract period.

Locking is unnecessary because even if a consumer opts to move carriers after getting a subsidized phone they are obliged to pay the carrier that subsidized the phone for the remainder of the subsidy. That is a legal obligation that has nothing to do with whether the phone is locked or not.

So, if the carrier was banned from locking phones, and I buy a subsidized one from TELUS on Jan 1 and decide to move to Rogers on Feb 1, I still am required to pay TELUS for the remaining subsidy. (If it is a $500 subsidy on a three year contract, I would have to pay just over $485 to TELUS when I move to Rogers, in this example.) This legal obligation exists whether the phone is locked or not. The fact that the phone is locked simply means I can't take the phone to Rogers with me even though I repay the subsidy to TELUS. That is wasteful and non-sensical. Until very recently, TELUS wouldn't let you unlock iPhone's at all. This meant that a person who switched carriers had to repay the subsidy and then buy a brand new phone to make the switch.

Locked phones are unfair to consumers - by no means is it theft.

That is a terrible analogy. It is illegal for a landlord to rent a house to more than one person at a time - therefore, the time that you have the right to use the property is the governing factor. Cell phone networks don't work like that at all. Many, many people use the same network all at the same time. Whether or not you use 200 minutes this month, or next month, makes no difference to a company like Bell in the large scheme of things because they have millions of other customers that are using the network this month. One person out of a million has zero impact on the network infrastructure.

This is not to say that it isn't important for every single person to be charged for the amount they use the network. But your analogy to renting houses does not hold up in this context.

Ban three year contracts.

Three year contracts should be banned because mobile phones don't last three years these days. Most phones come with one year warranties; sometimes these can be extended to two years. If a manufacturer is unwilling to bet that a phone will last longer than two years, why do we force consumers to make this bet?

In the US, two year contracts are the norm, and phones typically sell for the same price as they do in Canada on three year contracts. Enough is enough - stop letting telecoms rip consumers off by forcing three year contracts on us!

I believe that the draft document addresses the majority of the pain-points that Canadian are feeling. This said, I believe that Canadians are paying MUCH MORE for the same feature / benefits / level of cellular service than the rest of the world. This is especially true on the data side of the discussion.

The primary issue is the lack of "true competition". The competitive landscape has seen some improvements with the entrance of Wind, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile forcing ROBELUS to create their tier 2 brands (Solo, Chatr, Koodo, etc). Although these tier 2 brands have a better price than their parent companies, they do not have the same functional offers (for example, an appropriate data allowance).

Wind, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile have a better value proposition (price), however, their coverage is VERY poor and they're unable to provide 4G/LTE speeds (lack of frequency). As well, since ROBELUS has the market tied down with their onerous multiyear contracts, the new entrants can not truly compete on an even footing for many more years.

The real competitive landscape needs to be crafted by forcing these providers to commit to specific expansion plans before being granted a license for said frequencies. As well, we MUST allow this competition to be opened to additional cellular providers that possess the financial ability to rapidly expand into tier 1 providers. These would include the likes of AT&T, Verizon.

We need to open the market to other LARGE carriers thatsee additional providers (AT&T, Verizon.

Technically neither are cheaper the only "cheaper" part is the down payment on the phone itself

The carrier locking is unacceptable. Furthermore, paying for the unlocking once contract is over is outrageous. It doesn't cost mobile carriers a cent to send you an unlocking code. Then one wonders about the motivation of mobile carriers for applying unlocking charges. In this respect, Canada is way behind Europe where the impression I got was that the choice of a phone and a mobile carrier are two independent processes meaning there is no such a thing as carrier locking!

You mean like the government does using "income tax" ? lol

I went through the Draft Code myself and listed the options I felt were fair that's just my opinion "
A3 Opt 1
B1 Opt 2
B2 Opt 1
D1.3 Opt 2
D2.1 Opt 1
D3.3 Opt 2
D3.4 Opt 1
D7.1 Opt 2
D10.1 Opt 1

Those being the "fairier" of the options in my opinion

Now, The reasons for my issue with Bell Mobility are as follows:

Blackberry Curve 3GS phones were full of bugs and everyone i know that got stuck with one on a contract had them break down completely after multiple trips for repairs within the 1 year warranty and shortly after it requiring them to purchase new phones.

Cell Phone Manufacturers should be required after a certain amount of negative reports on a cell phone brand to replace the phone free of charge when it breaks down. (provided it wasn't water damaged of course)

There should be a maximum allowed "locked term" of 2 years as THE REST OF THE WORLD except Canada is using 2 year terms. That's not to say there can't be additional perks set to take a longer term but after 2 years the customer should be able to cancel without early termination fees.

I myself have 4 accts with Bell not by choice, My wife and I both got "lemon" phones and were sent for repairs mulitple times during the warranty and once they broke down again after the 1 year warranty, I was forced to sign up for 2 new accounts to get "discounted" phones to continue service. However, Unless i paid $50 per month ($20 per remaining month plus $30 dollars for data services on the broken accounts for the full 3 year term) it would negatively impact my credit.
(ie. The phones broke down completely at 14 months into the contract, 2 months after the warranty expired. Thus i have been forced and am currently forced to pay $50 per month for services NOT being provided for 22 months of the contract. I am now into my last 8 and 9 months of the contracts
(My wifes and my own) so essentially to abide by the terms, I have had to pay Bell Mobility $50 per month for each of the 2 phones for the last 13 months (total $1300) for NOTHING and i've tried multiple times to cancel but would be forced to pay the remaining balance outright instead of over the continued term therefore i remained with the $50 per month fees.
I know i'm not the only being "ripped off" in this way.

This must be change!!!
1. I signed 3 year contact with Rogers and cellphone broke after 2 months. It took Rogers to figure out that phone not repailble for around 2 months and another phone was sent to me. When i checked my availability for upgrade phone, provider told me that because I received new phone we shifted your upgrade to two months.

This is absurd!. I used my old phone those two months.

2. Why should I pay activation fee everytime when I upgrade cellphone and sigh another contract???

Contract must not be 3 years and data charge must be less expancive. It does not cost to providers much.

My biggest concern is being charged for incoming long distance calls that I have know controll over when the caller is already being charged for the call. The length of contracts is also a big concern.

Over the past 20 years we have been to hell and back with the big 3 cell phone companies. The minister of finance is warning Canadians about incurring too much debt. Contracts and leases are the worst form of debt because you cannot get out of them. You can pay off your credit cards you can pay off a car loan. You can't pay your way out of a cell phone contrat. We tried to avoid a contract last year by buying cell phones outright and pre-paying month to month. Guess what? Telus limited the features we could access. You have to have a contract in oder to access all the feature. They are actually smug at the local store when they rtell you this. Ha ha we got you. Then if you forget to prepay for the next month, they gobble up the time you still have left in about 10 minutes. The bottom line is they are allowed to steal and the CRTC and Consumer affairs are letting them. If any average Canadian tried to do something similar we would find ourselves in front of a judge facing fraud charges. Why are these companies above the law? Eliminate contracts all together. They are too complex. You need to be a Harvard Lawyer to understand them and the average Canadian cannot afford to challenge them. They are tyotally one-sided in favour of the seller. One more thing is all of the government business along with crown corporations, healt authorities, and the big blue chip companies are keeping the rates inflated. So unless you have a phone supplied to you by your employer you are at a great disadvantage. By the way, where is the CRA on employer provided phones. Is this not a taxable benefit? So even you CRTC people have a big advantage over the rest of us with your supplied blackberry's while the rest of us have to pay high rates because you guys keep them inflated.

I would like the wireless providers to clearly state the value added offers they provide. For example, Rogers has advertised that if you are a customer of theirs, and your phone breaks, they will give you a replacement one to use whilst they fix your current phone. They don't tell you the replacement device won't be equivalent in functionality as yours that is being fixed. If you bought a smartphone (or were in contract with them), they will replace it with some very cheap non-smartphone. They have also advertised they will replace your broken phone for you - but they don't tell you the replacement will not be a smartphone but a cheaper one. Please, say the truth.

I agree with many other commentators here. Three year contracts should not be an option.

As someone from the I.T. field, I see computer changes and updates on a regular basis. Most computers last 3-5 years, however phones evolve much more quickly. Phones have an average life of 2 years before newer models and newer technologies crop up to adequately warrant an upgrade. In one case, some older model blackberry devices were on a CDMA or 3G network, while the newer ones are on 4G networks. Some users still have a year or even two left before their old contract expires and as such will be subjected to the slower network speeds until their contract runs out.

In an age where access to information is very important, being able to do exactly that quickly and efficiently is not only beneficial for common reasons, but also for safety reasons. Take for example a chemical spill has occurred on the side of the road . To emergency responders, being able to pull up a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) quickly is a boon. Or perhaps at an actual chemical plant where MSDS papers are located nearby, it may be quicker to pull them up on a phone or tablet on the current 4G networks.

While I realize MSDS papers are required both on the road and in a chemical plant, perhaps going into the future as technology further integrates with our lives, having the ability to access them on a phone or tablet in the future will replace needing physical papers.

This also leads to my second point. Adequate phone coverage should exist for most major areas and routes of travel. While this is a bit beyond the scope of this draft, having phone coverage along the entire trans Canada highway no matter which provider you're on should be a must. Currently the Ontario corridor between Kenora and Sault St. Marie is patchy at best. This needs to be addressed.

In tandem with the above point, the fastest network speed (or generation of network) should also be available to everyone in a timely manner.

Finally one big point I'd like to bring up is phone providers should allow all software updates to be rolled out on all available phones. Many Android models (for example) receive software updates, however it is up to the providers to actually make the update available to the phones on their network. The Samsung Galaxy series of phones is an excellent example of a good working model, however many other brands of Android phones are stuck on older operating systems. Typically within 6-8 months, a similar hardware capable Android phone (from a different vendor) is released with a newer operating system. This leaves some users with a phone that they can not upgrade the operating system on for the remainder of their contract.

We have seen many cases where upgrading your phone hardware makes a difference, and especially if the new hardware allows you to connect to a faster network. However software updates are just as critical too. Software updates include many optimizations which can make phones run better, faster, save battery life and so on. Software updates also can add new features within the phone, and thus can keep an old phone feeling new for the duration of the contract.

In summary:
1) Three year contracts need to be eliminated, a maximum of two years should be set.
2) All software updates for every brand of phone that are released should be available and passed on to users on any network.
3) There should be adequate network coverage Canada wide as well as plans put in place to continue to upgrade network speeds and capacities.

My quip is with the cell phone companies forcing consumers to sign three year contracts that allow the company to change the signed contract. I know of no other contracts set-up like this, and I'm a contractor! If I agree to the terms of a contract for a specific duration then so should they. That's what a contract is. Telus upping rates at their pleasure, ( as more money pleases anyone ), during a contracts duration should be illegal and probably already is. Make them play by the rules and , please, protect us from these profiteers.

My quip is with the cell phone companies forcing consumers to sign three year contracts that allow the company to change the signed contract. I know of no other contracts set-up like this, and I'm a contractor! If I agree to the terms of a contract for a specific duration then so should they. That's what a contract is. Telus upping rates at their pleasure, ( as more money pleases anyone ), during a contracts duration should be illegal and probably already is. Make them play by the rules and , please, protect us from these profiteers.

The other day I wanted to remove an "add-on" package that included caller I.D., voice mail, voice mail to text and text messaging spam filter. When I sent to cancel it I had to pay for it on my next bill which I understood. BUT to my surprise I got charged a fee for canceling the add-on package which I think a fee shouldn't be included and I even did it online and got my phone bill with a charge of $11 to prove it.

A company forcing you to give them money for a longer period of time is not a deal...
Every other industrialized country in the world offers a better deal than we get for a 3-year plan but they only need a 1 or 2 year contract.
Just because they tell you it's a great deal, doesn't mean it is a great deal...

There needs to be a flat fee for cancelling your contract. You are held "hostage" by the cell companies, when they tell you you can cancel, and then proceed to add up all the month's left on your contract in order to cancel. I was told it would cost me $300+ to cancel my cell contract that had less than a year left on it. I was also given an early upgrade feel which they said was essentially the remaining cost of my phone. This fee was $170 to upgrade to a new phone. When I went into their phone trade in plan, they were only willing to give me $60 on a trade in with my phone. When I called to see about upgrading they said I was eligible on July 10, 2013 for a full upgrade, when I called back a month later they told me it was now Sept 10, 2013, and said a computer "randomly" generates this upgrade date. Is this not the same as changing the contract on a user? I also believe they should have set dates that you are eligible for a full upgrade, instead of allowing the company to let their "Hal" computer randomly change the upgrade date on you. I hope the CRTC radical changes how cell company contracts are written out, and not let the $$$$ (influence) of the big mobility companies set the rules!

Mitch, it was tough enough to wait almost an hour to talk to Rogers while waiting at home. I'm not about to do it while on vacation. Get off your high horse. You clearly work for one of the phone companies that everyone despises. The bottom line is...no service...no payment. Your rental example is dumb. However, using your example. I paid to "rent" the house only to find that the door was locked when I went to use it. I signed up for a service that I WANTED TO USE to find out that I was unable to use it. Your rental example is not valid. If I choose not to use the data...I'm on the hook. I chose to use it, but could not. The $50 that Rogers did not refund, has already cost them as I cancelled one plan already (had for 7 years) and will cancel my remaining 2 plans as they expire. Plus communicating my situation with others will likely cost some potential customers.

Section 1 – General Comments and Summary

1) Wireless Carriers must include Call display, and voicemail in all plans, no exceptions.

2) Long distance charges should go away soon. They have gone away everywhere else in the world.

3) Ability to cap usage or block some PPU features is very important (see comments on code)

4) Prepaid services must be improved. Wireless carriers should not be allowed to prevent prepaid users from accessing certain features. Currently, large bundles of data (such as 6GB) and things like purchasing a bundle of call forwarding minutes are not available on prepaid and this greatly hurts the offering, forcing customers into long term contracts.

5) “All or Nothing bundle plans”. Some carriers have “special” or corporate plans that are booby-trapped. A customer has a decent plan but cannot make changes to it at all or the plan will disappear completely. For instance, some plans at Bell block the ability to add more data or long distance minutes without disassembling the plan, at great cost. Customers should always be allowed to add add-ons at a standard rate to any plan that is or was offered.

6) Number porting. Wireless Carriers should not charge 30 days of service for number porting. Additionally, carriers must customers to port out their number while maintaining service (under a new number) to fulfill the remainder of their contract.

 
Section 2 – Comments on DRAFT Wireless Code.

//////////////////***
B1 – The wireless code should come into effect with a 6 month deadline. The carriers may phase in parts of the code gradually at their discretion.

//////////////////***
B2- Implementation in existing contracts.
The wireless code should not apply in full to existing contracts. This will place an overwhelming load on the carriers and will undermine the success and feasibility of all the code’s objectives. However, some options should apply retroactively – I trust the commission can decide on its own which are of greatest value to existing customers while lessening administrative load on the carriers. For instance, allowing customers to set billing caps or blocking international data are things that should apply retroactively for all customers who may want this.

//////////////////***
C. Enforcement

Carriers who use loopholes to get around the wireless code, particularly in small details, should be fined appropriately. This is especially important in deceptive advertising and fine print.

//////////////////***
D1.2
The layout of the contract is more important than the information which it contains. The first page should contain a summary of the plan’s details with ONLY the most important and relevant information. It should be presented in a way that makes sense to get a bird’s eye view of the plan. THIS PAGE MUST BE STANDARD FOR ALL CARRIERS.
These are the most important pieces of information:

1) Length of contact & Amount of Subsidy
2) Minutes included, Cost of overage minutes.
3) Data included, Cost of overage data (MEASURED IN DOLLARS PER GIGABYTE!)
4) Text messaging included, Cost of overage
5) Long distance costs, Canada and U.S.
6) US DATA roaming costs, measured in a large relevant unit, such as cost per 10MB or 100MB
7) Call forwarding costs, or other relevant service costs.

The cost of a certain item must be presented on the same line and with the same font size as the overage cost. A prototype of what this page should look like can be prepared by me by request.

//////////////***
D4.1 Advertised prices

Customers should be allowed to buy a device at full price. Carriers are not allowed to force customers to take a 30-day contract and pay for an activation fee. This is a 100$ hidden cost on the full price of the device. Bell is guilty of doing this in their advertising of “no term” pricing on plans.

////////////////***
D5.2 Tools to monitor and manage usage
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE CODE

I agree with everything in this. Customers should be able to block certain features and limit the spending on their bill.

This is important mostly for Data and data roaming excess. It is crucial to allow customers to block data roaming AT THE CARRIER LEVEL while allowing them to use their phone for voice and texting abroad.
The spending limit that customers can set needs to allow a spending limit that is separate for data and other services. If a customer reaches his data overage spending limit, he should have the option to not lose access to voice and text services, which accumulate costs much more slowly.

As always, data overage costs must be advertised in a relevant unit; gigabytes to domestic data, and 100MB for international data. Using kilobytes or 1MB is a deceptive practice currently in place by the carriers.

D7.1 Unlocking

1) Customers who buy a device at full price should be allowed to unlock it immediately for a reasonable price.
2) Customers should be allowed to unlock their subsidy device for free after 2 years.
3) Customers should be allowed to unlock any device at any time for less than 50$.

This is a complete waste of time

Again the CRTC is selling out to the phone companies and not standing up for canadians !!! WE WANT NO CONTRACT OVER24 months

and WE WANT INSURANCE INCLUDED ON ANY PHONE OVER 250$ ... Why ? Cell companies not only make money off clients on phones that are obsolete within a day of being bought , and their inflated rates , they also make you 1, buy outh the contract on a stolen Phone , but they also make you buy another phone and a whole new contract ! Thats just stupid ... If these 2 things arent adressed then why bother? Is there something that the CRTC doesnt see here ? Looks plain and simple to those of us getting Gouged by Rogers, Bell and Telus !

Certainly a step in the right direction.

I agree that the max contract term should be 2 years.

Device subsidies must be separated from the services offered in the billing. Consumers will then know what their monthly bill will be after the device has been paid for (should they decide to keep going month to month without upgrading the device).

The Wireless Code must drop fees to unlock devices entirely. If the contract has expired and/or the device subsidy has been paid in full (or as part of the cancellation fee) the device is owned by the consumer and they should have the freedom to use it on another providers network without having to pay to have it unlocked first.

Still missing in the draft Wireless Code; Warranty on devices sold that requires providers to offer OTA firmware and OS updates during the first year to resolve issues consumers experience with original software shipped on the device. Handset model and OS version are determined by the provider and are supposed to be tested on their network before they are sold to consumers.

Draft code seen as only as a very small step in the right direction. The draft code avoids or chooses to omit some of the more important concerns for me. Firstly I looked for a mission statement for the CRTC on the home page and did not find one. As the CRTC is a government department funded by taxpayers money to look after and oversee everyones interests in telecomms industry, where are my interests look after as well as the 'big 3'? The new draft code appears to ponder to the industry rather than the user. As a leading nation in the industrial world and envied by many others, we are not when it comes to telecomms and consumer interests. We must be the only nation that is charged for incoming calls - this practise should be banned. Also in light of the upcoming release of Cell numbers to telemarketers. Talk about being hit with a double edged sword - yes you can register with the do-not call list, but we all know what happened with that a few years ago. So CRTC I guess you are with the release yet wont step up to the plate and ban charges for incoming calls!!
Next is paying for time not used. Why do we pay for whole minutes only, when on your bill it shows minutes and seconds, i.e. currently rounded up. This practise was stopped in most european countries years ago. Roaming charges/long distance charges, how can I be roaming within in Canada is it not all one country. This is just another money spinner, I can call from one side of Canada to the other on many other services for free i.e skype.
So CRTC step up to the plate and address some of the real issues, and get some competition into the market and this will in itself help make for a more more competitive and fairer service for the user. Not all one sided as it is today.

I would like to see some reasonable roaming fees. I spend a lot of time in the US and have to pay 1.45/min for calls and 1 cent per kb for data which is ridiculous. These rates should be brought into line with what I pay in Canada or there should be plans that cover all of North America. Or let us unlock our phones for free when we go to the US

I signed a three year contract with a service provider. My contract ended November 2012. After my contract ended, all the discount service was taken off and my phone bill increased dramatically. Once I realized, I called my service provider to cancel my phone service.

When I called, I was told that I had to provide a 30 days notice. It is a contract that we both signed, how would they not know when the contract would end? Secondly, the contract is no longer the same, why I am I liable to the new contact that I didn't signed.

Being a powerless consumer, I had no choice but to pay my December 2012 bill. When I called on December 22, 2012, I then learnt that my service provider did not process my cancellation request properly. I then was told that I was also going to be responsible of January 2013 bill. Frustrated as I already am, I went to speak with a service provider representative in person and tried to have this matter to be resolved. They told me that they would credit me for a certain amount as they will still charge me for February and March of 2013. This "certain amount" is unclear if it would cover the extra charges for the months I was hold liable to a contact I didn't signed. It is going to take almost 4 months to cancel a phone service. This is ridiculous.

I would like to see consumers to have more power in dealing with large corporations. Consumers should not be tide down when contract ends with service providers. Any notice should not be required from consumers when large corporation with large amount of resources should be well informed about the contracts they have with their own consumers. That is their job. Consumers should be able to cancel their service anytime when they are not under a contract. That is what not being in a contract means.

I hope the right measures would be taken and the consumers would be protect by the government they given the power to. Thanks for your kind attention and initiating this wonderful wireless code of conduct.

I totally agree with all the points raised in this comments.
Prepaid minutes shouldn't expire. I PAID for them so I should be able to use them whenever according to my needs. I am a very light user of mobile phone so I have a prepaid account which have accumulated about $185 in it. If I don't top up the account every year with $100+tax I'll end up losing all this money. Out of this 100 dollars I might only use $15 this year resulting in my balance increasing to $270 and again to keep that balance for another year I have to top up with $100+tax and the cycle continues.
I'm not allowed to use this accumulated balance to buy hardware. This is a serious issue and cellphone companies shouldn't be allowed with this money grabbing scheme. CRTC needs to look into this and stop this practice immediately.

Good day,
My family buys our phones outright; Apple iPhones. Each phone cost ~$900 but it is worth it not to be tied to a contract.
We need a reduction in the cancellation fees.
The roaming charges are outrageous; I always buy the UK or USA simms when I travel there since the simms and pay-as-you-go is so much cheaper.
More straight forward contracts with no hidden fees.
Unlocking codes compare to the cost to unlock and not to hamper the customer.
We need more competition in this field. I am amazed how cheap I can get a cell phone simm and plan in the USA and UK!
Better aftersale service. I have had many Bell contracts, a few Rogers and now Virgin (Bell) and I find the service is terrible for each one.
The draft does not cover enough details!
I wonder how many shrills for the cell phone companies are posting here?

These are the changes that need to be made to current cellular services:

1: Cell phones should NOT BE LOCKED period. Locking does not in anyway ensure compliance to a contract. Its obvious purpose is to force the user into obscene roaming charges when traveling. When outside of a service providers specified geographical area, a user should be able to insert a SIM from another carrier and use more reasonably priced cellular services.

2: The common three-year contract is far too long. These contracts should be limited to a maximum of two years, as is the norm in other similar markets.

3: All incoming text should be free, as the user does not have the option of refusing to accept these messages.

4: Prepaid minutes should not expire in the short term. A grace period of twelve months after last use would be more appropriate, before these minutes would be lost to the user.

5: It’s time to permit more foreign competition. Allowing big three telecommunications to operate as a government sanctioned cartel must end.

6: The CRTC must begin to act in the best interest of the consumer, and not as an agent of the telecommunications industry.

Simplicity and Accountability! Our Governement is asking us for accountability, Why Wireless Carier shoulnd be accountable to us and make their contract clear. If they support 3 year contracts, they should support giving me a device that will last 3 year. No ?

This has already been addressed. New cancellation fees after January 22, 2012 are only $12.50 in most provinces if you do not take subsidized hardware.

3.4. Service Deactivation Fee (applicable to term commitment customers only for any new term entered into on or after January 22, 2012).

3.4.1. Not applicable to Residents of Manitoba, Residents of Newfoundland for any new term entered into on or after September 27, 2012, or Residents of Québec:

A Service Deactivation Fee of $12.50 per line applies if, for any reason, your wireless service is deactivated prior to the end of your Service Agreement Term. This fee is in addition to any applicable DSRF or DSRF and ADSRF. For greater clarity, if you are a Resident of Newfoundland and you entered into a new term on or after January 22, 2012 but before September 27, 2012, this $12.50 Service Deactivation Fee applies to that term.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLE

To illustrate my previous issues of Rogers not honouring their contracts …

I just activated a new cellular number for a customer on a 3 year term. The contract reads …

Promotions/Discounts
Unlimited BlackBerry Messenger, SMS - RPF awareness msg only, US
GPRS $0.006, Activation Fee Credit, WhoCalled Service, Call Manager,
Call Forwarding/ Call Transfer

However, when you log into the Rogers System as a dealer (customer has no access) it shows the following …

"Unlimited BlackBerry Messenger Expires on: Feb 06, 2014 "

How would any rational person reading the Promotions / Discounts know that while certain features like call manager, call forwarding and call transfer are part of the three year term and have no expiry date, the blackberry messenger is only being honoured for the first year?

SOLUTION:

All contracts on all networks must include three distinct boxes / sections.

SECTION 1:
Monthly Service Fee
Overage Minute Rate
Minutes Included
Options / Features Included
Etc.

Anything listed in SECTION 1 would be guaranteed for the term of the contract. These items could not be changed by the network for any reason. If any item listed on the contract in this section was missing on the bill, not only would the offending network face large fines but would have to credit the customer the overcharge and compensation. The time limit on how far the network would have to go back would match the length of the contract. If the error was found 2 years in on a 3 year term, they would have to compensate the customer for the 2 years and fix the error going forward.

SECTION 2
Options and Bonuses

Anything listed in SECTION 2 would items that were not included for the term of the contract and be clearly marked as to the date they expire. The Blackberry Messenger in the example listed above would go in this section clearing showing the expiry date after year 1 of the 3 year contract.

SECTION 3
Long Distance Rates
Roaming Rates
Value Packages
Network Features (offered but not included or attached to the plan)
System Access / ‘911’ Fees / Government Recovery Fees

Anything listed in SECTION 3 would be monthly items that are not part of the contract. These items could be changed within 30 days of written notice so long as the change was not deemed to be a “material change” to the contract and was not considered overreaching or abusive.

I hope CRTC does not cave into the big three. No locked phones, no three year contracts. Also CRTC should watch for the plan structure. If the month to month plan is priced too high then what good is it? High priced plans will be avoided and the three plans will be forced upon individuals through ridiculous pricing. I expect a lot from the CRTC.

I agree with you on some of your points. however, I was FORCED to sign onto a company or have no phone to use in the case of an emergency. I don't think it's fair when I bought out my phone paying MORE than if I where to order it in from another country. I bought it at the Apple store but after paying for it they told me they need to lock me onto a network in order for me to take it home. Now they want me to Pay again to give me my unlock code when my phone should not be locked in the first place. Why should i have to pay for releasing MY own property. How would you like it if someone tells you that you can't access your own money unless you hang over half of what's in it? Canada really need to do something about this. I'm not asking for anything for free. Just asking for fairness.

Phone companies shouldn't legally be allowed to hold innocent customer prisoner!

I bought my phone a few years ago outright from Apple for almost a $1000. But before I leave the store with my phone they told me they have to lock my phone onto a network. It's MINE phone! I paid the FULL price for it but they forced me accept the term or I can't take it out of the store and now my mobile company wants me to PAY them $75 to give me the factory unlock code!!

Why do I have to pay to unlock my own property?!!! It doesn't make any sense! I feel like buying a phone in Canada is like signing up for "life in prison" and even after you are done with your contract they still wouldn't release you. I didn't get anything from Bell. I bought my phone on my own directly from the Apple store, but I was FORCED to be lock onto a network. I couldn't unlock it in fear that my warranty would be voided or if I do it illegally I would risk loosing everything once software updates and lock my phone back up again.

So for 3 years I miserably lived out my contract with continuously dropped calls, no receptions in the centre of a big city, calls not getting through at all, my phone keep dying for no apparent reason because no one told me that Bell and Apple is not compatible if the phone wasn't directly bought from a Bell store.

I work in a field where having a reliable phone could sometimes mean life or death! This was unacceptable, I made complains but all they would do is waste my time by sending me back and forth till I gave up. I ending up on two contracts with two different companies because I couldn't risk my life and the life of people I for with an unreliable network that I couldn't afford to buy out of because their contract is a death sentence.

Now even though I was innocent, I feel like I paid to put that collar around my neck, then though i've served my sentence; they still wouldn't release me until I pay yet another price! I don't see how that is fair!

I'm seriously thinking of NEVER getting another phone from Canada ever again! Even if I have to go aboard to buy it! Their phone are the same price or cheaper and it's FACTORY unlock so I'm FREE to roam and update my software.

Also I was misinformed on a new contract from a representative of my network. I was made to assume that a discount i got, the only reason that i would sign up with the company is the discount---expired! apparently it expires whenever the phone company fells like it and there's nothing you OR they can do about it. So I'm stuck for another 2 years and 3 months for the new contract to be up.

Please do SOMETHING!!! Even undeveloped third world countries phone companies treat their customer better than our phone companies! I'm proud to be a Canadian, but this is one fact about our country that shames me whenever I speak to people aboard!! Please stop protecting the big sharks. We Canadian deserve to better than this!! We NEED better protection of our people in order to stay competitive in the world market!

I would like to see the early cancellation fee tied to the discount given when you use your own phone or pay the full price for a new phone. What I mean by this is if the carrier is giving a 10% discount per month then the cancellation can only be 10% of your monthly fee for each month remaining in your contract (The monthly fee used is the actually fee being paid and not the pre-discounted monthly fee). If there is no discount then there is no early cancellation fee. The early cancellation fee can not exceed the discount given on the phone using a pro-rated formula based on the number of months remaining in your contract.

The CRTC should look into enforcing a national local plan, similar to what exists in the United States. In the US, every single cellphone is local to every single other cellphone, regardless of area code. Additionally, you are able to carry your phone and phone number wherever you travel (within the country), without roaming charges. For example, if you purchase a cellphone in California (with an LA area code) and subsequently move to Chicago, Illinois, you will be able to maintain your number without extra charges.

On B.2 option # 3 is best. If there is to be a new code it applies to all.

D.2.1 is there in contracts now. However cell phone providers do not make recognition in the difference between early cancellation by user and a termination for changing the terms and conditions of contract .

I have personnely been down this road only at the end result of being told write the president of the company.

D.3.4 option 2 is best, however would rather there be no auto renewal at all unless customer so chooses till they can see options.

D.10.1 $50 dollars fine for reconnect serves no purpose then to penalize the customer which may be events they had no part in. In the days of computers it's only a keystroke that turns something on or off. You are not paying for someone to drive to a cell tower to unplug something.

Secondly there should be an escalation of services turned off in a dispute of payment rather then the all or nothing approach.

section F cooling off period of 15 days is to short. 60 to 90 days is more realistic to know if you are happy with the phone, the service and how the cell phone company treats you as a customer.

Deaf consumers should have rights NOT to pay for the voice plans that we won't be using. To ensure we are Deaf, I second a Deaf person's suggestion of using the CRA disability tax credit or a doctor's note to prove that we are in fact Deaf.

i like someone's post regarding a specialized smartphone plan for people with disabilities in the United States. The plan is called Text Accessibility Plan. That option should be considered in Canada. Here is the link: http://www.ythree.com/2010/06/new-attiphone-text-accessibility-plan-tap/

Thank you for your time to consider options for the Deaf or Hard of hearing people as well as for people with disabilities. Please apply this in Canada. You're so far behind from USA!!

The outrageous price of buying the phone outright should be illegal. If they really want to offer a $300 phone for $600 outright than they should be forced to offer off contract plans at exactly the price that is discounted by their so called subsidy. Example: Bob buys a Samsung Galaxy S III smart phone on a 3 year contract for $99.00 and his minimum monthly charge in $50.00. This means he has been subsidized to the tune of ($649.00 full price) - $99.00 = $550.00 or $15.27 a month over 3 years. Bill buys the same phone outright at $649.00 but the price of the monthly plan stays at $50.00! The most he should pay is $34.73 per month. The truth is the phones do not really cost $649.00; they are marked up insanely high to make people think they are getting a deal with a 3-year contract. If you want proof, Wind mobile sells the Nexus 4 for $549.00 off contract but it is only $349.00 straight from Google. That's right, one of newest and best Android phones for only $349.00 not $649.00. Anyone want to guess what it costs to build an iPhone5? $167.50. Even with a 100% mark up it would be $335.00. How much does it cost off contract straight from the service providers? $699.00.

I have no problem with 3 year contracts as long as they are fair and off contract phones are available and priced reasonably.

Deaf consumer here -- I second this. I've been with Rogers 10+ years and every time I change smartphones, I'd have to call the head office to negotiate in removing or giving me discount of the voice plan which I would not be using at all due to being Deaf myself. Very time consuming!!
I also second about having to pay incoming calls that I don't answer. It shows "unknown number" hence I'm unable to tell the person to stop calling my phone!!
Most phones don't last very long, thus the 3 years contract should be removed.

In almost all cases 3 year contracts should be a thing of the past. The mobile phone industry is evolving at such a rate right now that in all cases phones placed into the market 3 years ago have no place in the market today. The consumer is forced to pay fees so they can get a phone that keeps up with the changes in the market place. It can also be said that most phones don't survive 3 years to the end of the contract period.

Under F1 it says: In order to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the Wireless Code, this code will
be reviewed in three or five years.

The period should be 3 years as 5 years is many generations of phones later. Just look at how the industry has changed in the last 5 years alone. If the CRTC decides that a 2 year contract is the max then reviewing things 1 year after allows the code to be tweaked for things that were not seen or discussed.

The locking of phones to a provider should be done away with. Providers charge high roaming fees to Canadians when they travel, often twice as much what their normal monthly bill is. This isn't even for the same period of time either.
By allowing unlocked then one can pick-up a sim card in the country they are travelling and use their phone. In almost all cases the Canadian provider is still being paid the monthly contract price by the mobile user so it is really no loss to them.
Canadian Providers have said they don't want to subsidize a phone here and have it moved to another carrier. There are many differences between carriers in Canada where phones only work on certain frequencies so moving it in most cases doesn't work.

Since these changes will also apply to the mobile stick, some discussion should address the inordinately high charges for internet access of using a stick when other means are not available in remote and rural areas. Service is slow, intermittant, and too often unavailable. Price reductions advertised in bundleing services are not offered to stick users. The unreliabilty and expense of internet access in remote areas places an additional burden on economic development and communication.

I am a data user. I might use my device as a phone 10 times in a month yet to get more data I have to buy more voice minutes. Not only that but no one offers anywhere near enough minutes, and what they offer is ridiculously expensive. Data is data! It doesn't matter if the bandwidth is delivered over cable, twisted pair copper, fibre or wireless, it all costs just about the same. I can get unlimited data via every other method WITHOUT data caps. Why not via cellular? Profits, that's why! I believe we deserve unlimited, un-capped data services.

1. Sim Lock.
If you paid FULL price for a phone why should the carrier still charge you to unlock the phone?
For example Fido will still charge $50 to unlock your phone, even if you paid the full price for the phone. If you buy a iPhone from Apple store and pay full price, you get the phone unlocked.

2. Roaming charges not explained clearly
If you travel to USA etc
If you receive a call are you charged if you don't answer the call?
Are you charged if the call goes to your voice mailbox?
Text, are you charged if you receive a text etc..
There should be a page clearly explaining this to users.

I want to see 24 month contracts NOT 36 month contracts! The astronomical fees to jump out of a contract before the 36 months needs to be changed. We have the most expensive cell phone contracts here in Canada, it's time for change.

Looks like you are "the" only sensible person here, huh.... have a life elsewhere

Explain how? If someone is already under contract, they will have to pay the penalty anyways? And if this was the case, why does TELUS allow after 30 days, and now Rogers after 9o days in contract?

BTW, who do you work for Rogers, Bell, TELUS?

I have been paying fees for the voice plan since 1999 even though I am deaf and don't use it.. Rogers keep insisting that they cannot waive the voice. I do have a great data plan thanks to a promotion but am appalled that I still have to pay for something that I don't use. There is a need for provisions for people with disabilities, and flexibility in plans. Being forced to purchase something just to get something else is unbelievable. I rely on my iPhone for everyday uses and the internet and it is annoying that i get incoming calls (I dont give out my number) and I know its Rogers advertising their gimmicks and then they charge me $1 per call even though I don't answer. I know many deaf people are stuck paying $90 a month because of the required voice plan. This is a rip off.

As a Deaf person using a mobile device since 2001, I have paid for the voice plan that I never used other than handing my mobile to an interpreter to translate my call - that happened rarely - less than 0.01% of the time. I have no hearing at all and rely on text and data plan for communication. This has been beneficial for me -- for a price. I should not have to negotiate with carriers to remove the voice plan. I have heard in some cases that my deaf friends had to negotiate with providers to the point their requests ended up going up higher chain of command.

The corporate red tape should be cut down in providers' practices. They could add the option of text and data plan option (without the voice option). This option also should be allowed for deaf families or provide options for families which have deaf members in case they want a family plan. I have seen how they select the options for my iPhone and the proposed option should on the list that I am allowed to select without any hassle and as an equal Canadian citizen.

The deaf colleagues of mine have pointed out a specialized smartphone plan for people with disabilities in the United States. The plan is called Text Accessibility Plan. That option should be considered in Canada. Here is the link: http://www.ythree.com/2010/06/new-attiphone-text-accessibility-plan-tap/

Thank you for your time to consider options for the Deaf or Hard of hearing people as well as for people with disabilities.

Just for ideas... there should possibly be a Text Accessibility Plan similiar to this link available for people with any hearing disabilities who do NOT use the voice talking plans... http://www.ythree.com/2010/06/new-attiphone-text-accessibility-plan-tap/

I would resonate most of the comments already mentioned here:
- Top most on my list would be three years contract. Every now and then I hear phone companies are giving you subsidies on phone. Wait! What subsidy? Without diving into too much details- all service providers are selling phones at a higher price than regular when setting up their tabs. Moreover, phones dont last longer enough to work properly for three years.
- SIM unlocking should be allowed
- Sham called Canada wide: when this means calling from your "local zone". Come on! underdeveloped countries are no longer charging for long distance within your own country.
- Paid incoming/sms? Am I living in Jungle or Mars?

It irks me when I am billed roaming charges both for data and voice if I happen to be close to a border city. For instance I have had numerous occasions where my phone roams onto a US carrier when I am in Niagara Falls. If I remember to set my phone to use ONLY my carrier then the problem is mitigated but my carrier should KNOW that I am NOT in the US - after all, if I use the GPS function on my phone it knows exactly where I am and that I am NOT in the US.

Granted, my carrier has been good about crediting me back for these erroneous charges when I catch them but what about the ones I don't catch. What about all of the wasted time I spend checking the details and waiting on hold for one of their terribly busy (aka short-staffed) people to answer my call?

I second that , all deaf across Canada should not have to pay voice plan at all and many deaf in the states don't pay their voice plan at all for several years now.

There should not be any activation fee. The fee makes no sense. The fee should be illegal. Also the hardware admin fee should vanished as well. It makes no sense to pay $35 hardware upgrade fee when we are paying for the device and renewing our contracts again.

It should be illegal to charge fees that is misleading such as Government Recovery Fee charged by Rogers. It is misleads consumers to believe it is a Government charge when its not.

I'm deaf by birth and why should I have to pay voice plan that I have never use ?? voice plan should be removed for the deaf across Canada but any carriers would need doctor's verification that the person is deaf. so in this way, many deaf wouldn't have to pay for that plan.

I believe this country needs to continue creating more competition, like Fido, Mobilicity, Wind, and Koodo so we can have plans that are more affordable & outline what exactly is included. While also, giving the consumer more freedom to move elsewhere when needed. The CRTC needs to stop letting the big "3" dominate the industry, while giving them the freedom to increase prices & include questionable "hidden" fees.

Also, the big "3" companies need to work on improving their customer service & accounting departments in order to better address customers about their questions/concerns instead of hiring people who are don't know how to do their job or give you the run around.

I agree that phones should be unlocked if they are fully paid for after the contract is done!

unfortunately, most people complaining about wanting to unlock there phones are only a couple months or more into their contract and they heard of a good deal and want to switch carriers but still want to keep the phone despite not owning it.

Don't roam.. it's that easy!

There are settings in most phones for roaming. You can turn off data while roaming. You can also select a specific network and prevent your phone from connecting to any other network (to prevent roaming). There's no reason for you to be complaining!!

No contracts means no carrier will ever subsidized phone! You don't make any sense. That means that everyone would need to buy their phone outright in full ! That means very few people could afford their 599$ or 699$ phone!

There needs to be an eco-system of available choices for people with different financial needs. Your demands are not very smart. Be sensible and understand that it takes many people to run a successful carriers, and many people to design, manufacturer a phone and the cell towers you are addicted to.

If you don't like the costs which are dictated by supply and demand like everything else (including your good salary) .. then just stop using a cell phone! It's simple really!

3 year plans are cheaper per month. See my other posts .. or better yet DO THE MATH!!

Phones should be unlocked if subsidized (which is most phones) since you don't own them

Second, you make a lot of demands.. How about I demand you work for cheaper!

Third, you don't set the prices.. supply and demand does.

Fourth, you don't understand anything.. take a moment and do some math.. people get three year contacts because they are far greater deals. This is a perk! There's nothing stopping you from getting a 2 year contract. You just want to latest gadget for as cheap as ppossible because you don't believe in paying for things so you take the 3 year contract that gets you the latest iPhone 5 for 49$ or 99$ or maybe even 0$. It shouldn't be unlocked because you don't own it until you have fully paid for it. The three year deal that you got it a lovely gift from your carrier. It only costs you 57.75$ approx. monthly on a three year plan (phone included in that monthly number) compared to about 90$ monthly for a 2 year plan.

A 2 year plan isn't cheaper! DO THE MATH!!! 3 year plans actually make things more affordable for people. A lot of people COULD NOT afford a iphone 5 if all plans where 2 year contracts! So 3 years actually allows a lot of people to own phones!! Understand now!

lastly, your 3 year deal is the same as going into a clothing store and seeing a sign that says buy 2 t-shirts and get a 3rd free. People love deals! A 3 year plan is a deal! It's cheaper! So why can't people get it into their heads that 2 year plans ARE actually MORE EXPENSIVE and un-affordable! Stop complaining!!!!!

Sorry... I don't agree with you on this at all!

Markets at play here. You don't just give away 1 billion dollars of spectrum to a "new foreign company" just so they can "compete". First of all... supply and demand exists here like anything else. The government makes money off of spectrum so why should they give it away just because you have unfounded hatred for one company. Secondly, do you know where those billions of dollars of money collected from spectrum auctions go? they are used by our government for the benefit of the people of Canada!!!!

So while you "want your cake and to eat it too" .. i'm being more sensible and I'm doing things like suggesting we implement fair rules that allow companies to make money and play fair so that they can innovate and bring us better networks. Do you know what would happen if we put all kinds of rules in place to limit wireless carriers profits and abilities to function.. they wouldn't innovate and build new networks in Canada or they would wait for years before bringing LTE.. we would get LTE after Congo or Eritrea got LTE!! Don't be absurd or extreme.. be sensible!

Not sure why you are complaining.. the 3 year plan is actually a far better deal when compared on a monthly cost basis! So of course people will choose a 3 year plan. And why wouldn't they. It's a good deal. This is typical of any retail, sales stores.. buy 2 get 1 free type of marketing. You can't single out the wireless carriers but allow clothing stores to continue to market like this.. they are actually giving you a deal .. so why are you complaining!!!!!

2 year plan
--------------
- Phone 499$ (100$ off)
- Term: 24 months * 70$/month

- Total cost for 2 years = 499$ + (24 x 70$) = 2179$
- Total monthly cost = 90.79$ (phone is yours after 2 years)

3 year plan
-------------
- Phone 99$ (500$ off)
- Term: 36 months * 55$/month

- Total cost for 3 years = 99$ + (36 x 55$) = 2079$
- Total monthly cost = 57.75$/month (phone is yours after 3 years)

I have an unlimited plan with a great carrier and the price is pretty good.
D7.1 is not strick enough since it requires operators to unlock phones in 30 days under some conditinons. Doesn't make sense to me since a lot of people have subsized phones and they don't own the phones themselves. Locking prevents masses of people from taking a 0$ or 49$ down brand new iPhone 5 and then running away to a cheap carrier (which is theft).

MYTH BUSTER!
Myth: 2 year contracts are better and cheaper! .... wrong!

You do realize that banning 3 year contracts doesn't change anything. It just means you will be paying MUCH MUCH more per month on a 2 year contract!

Poeple get the wrong idea about 3 year contracts... they actually make the plans more affordable for some people on a monthly basis.

If you pay 65$ a month on a 3 year contract... the equivalent 2 year contract is 1.5 times more expensive per month.. leading to a 65$ x 1.5 bill which is: 97.50$ per month!

A lot of people couldn't afford a 97.50$ bill per month on a 2 year contract! So 3 year contracts actually allow a lot of people to own phones that normally couldn't!

MYTH BUSTER!
Myth: 2 year contracts are better and cheaper! .... wrong!

You do realize that banning 3 year contracts doesn't change anything. It just means you will be paying MUCH MUCH more per month on a 2 year contract!

Poeple get the wrong idea about 3 year contracts... they actually make the plans more affordable for some people on a monthly basis.

If you pay 65$ a month on a 3 year contract... the equivalent 2 year contract is 1.5 times more expensive per month.. leading to a 65$ x 1.5 bill which is: 97.50$ per month!

A lot of people couldn't afford a 97.50$ bill per month on a 2 year contract! So 3 year contracts actually allow a lot of people to own phones that normally couldn't!

No, the carriers make the service available to you whether you use it or not the cell towers and networks are made available and cost money and need to be maintained.

Its the same thing as renting a house. If you rent a house, the landlord gives you the key and makes the place available for you. If you don't use the house during your term, you still have to pay for the house until your contract is up and you return the key. It doesn't matter if you use the house or not, the house is made available to you and you have the key. The house still costs the landlord money (taxes, heating, water, repairs, etc).. same thing for cellular networks. They cost money to maintain and run. So if you pay for minutes, you are reserving the network during a month and the carrier makes the network available to you and gives you a key (yes a key which resides in your SIM card) to access the network. These services cost money and thats why you still have to pay.

No, if the phone is subsidized you don't own the phone.

If you got the latest iPhone 5 or other for 49$ or 99$ .. you don't own the phone.. you have 550$ or 500$ left to pay on the phone before you own it. It's the same thing as a leased car. So until you own the phone (at the end of your contract) the carrier has the right to keep it locked to ensure you don't run away with it.

full disclosure.. I don't work for a carrier and not affiliated in anyway. I'm just a sensible person who understands that making absurd demands like the ones on this board will only lead to carrier putting pressure on manufacturers or cell phones and cell towers and those manufacturers will just put pressure on their workers to work harder for cheaper or for free and possibly bring in foreign labour for cheaper rates to replace Canadian workers.

When you go to work you expect to get paid and you get paid well. When consumers dictate prices instead of letting supply and demand work ... people get hurt in the process. Consumers can't let go of their phone and are absolutely addicted to voice, text and data services (eg. the demand) but they don't want to pay for it. Sounds to me like a double-standard.

I want. I want. I want. But I don't want other people to be paid for their hard work. Let's be sensible here people! If you can't afford your phone, look for a cheaper phone or a cheaper plan but don't blame carriers and manufacturers for making nice phones that are attractive and in demand!

You don't get a refund for unused data. Everyone knows that.

You paid to have access to data. The networks are their if you use them. They cost money to maintain during a month. If you don't use them the carrier still had to make it available to you so you don't get a refund. Its the same thing as renting a house. The landlord doesn't care if you use the house or not because it's made available to you and the landlord gives you a key for the month(s) you pay for.

In your case, if the data didn't work. It was up to you to call to when you tried to use it to sort things out and get it to work.

I don't agree with unlocking since it allows people to run away to another carrier with there phone.

Yes it does. Please provide facts instead of blurting out your incorrect opinion.

Networks between cities must be maintained. Fiber is expensive and redundant links are needed in case one or more links go down. Bell experts get paid a small fortune to repair and maintain the networks and so it does cost money to call long distance. They can build it into a plan and hide it from you, but inherently there is a cost.

This is because terminating a service is more complex than signing up for a service.

For a couple of reasons you obviously don't understand:
1. If you have a balance on your account they need to make sure you will pay it off.
2. If you have equipment that was rented, leased, not yours, borrowed... they need to make sure they will get that equipment back (for example: your leased or subsidized phone)
3. They want to know why you are leavin to improve their services

If your device is subsidized you don't own the phone outright until you have fully paid for it so I don't agree with you on that.

For instance, if you are driving around a leased car... is it yours? Do you have to return it after the lease is up? Do you need to pay to buy it after the lease is up?

Phones work almost the same way. If you choose sign a contract because you so desperately want the latest iPhone 5 or other phone for 0$ down, then you need to pay it off before calling it yours because the carrier has subsidized it and owns it as long as you haven't fully paid off the phone.

People need to be sensible about there demands. When you go to work... you expect to get paid and you get paid well. Well carriers are people, and phone manufacturers are people. Most of these companies employ all kinds of workers from manufacturing staff, to engineers, to managers. They are people and what you are asking for is that they people work for less just so you could have a cheap phone and cheap service at the price you want to dictate.

This isn't how the markets work. Supply and demand. If you don't like paying for services.. don't sign up for them. That way you won't need to pay for them. The funny thing is.. the people that are complaining about how much it costs are the people that can't give up their phones.. they are so addicted to the phone and the service.. they need it... only problem is they don't want to pay for it. They just want it for free. Well, how would you like it if your boss asked you to come in to work but he/she didn't want to pay you?

Many people have commented on SIM locking. I agree, as I have agreed before, SIM-locking should be prohibited in the first place. You are bound by terms of contract (you pay a penalty if you exit your contract early) so SIM card locking is un-necessary, anti-competitive, ant-open. These carriers just want to BULLY their customers. SIM LOCKING should be made criminal. If sim-locking is done, then unlock code should be provided for free (not $50 fee as Rogers announced!!)

I agree. SIM locking should be either be banned or carriers should be required to unlock for FREE. Contract is enforced by financial penalties not sim-card locking.

I agree with this. When you CANCEL your service. You are forced to pay for an extra 30 day of service even though your service has been terminated.

If my phone number has been ported-out from Carrier-A to Carrier-B it would instantly disconnect from Carrier-A. My service with Carrier-A would have been terminated. Yet Carrier-A charges an extra 30 days of service!!!!! Service that has already been terminated and can NOT be used!

I agree. SIM locking should be banned.

1. Carriers bind you in a contract. So, sim-locking should not be required to begin with. In fact, it costs more money to lock the phone (either manufacturers or carriers have to go through this extra step of locking the sim ). Were you to break your contract, you will be required to pay early cancellation fee anyway. So, what's the point of locking?

2. A lot of customers buy their phones "outright" (that is, they receive no subsidy from carrier) and yet carriers lock the phones before handing it to their customers. This is just criminal, in my opinion.

3. Since CRTC started this discussion on new draft, some carriers are trying to play smart and sly. For eg: ROGERS has said it'd unlock any device after 90 days of service for a fee of $50. This is nothing but "robbing" people.
- First, I am bound in a contract, there is no need to lock in the first place.
- Second, $50 to unlock is just a way to scheme money out of customers. Lots of 3rd party unlock providers provide unlocking code for < $5. Why does Rogers need to charge $50?

It's only to discourage customers from unlocking their phones. Rogers wants to comply with "letter of the law" but not "spirit of the law". Rogers is making a fool of CRTC guidelines (that it thinks are coming in March). Rogers is simply pre-empting the guideline and violating it in spirit.

If a phone is purchased outright, Carriers MUST be told to unlock phones for FREE. Carriers should be banned from locking them in the first place.

If a phone is under contract, carriers should be told to unlock them for free after expiry of "return" period (typically 15 to 30 days).

Provision to address stolen cell phones:

Cell phones that are stolen are virtually unrecoverable which seems appalling to me considering the cost to replace one. The model and serial numbers are registered with the provider yet if a cell is stolen, all that needs to be done to activate it again is a new SIM card. I believe that the cell companies (Bell, Telus, Shaw etc) should have an integrated alert system whereas a stolen cell phone cannot be activated again. This may help to deter those that steal and resell these type of devices.

As a long time user, we are faced with having to pay for VOICE plan which are irrelevant to Deaf users. Considerations needs to be made to ensure that Deaf users are not obligated to pay for voice plan if wanting to use texting/data plan. The voice plan is of no use to us and it frustrates many of us for having to pay for the plan. More importantly, there appears to be discrimination for Deaf and Hard of Hearing users who needs unlimited data/text plan but having to pay high price for the package while unlimited voice/text plan is being offered to hearing members at a reasonable price. Most phones now come with live streaming video where we all can call via FaceTime, Tango, Oovoo, etc - this eats up the data plan and is very costly. Lots of considerations needs to be made to ensure that Deaf and Hard of Hearing people have equal access to communication and I believe this really needs an overhaul.

Hello there, I am Deaf. I would like to share my personal experience, which I find is unfair. As a Deaf person, customer of Rogers, may I note since 1999, starting with a Blackberry, I was able to have voice plan removed, or blocked from my Blackberry, I didn't have to pay for voice minutes, only the text messages and the data/internet usage fees (which became available in more recent years). Now that I have switched to Deaf-friendly iPhone (can send sign language messages via video messaging to others), and now forced to pay for a voice plan, approximating $5.00 - $10.00 extra a month for something I DONT EVEN USE because I CANNOT hear. There are SO MANY Deaf people out there who are stuck paying extra for a feature that they DO NOT USE. So here's the suggestion, how to regulate or set up a policy that mandates for companies to remove and exclude the voice plan from Deaf people's contracts, pay per use, or monthly plans.. Find a way to help identify that the Deaf person is truly Deaf, by regulating that the company requires to 1) get a Doctor's note 2) getting a copy of the Canada Revenue Agencies' (CRA) Disability Transfer Credit certificate which allows Deaf people to claim tax credit every year for the extra expenses they endure in their livelihood. The Disability Transfer Credit certificate is usually signed off by the family doctor anyway. And, out of fairness, if possible, if you can, please figure out a way for Deaf people to get their paid voice plans REFUNDED at least for the past year! Imagine 300,000 Deaf people in Canada approximately, multiply it by $5 or $10 each, that's how much the wireless companies have been ripping us off of a service WE DO NOT NEED NOR USE AT ALL!! Thank you.

no there should just be no long distance charges. unless calling out side of Canada.

every where in Canada should be one zone. no roaming...

it doesn't cost the carrier any more for you to call Toronto or Vancouver, if they have to use another carrier network, yes i can understand long distance fees. but in Canada it is another way to gouge us.

there is no competition in Canada....what i would really like to see is for an american company to come in and offer north america wide plans.. see how many people jump ship down to the american carriers...see how the big 3 would cry to stop that. if this code passes and there is no change to the length of plans, locking of phones and roaming... we know who the crtc work for.

i am sick of the constant abuse we receive from Canadian carriers. roaming is a joke, how many people do you know live in the same area the work.. i don't know to any. we live in a global society. it doesn't cost the provider any more money why are we paying more. the roaming charges is so antiquated and out of date.

3 year contract is just another way for the carriers to make more money. u.s and European carriers often give the phone for free when you sign up for a 2 year term at $60/month and that is the most expensive plan the come down from there. ours seem to start there and go up.. we are supposed to be a leader in technology yet most people in Canada are using older phones cause they are locked into a contract that limits when they could upgrade..if asked i bet only 10% of Canadians are happy with the mobile provider. there is no competition in Canada.. wind tried but no one wants to shell out $600 for a phone then pay the same price for the plan as those being subsidised.
the plans are all designed that you are forced into paying the most expensive plans..alot of people are using mobiles instead of land lines and doing more business on them, so when carriers charge for sending and receiving that is ridiculous.. the double dipping has to stop. NO carriers out side of Canada charge for receiving calls or texts or mms. only in Canada do you get charged for sending and receiving..

There are a few issues as discussed properly so I will try and add more value or reinforce such points.

The service should be available to start from an online signup. The user can go online and sign up. The cancellation should also be available online. Cancellation (30 day notice rule currently) should be available immediately. Just as it is for the internet services with providers other than the big three.

Phones should all come unlocked or if they have to be locked, an unlock code should be available for a affordable fee of $10 - $15. If the user is leaving the network the unlock code should be provided for free. Unlock codes should also be provided free to people that sign up for contracts at the time the contract has been terminated.

Contracts should be shorter than three year. Technology changes very quickly. Within one or two years a phone becomes obsolete to the point where the user needs another one. This ends up costing them another three year contract and a charge.

Monthly fees advertised should include all applicable fees (excluding taxes if it cannot be helped) or at least have an option to see the price with fees included.

Limits on data and texts should be revisited. Texts should be unlimited because they do not cost anything. Data packages seem abnormal. Data seems to cost a lot to the consumers although actual cost to the providers is relatively small. fair pricing is needed. Data only addons are needed and the monthly plans should be flexible where the user can use more data than the plan permits and he would be charged the addon price for the next data tier.

account balances should not expire. Balances should be available as long as the account is active.

I just spoke with my provider "Virgin mobile" and they advised me that even if these changes are passed they won't apply any of them to anyone who already has a contract. "Virgin mobile" plans to use a grandfather law as a work around to keep all current customers locked in and avoid changes to the existing plans - I spoke with Chris from Virgin customer escalation services. I am very concerned that none of these changes will help those already locked into long term contracts, I can't get out of my contract unless I pay them hundreds and hundreds of dollars. Virgin refuses to put a cap on my bill, and I am locked in for 3 years... Virgin tells me that they will not make any of the proposed changes to my contract or services.
Additionally, my family also deals with TELUS and they have advised us the same thing, they are not planning on making any changes to pre-existing plans ...
How will these new laws help pre-existing customers if the companies plan to use loop holes to get out of abiding by the laws?
I am sick of suprise bills, and long term contracts, and being over charged,. its not different with any of these cellular companies.

i would like to share my experience with you..

i was approached by my brother who had a friend who had dropped there iPhone, and had broken the glass on the face but the phone still worked. He asked if i wanted the phone, as his friend had bought a new phone.
so i bought the phone and fixed the glass. i thought it would be easy get a sim for my current phone swap over got my self a new phone..

well i called bell as i was told it was a bell phone, they told me that they don't unlock phones and either talk to apple of jailbreak it...apple doesn't' unlock phones form carriers as the carrier is the one who lock it. i didn't want to jailbreak it so my nice new phone sat on a shelf.

well about 6 months later i read on moble syrp that bell and virgin where unlocking iPhones i thought great.. i called bell and asked them to unlock my phone. i was told i had to activate the phone first, i was told to get a prepaid sim and activate it for a month.. which i did.when the month was over i called again i went though the whole process paid the $75 (which is a joke) which ended up being more like $90 cause they also charged a $10 fee for who know what...then i finally got to some one told them to unlock the phone... and they said "oh this phone is already unlocked" i was gob smacked and frustrated. why did they not tell me that before i paid the $90.. so after a 3 hour conversation being transferred here and there i finally got a refund that would take 30 days to process...stupid..

so the next day i went to get a new sim. after putting it in i found that the phone was still locked.. ahhh i called bell back and was told i needed to pay $75 to have it unlocked. i wanted to shove the phone thought the receiver...

i was ready to chuck the phone now.. after 2 or 3 weeks i had calmed down as i was a little irritated over the whole thing..
i phoned bell back, now they told me that i have to sign up to a post paid account for 30 days before they will unlock it. i was so frustrated i hung up.. so i called back of coarse getting a different customer services rep..he told me bell doesn't unlock iphones and that i needed to call apple. well already doing this i knew apple won't so i hung up from him and immediately called back. the 3 rep told me i had to sign a contract for 1 year before they could unlock it...

as humours as this was becoming i hung up and immediately called again now i was told that my iphone was actually a virgin phone and that bell could do nothing and that i had to contact virgin mobile.. it took about half and hour to finally figure out how to talk to some one.
i told the guy the situation and he got the ball rolling... finally i was getting somewhere, he told me that a tech would contact me in 24 hours and tell me what to do.. well its been 3 days and not a peep from virgin..

so i called back, and was told because i didn't have a virgin number they couldn't help even though it was a virgin phone..and the transferred me again. the next person told me that virgin doesn't unlock iPhone...ahhhh

this is pathetic, i can't believe the time and money i have spent on this phone.. one thing is for sure i will never use bell or virgin.

As a proud Canadian, born and bred in Ontario, I am appalled at the ways the big 3 wireless carriers have been allowed to use legislation to fleece the public of their hard earned dollars, while attempting to maintain their trinopolies. The enormous profit margins these companies have managed to secure for themselves, seemingly only to pay massive bloated compensation levels to executives, all while maintaining bottom of the barrel service and quality for its customers. I live in Windsor Ontario, and regularly pay upwards of $80 for 200 daytime minutes a month for a single mobile phone plan, while a friend of mine, living just across the boarder in Michigan, pays a paltry sum of $99 a month for FOUR phones (him, his wife, and their 2 sons) with a shared plan consisting of 4000 shared daytime minutes, unl text and pic messaging, unl calling after 5 pm, as well as 10 gigs of data per month. This continued fleecing of the Canadian public is unacceptable, allowed only by the CTRC, which more and more seems to be controlled by ex-big 3 executives, constantly leaning in favor of business profits and market monopolies, rather than doing their mandated job, effectively reducing Canadians access to fair and open competitive markets, reducing Canadian innovation and ingenuity, metamorphosing our great country into a rape and pillage business culture that railroads Canadian pocketbooks and defiles whatever remaining trust the people of this country had for businesses like Rogers, Bell, and Telus. Calling in to ask questions regarding bills, we are all held for ransom as we try to communicate with company call center reps located overseas, usually with thick hard to understand accents, and zero comprehension of Canadian standards or culture. The very companies we pay to serve us, simply refuse to hire us Canadians, instead choosing to locate the majority if not all of their customer reps in foreign countries; quite simply more rape and pillage of people who accept even lower living conditions and wages. They want our money, but they don't want us to have jobs with them. Global economic reports constantly show how Canadian wireless services are the highest priced in the world, yet nothing ever happens to affect change on the customers behalf. All major technologies have advanced cultures, with price structures and fees constantly lowering as newer technology is developed and deployed. Only in Canada have price structures increased, while technology innovations, efficiency, and productivity continues to decrease these providers costs, resulting in no cheaper plans, no cheaper data, only larger and larger company profits. Canadian dollar value for wireless services are appalling in this country, and if I didn't need a wireless phone for work purposes, I wouldn't have one. I encourage the CRTC to finally follow their mandate and restore public confidence in taxpayer bankrolled institutions, reducing consumer costs, simultaneously fostering innovation and the modernization of Canada.

Giving the people a choice is also a bad idea, because the carriers will skew incentives or add on additional "activation fees/surcharges" to discourage the 1 and 2 year pricings. It's simple business practice. This goes on today. Telus would gladly sell you a phone on a 2 year term for a $100 discount off the phone. Sign a 3 year? $500 discount. Similar margins will be maintained by hidden fees.

NEW NETWORKS DO NOT STAND A CHANCE

I feel strongly that there is a fundamental flaw in the way licences have been awarded resulting on an unfair burden for new entrants.

When Rogers, Bell and Telus were starting out, they did not have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for spectrum. They were encouraged to build national networks and only once established were substantial fees put in place.

Solution

- Any new entrant would get a one time exemption. The value of the spectrum they were bidding on, instead of being paid to the government, would have to be put into infrastructure in building a national network. This money could NOT be used for salaries, call centers or other operational cost but specifically for towers and cell sites (especially in rural areas).

- New entrants would only be able to bid on new spectrum covering all provinces in the pursuit of building a national network that could compete. Having all these small regional players will never result in true competition and eventually will guarantee failure.

- A stipulation would be added that any cellular network operating in Canada that exceeded 30% foreign ownership would agree to have all their Call Centers in Canada, thus guaranteeing Canadian jobs.

To any new business cash flow is the most important element. With the current system new entrants have their cash flow devastated because they have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars just to pay fees with no tangible benefit to the new business they are trying to build.

The reality is we really have to look at the fact that protecting companies in this industry and allowing them to operate above the law is not in the net best interest for Canada. If 60% of the revenue was coming from overseas than an argument could be made. The fact is 98% of the renew is coming out of Canadians pockets resulting in a major drag on the Canadian economy and a negative impact on Canadian productivity. Even if consumers were offered the same rates that are currently being offered to corporate accounts plus 20% (so corporate accounts still felt special), the result would be hundreds of millions of dollars put back into the Canadian economy that would impact a much wider range of industries or could be used to help Canadians lower their ever increasing household debt.

Dear CRTC: Want to know why Canadians "Choose" 3-year Contracts?

The draft code simply says that it will not deal with 3-year contracts, because this is an option that many Canadian choose. Sure, this is true, but this is because we have no other choice. Try and buy a blackberry on a 2 year term. You'll be lucky to get $100 off the phone and a $70 plan with limited minutes. Upgrade to a 3 year term, that same phone is now $500 off and the plan is $55.

So no, Canadians don't really choose to go on a 3-year, we're forced to go on one if we want service with a national, well established carrier.

The CRTC needs to address contract lengths. I'm not saying they need to mandate maximum 2 year contracts (I traditionally take a very laissez-faire stance), but at least look into it!

I honestly don't understand how the biggest issue raised by consumers (3year contracts) was barely addressed by the CRTC.

I'm very disappointed in the Draft Code.

The draft code fails to address the number one concern of Canadian consumers: 3 year contracts. You asked Canadians for our inputs, and simply ignore the top (and most frequently occurring) comments? I don't know about everyone else here, but I smell a hidden agenda...

I urge the CRTC to limit contracts to two years. This is not a tall order. We simply want the same treatment other countries' carriers give their customers. Operating a network in Canada is not more costly than these countries (such as the US). Canada has, for the most part, a very densely populated geography. That's not to mention that the vast majority of Canada is not covered by any carrier, rendering their claim that "operating a network in a large country such as Canada is more costly than the US".

Data Transmission Costs

The reality
Modern cell phone systems handle all transmissions as packets of digital data. Since the cell phone is also a computer, this also means that all communication is actually computer to computer. It does not matter whether the original signal started out as a voice conversation, a text SMS message, a video clip, a data file, an Email or a web page. All are handled the same way, as packets of data, a stream of bits, ones and zeroes, preceded and followed by agreed upon header data. The distinctions that phone companies make to customers between voice and data are not distinctions the cell towers and intermediate systems are aware of. They are a “marketing” ploy, not really based on any actual difference to them. Equally, the “system” is not aware of whether the packet of data being forwarded came from a client who transmits the equivalent of a few Megabytes of data a month, or many thousands. I say equivalent, because, as stated, even voice conversations move as data, with one minute of voice being from1-3 Megabytes of data. The difference in cost based on volumes or type of contract are only made at the period end accounting stage, not in any prior processing.

If “data” or bit streams are what are being handled each time, how much is it really costing the carriers? To get an estimate we can examine the published tariffs charged by various carriers, adjusting for the fact that these are prices, not costs.

Typical current rates/practices
In Canada carriers form an oligopoly, with some f the world's highest charges for their services. For low volume users, charges are typically $5 for 10MB or 50 c/MB. At high volumes, they offer 5 GB for $35 or an average of some 0.7 c/MB, and at an incremental cost of only 0.4 c/MB. From 50 cents per MB to a fraction of a cent! However, as in all these instances, the low rates are only reached if all the 5 GB is used.

A typical 30 day usage agreement might involve:

$ 5 15 35
MB 10 250 5000
Avg. c/MB 50 6 0.7
Incr. c/MB 4 0.4

However, if the first 10 MB of data is exceeded on the 29th day, the cost jumps to the next price of $15 per month, raising the rate to $1.50 per Megabyte, or 3 times the starting rate! The step function change in price is typical of the offered rates. Furthermore, the contract terms virtually guarantee that every customer will be charged, every month, for services they have NOT received! Read that last sentence twice.

As another example of typical rates, data rates with a turbo stick flex plan are as follows.

$ 22 42 62 82 102
GB 0.1 2 5 10 15 >15
Avg c/MB 22 2.1 1.2 0.8 .068
Incr. c/MB 1 0.68 0.4 0.4 1

Another plan offers:

$ 15 20 35
GB 0.25 0.5 5
Avg c/MB 6 4 0.7
Incr c/MB 2 0.33

Additional charges beyond 5 or 15 GB are typically at 1-1.5 cent per Megabyte, rather than at the incremental rate of 0.33 to 0.4 c/MB charged in lower volumes. The only explanation for this is that vendors build their revenue model with the expectation of charging for services not delivered.

Again, each plan jumps up to the next price when a threshold is exceeded and charges the new rate whether the data is used or not. The most interesting number in these tables is the “incr c/MB” or incremental price in cents per Megabyte,- what the vendor is charging at that point for an extra MB of data. It indicates that their marginal cost is very low relative to their initial charges.

Interestingly, the high volume rate is comparable to that in some other countries. Australia, for example, offers similar but lower rates than Canada with some 5 GB for A$27 or A$0.0054. Some foreign carriers also offer unlimited volumes for a monthly fee – something that is disappearing from North American offers.

As another confirmation of the low actual costs, the EU is establishing a wholesale, inter-carrier rate of 0.02 Euros per Megabyte for data roaming charges. By contrast, one Canadian carrier charges $3 per Megabyte for data roaming in the US.

One can conclude from these numbers that actual cost to the carriers is close to 0.1 or 0.2 of a cent /MB. One infers this from the fact that an oligopoly is unlikely to price its service below cost, even if they expect to charge for unused capacity.

As a result of these charging practices, comments and blogs on the web, indicate that phone companies, and, by association, the CRTC, have garnered an incredibly bad reputation. The customers may sometimes be virulently antagonistic, but with an oligopoly, there is nowhere else for them to go. I would suggest that this attitude is very much driven by the obvious larceny perpetrated under the terms of existing contracts.

Every contract says that when a threshold is exceeded, the charge is changed to the next higher one. Going, say, from 250MB, to 5 GB. Every customer can see that near the end of the period they will likely have time to use 1, 2, or maybe even 3 GB of the 5, yet pay for 5, and next month the process is repeated. On a prepay voice plan a similar fate awaits. If the value is topped up one day late, any balance is lost. In each case money is taken for a service NOT received.

In such a situation good customer relations are impossible, it does not matter how many cute animals are used in the commercials.

SMS

SMS involves sending small text messages between cell phones, or from other devices. The limit to a single message length is 140 characters (octets), 70 16 bit symbols, or 160, 7-bit characters. In the last mile of the cell tower to phone link, it uses otherwise unused gaps in the control channel so as to send the messages essentially for free. Intermediate hops presumably travel like any other packet. Nevertheless, the handling of such SMS traffic is so cheap that in the EU, there is no charge for receiving an SMS even when roaming. Sending one is about $0.10 or less, even going below 5 cents on some carriers. By contrast, in Canada, the pay as you go rate is $0.20 for both sending and receiving or $0.40 per message. Unlimited messaging is available for $5-7 per month. This might seem cheap, until you calculate its cost per Megabyte.

While the maximum SMS is limited to 160 characters, actual average message length is likely less, and probably around 100 characters. At this size, the pay as you go charge in Canada is $4000 per Megabyte since both sender and receiver pay $0.20. Contrast that charge with a likely cost of 0.1-0.2 cents per Megabyte to actually handle the message! Even with unlimited texts between clients, both of whom have the package for $10-14 between them, the charge would be some $50 per Megabyte for 2000 messages. While a lot better than $4000, it is still a massive markup relative to the cost of a fraction of a cent. It is particularly onerous when compared with the EU charges of a few pennies to send, and free message receipt.

Voice equivalent data

Telephone calls can be analyzed similarly. Skype using VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) is reported to require some 1-3 Megabyte per minute. However, it sends and receives continuously and does not use “no transmission” during silent periods. Digitized telephone conversations handled by the phone company likely use less than 1 Megabyte per minute. Given their cost of data transmission, this again takes us into a telephone conversation cost of less than one cent a minute while pay as you go is charged at $0.30 to $0.40 per minute at each end. Interestingly, the carrier charge of $0.50 for 1 Megabyte of data (pay as you go, small user) is similar to the price charged per minute for a phone conversation.

Does anything in the process justify these markups for the small user? Certainly not in the case of handling of the transmission. Until the month end or period end accounting, there is no difference. Any complexity in the process which might add to cost is due to the carrier, not the customer. Furthermore, the pay as you go customers could top up at a quarter or year, rather than each month, thereby reducing the associated costs.

Alternatives

What then might be a more rational pricing model, one for the 21st century not the 20th or even 19th?
Since everything is handled as data streams, why not charge just for data. There is no difference between any of the mediums. Voice, text, video, all end up as packets of binary data, so charge for the amount of data sent or received. To cover the cost of tracking cell by cell, maybe, maybe, a fixed connect charge per 30 day period needs to be part of the contract.

First consider the SMS message. It is essentially free at the cost per MB of less than one cent. A Megabyte represents some 10,000 messages, over a month, that is some 330 per day, or about 4.6 hours per day of entering text into a phone. Even teenagers will not do that for long. In other words, if unlimited SMS was provided as part of every contract, the Canadian carriers would lose a massively profitable income stream, but at little cost, great customer benefit, and tremendous PR benefit. Furthermore, with any reasonable charge for data the SMS is essentially free, hardly worth the cost of tracking and counting.

For the rest, all is data. Contracts are for data transmission. The customer buys data handling, prepay or post-pay, at so much per Megabyte of actual use per 30-day period and no charging for unused data. Simple, straightforward, and understandable, without any penalties for failure to use or top up an account and, like the new rules on gift cards, termination dates are not allowed.

New Principle

1. Customers are charged only for actual data used.

This implies several things:

1. Since all transmission converts to data, only actual data use is measured and charged for.
2. There are no separate contracts for voice and data or device type, no need to contract for a set amount of each.
3. Prepaid amounts last until used up,
4. Rates charged within a 30 day period are based on volumes in that period and reset for the next period or when a top up is needed on a prepay account.

To support this, a customer can query the system at any time to determine amounts used and current incremental rate. It is the incremental rate in c/MB that drives the pricing, not a fixed price for a set number of MB, whether used or not.

The actual rate structure for a 30 day period might be:
first 25 MB at 20 c/MB, next 250 MB at 4 c/MB, next 2500 MB at 1 c/MB. Over 2500 MB is at 0.4 c/MB

As a table this gives:

GB First 0.025 Next 0.25 Next 2.5
MB First 25 Next 250 Next 2500 Next MB
c/MB 20 4 1 0.4
Total MB 25 275 2775 >2775
Total Cost $5 15 40 ?
Avg c/MB 20 5.45 1.44 <1.44

These rates, total dollars and thresholds are within the range of current offers, but the customer only pays for data, and only for what is used. Obviously alternative break points and rates are possible that yield similar returns.

In this scenario, the incentive for the prepay customer to use more is that they can double their data use from 25 to 50 MB (or the equivalent voice minutes) and only go from $5 to $6. The incentive to keep money in the account is that if they need to top up in the middle of a period, they reset the rate per MB to the higher starting rate.

Phone hardware subsidies are a separate issue. They represent a financial transaction in which the carrier is financing the phone purchase over a set period. Currently it is tied to a 2-3 year service contract in such a way that the customer may have difficulty determining how much of the cost is for the phone and how much, at what rates, for what service. These are really totally separate transactions and should be treated as such.

When it comes to the fine print, contract complexity, locked phones, etc, most of the issues disappear with this proposed rate structure and the “principle” that the customer only pays for what they use. Of course, such an approach may be fair, but it is not the current revenue model.

About time that some definite rules are put ion place to stop the abuse of carriers
The use of locked cell phones is license to print money and needs to be changed to stop the robbery.
I understand that cell phones in Europe are all sold as unlocked phones and can be used anywhere, so why can Canada not do the same.
My primary comment is in regard to item D7.1 wherein reference is made to a carrier SUPPLING a unlocked a cell phone to a customer.
I believe that this provision should be specifically amended such that if a customer BRINGS an owner suppled , unlocked cell phone to a carrier that the carrier shall provide service to said phone as long as the operating platform of the provided phone is compatible with their network. ( ie a GSM network)

Thks

The extent which the 3 year commitment is still being used is outrageous. We have to adopt a 2 year term for cell phone contracts such as Europe and the United States. People want choice and there is no choice currently. Giving new entrants the new spectrum in 2014 is the only way we will ensure that every consumer has “choice” in Canada. Giving the spectrum to the big three only hampers the consumer from having real choice and no out of the country company would want to compete if they can’t own spectrum threw out the whole Canada.

The big three have increased the cost of text messages, local and long distance charges in the last year. There reason to provide better service. It cost less next to nothing to send anything over a network. If the cost of these things are .01 in real terms, that is a 250% increase. In any other industry people would build companies to compete in that market, but in the telecom business the barrier to entry are very high.
Unlimited plans, have to be unlimited and should not be capped. Unlimited talk has to be unlimited talk, in the case of wind, in their region. That is fair, Bell, Telus and Rogers are not playing fair. Saying something is unlimited and then renege on that promise only to upset customers with no choice is unacceptable. If the company does not treat the consumer “right” the consumer should have a legal right to leave the contract without any penalty. Why is that you are “locked” in to the company, even if the company treats you like garbage and you have to stay with them, unacceptable. If the company does not honor their end you should have the right to terminate. There should be a termination clause for the consumer.
Paper Billing Fee should be free. I am a customer and should be treated with respect. Nickel and dimming me is not how you get and keep consumers.

It comes down to competition. We need more or this is going to be a major issue in years to come.

I would like to see the expiry of phone minutes abolished. The government made the expiry of gift cards from stores illegal, so i see no reason why it shouldnt be the same for when you buy minutes for your phone. We have paid for those minutes, it should not be removed just because a provider has decided it must be used within a certain timeline. I have over $200 in minutes on my phone still, but I can't use it all before it expires. Therefore I'm forced to keep buying more cards to keep that $200 in minutes. If I'm one day past the expiry for the minutes the $200 disappears.

Where is the logic behind locking the phone since it would currently cost me more money to unlock the phone with a third party. I want to travel with my smartphone using sim cards from other countries, which is currently not possible. Using buckets of minutes from Rogers for travel is outrageously expensive & out of the question. I am left to using my older unlocked phone for travel & taking my smartphone for wireless. Subsidized or not, I own the phone & want to unlock it. By the way, Rogers is willing to unlock it for $50 when my contract is up. No logic, even if they unlock now, I am still tied to them for 1.5 years. Locking my phone & tieing me to a contract sounds illegal to me.

Data Plans are an issue. I purchased a data plan for a trip to Maui. A single purchase that offers a certain amount of data over a period of 4 weeks. If data is exceeded, you get charged accordingly. Fine. Well, when I was in Maui, the data plan did not work. I was unable to connect to the local AT&T network at all. When I returned home, I contacted Rogers to get a refund on my $50 data plan. Sounds easy? No. They refused to refund any amount. Even though they acknowledge that I used zero data as they do monitor the amount of data in case you are a single byte over so that they can charge you the next tier. They claim that they can not control the quality of the service at the destination even though they are more than willing to sell it for that specific locale. We're talking Maui with an AT&T network not some 3rd world country. Bottom line is that they should not be able to charge for a service that they did not provide....as I was completely unable to connect to AT&T, there would be no intercompany charges between AT&T and Rogers. This is purely dollars in their pocket. Once, my term is up, I will be moving all 3 of my contracted services to another provider. It may not be better, but I refuse to give Rogers any more business.

Roaming

The greatest challenge of roaming is that customers are both unable to unlock their device in order to use it abroad, and little information is available in advance by carriers regarding pricing in each country, and what offerings they have to mitigate those costs.

Carriers should be required to publicly provide their roaming price list so that customers can plan their trips in advance.

ABOVE ALL devices should be kept unlocked to provide the customer with the option of using foreign sim cards when abroad.

The business model on roaming should be based on providing the customer with the ability to use their phone and retain their phone number abroad, and offer competitive packages to entice customers to do this rather than use a foreign network sim.

Long Distance

This is something that needs to be re-defined and standardized. The premium charge associated with Long Distance is difficult to grasp in a world of mobile devices especially since most carriers draw these lines along geographical points. The border zones become problematic as long distance can be calling across the street making long distance near impossible to reasonably avoid to some. Moreover different carriers have different long distance maps to complicate things further.

Long Distance should be defined as an industry for clarity and take relative proximity into consideration. IE. You should never have to pay long distance to call within the city you are standing in.

Hi, My issue is with service termination. I don't understand (actually I do understand that telecom companies trying to grab our money) that when I want to get a new connection or service, I can do it in a click of the mouse on their website or with a single call. But when I want to terminate the service, there is no link on the website where I can log in and just disconnect my service, I don't have time to wait for 4-5 hours trying to get the right person to disconnect, and then I am being slapped 30 days notice. If they want 30 days notice, then there should be a 30 days grace period, where I can use their service and if I don't like it I will not continue. And I am totally against 3 year term condition, it should be not more than 24 months and the payments should be different for the device and the service, so that I can change the career without any fine and keep paying for the device. In one instance, I bought a chip because I need to use internet for one single day, and I end up paying for 2 months of service, because if I want to cancel the service, I have to give them 30 days notice, means if I need it for one day, then I have to call them right away after buying the service to disconnect it, even then technically, it will cross their 30 days deadline time.
in my view if we want to have a good competitive and user friendly environment for wireless service providers, we need to have a code in place where consumer's rights should be clearly defined and the disconnection of the service should be as easy as buying the service.
thanks for taking the time to read my concern.

Prohibit SIM locking

The use of SIM locking by cellular carriers should be prohibited, as it serves no purpose other than to stifle competition. It does this in several ways:

1. The cost of switching mobile providers is increased, because the consumer is forced to either pay an unlocking fee, or else purchase a new phone.
2. Consumers are unable to use a foreign operator's SIM card while abroad, and thus are forced to pay unreasonably high roaming rates to Canadian carriers, or else purchase a second phone for use while abroad. A 2011 OECD study found that Canada's wireless providers charge the highest roaming rates of any OECD country. If consumers could readily install foreign SIM cards, competetive pressure would push down Canadian carriers' exhorbitant roaming fees.
3. Locking reduces the resale price of used phones, since they are only useful on a single carrier's network.

Carriers selling subsidized phones do not depend on SIM locks to protect their investment, since the consumer is already bound by a contract when they purchase a subsidized phone.

Nearly all cellular phones sold in Canada, including those sold outright, are locked. As a result, consumers wishing to purchase an unlocked device have only a few choices available to them, and those choices are difficult to find.

As almost all of Canada's mobile network operators have now standardized on UMTS and LTE technologies, most cellular phones are capable of connecting to many different networks. Thus, eliminating SIM locks would enhance competition among network operators by allowing Canadians to easily switch providers.

Two countries (Singapore and Israel) have completely prohibited SIM locking, and I believe Canada should do the same.

There are many issues I would like to see in the new code

1. Shorter Contract Term, Automatic unlocking at the end of Contract expiry
2. Prepaid minutes should not expire (like the prepaid gift cards) or at least should last 6 months after addition.
3. Monthly minutes should rollover next month.
4. 30 days notice is way too long if I am not on a contract.
5. I was charged one extra month when I gave 30 days notice and then ported my number before expiry of 30 days. if I have already told that I will end my service in 30 days why it matters if I ported my number before 30 days.
6. Recording of customer calls in favour of carriers. There should be email address set up to leave the message so as not to waste time on phone.
7. If I am not subscribing any texting plan when I receive text messages which I have to pay for.
8. Why there are extra charges for Caller ID, What carriers have to do to do that. There is no extra effort.

no more home zones.. it is not the 1900 any more. we are not limited the cart and ox to get around. this is a global age, we could be in Vancouver in the morning and Toronto that night.. we could live in Calgary and work in red deer. the idea the we don't travel out side our home zone is ludacris all plans need to be nation wide. no more roaming fees.. it is just a way to charge you more for nothing.. its not like we are jumping from network to network...unless you use one of the start ups whose network has not expanded and they rely on the big 3 network to provide service.

double dipping needs to be addressed as well... stop charging for calling and receiving calls.. the only charge should be to the person making the call. same with text messages it should only be to the sender not the person receiving.

I just wanted to state that any "code" needs to have penalties and specific details.
1) No contract should exceed 2 years (to be honest 1 year would be better)
2) During the term of the contract unlocking the phone should ALWAYS be available at a set and standardized reasonable rate (ie $20-40). The contract is still enforced and if the user chooses to switch carriers at that point normal pay out of any remaining balance from the term should still be applicable. The option to unlock would potentially save users traveling hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars due to outrageous roaming charges for voice/data.
3) Much of this draft does NOTHING for consumers as it stands now as the big three have already moved in preparation for this - doing as little as possible to allow consumers free choice by protecting 3 year contracts.
4) for all data services - both wireless and internet the word "unlimited" should mean unlimited not "5gb or whatever a company deems excessive" it needs to be spelled out and honest.
5) Reasonable back out options need to be available - at one point for example rogers gave 30 minutes of talk time or 175kb of data and then there was no option to cancel the contract. The problem is a single email on a data plan can use several mb. This needs a reasonable TIME factor as opposed to usage factor. Say 15-30 days. This would allow consumers time to cancel in cases where coverage is inadequate or non-existant where they live versus use right outside of a carriers store front.

The Code does not deal with the service provider restricting the customer's use of the phone. If the service provider has a dispute with a customer over non-payment or anything else, the sole option should be for the service provider to terminate the services. Otherwise, the service provider continues to charge the customer the normal amount for services even though they are not providing those full services and artificially drives up the amount of the charges that the service provider will enter on the customer's credit history, with the customer effectively unable to do anything about it.

Section B.2 of the Code should be Option 1 applying to both existing and new contracts otherwise people with existing contracts will be waiting years to get any benefit from the Code.

"Our Canadian carriers all want in on the upcoming 700MHz auction, the Big 3 have said they want an open auction with no set-asides. George Cope, President and CEO of Bell, said that an “open auction ensures roll-out of rural and urban LTE”. In addition, Rob Bruce, President, Communications for Rogers, stated that putting any “Restrictions on the 700 MHz band auction would be unfair to our nine million wireless customers who have every right to access a truly national, robust LTE network in both urban and rural markets”.
Excerpt from : http://mobilesyrup.com/2011/11/18/poll-how-should-the-upcoming-700mhz-sp...

This is the kind of crap Canadians have to put up with from Rogers and the like. Rogers complains about being fair in a market where they are part of an oligopoly that has been gouging consumers for years, absolutely disgusting. The two faced dishonesty and misleading lies pouring from the mouths of these incompetent fools needs to be recognized and stopped. This starts with going beyond limiting contract lengths, disallowing locked phones and making the current big carriers more transparent (though these measures are an absolute necessary first step). Canadians need more competition in the telecom industry, the big carriers have to be forced to offer reasonable prices for their services because they sure as hell have been abusing their power since day one.

The Code should specify that the service provider cannot for any reason refuse a customer's request to terminate their services immediately. I have recently had the problem with Rogers where we purchased a U.S. data plan before traveling to New York. Contrary to what was stated to me on the phone, we did not receive a text message notification that we were approaching the limit of our data plan. When we were charged over $600 on our next bill, we wrote a letter disputing the extra charges but continued to pay our regularly monthly charges. Our attempts to resolve the problem were futile. Rogers then began restricting not just our cell service but also our home phone service and internet by preventing us from making and receiving calls, sending and receiving text messages and reducing internet speed. We have tried to terminate our services but Rogers refuses to cancel our services, stating that we cannot terminate our services when our account is in arrears. Rogers refuses to unlock our cell phone, which was not subsidized, without a $50 charge. So we are stuck with a useless cell phone.

I have a number of comments to make regarding sections D1.5, D3.3, and D7.1.

D1.5, How and when contracts and related policies are to be provided:
I believe this provision should balance the benefit customers and providers get from being able to access and provide wireless services immediately after a verbal agreement, with the desire for customers to be able to see and understand contract provisions before those come into effect. Therefore, I believe providers should be able to provide wireless services before physical or electronic contracts are delivered and agreed upon, however, until such time that these contracts are agreed upon, absolutely NO charges (including cancellation, termination, or activation fees) may be charged to a consumer should they decide to not agree to the contract provisions. This would allow for immediate provisioning of services, but still protect the consumer from the current common industry practice whereby consumers often find themselves in binding contracts that were agreed to verbally, without that consumer ever seeing the provisions of those contracts.

D3.3 Cancellation Fee:
Current industry practice is to require customers provide certain amount of “advance notice” prior to cancelling services, for example, 30 days. For customers who wish to cancel services immediately, these extra charges are very similar to a cancellation fee. Therefore, this section should also specify the maximum number of days in advance of a cancellation date that carriers can require customers to notify them. I believe an appropriate balance would be 15 days.

D7.1 Unlocking Phones:
Phones are provided to carriers by OEM’s on an unlocked basis, and it is a carriers prerogative to restrict these phones to a particular network through locking codes. Since customers either fully pay for phones through un-subsidized purchases, termination fees, or regular monthly fees, it should be recognized that phones are solely the property of consumers and those consumers have the right to use that property as they see fit, including with a competing carrier. Therefore, under NO circumstances should a carrier be allowed to charge any fee whatsoever for the unlocking of phones. Should a carrier not wish to incur the cost of providing unlocking codes, they could merely provide the phones initially unlocked, which would also reduce their costs. By allowing carriers to charge a fee to unlock phones, the CRTC would be encouraging carriers to spend money locking phones, then spend additional money (and pass the cost to consumers) to unlock the same phone later on. This is economically counterproductice and serves no rational purpose whatsoever in light of the fact that the phones belong to the consumer. The CRTC should instead be incentivizing carriers to provide consumers with fully unlocked phones, which would increase competition and increase customer choice, by lowering the barriers that consumers have to switching carriers. They can do this by requiring carriers who provide locked phones, to also provide unlock codes, in a reasonably timely manner, for no charge.

Lack of competition is clearly the problem
The big 3 simply work together to offer similar pricing and packages. Instead of innovating, we are seeing features being taken away. Remember billing by the second? This was an free incentive by Cantel for switching to a Digital device. Features such as CID, VM should not be charged as they are simply cash grabs. Same for long distance minutes within Canada/local zones. A call termination rate is the same everywhere.

The CRTC should make it mandatory to:
1. End 3-year contract (or tabs or whatever you want to call them now). A customer should not be stuck with a provider for more that 24 months when purchasing a phone.
2. Provide a FREE device unlock for all phones after 90 days with the provider. Even those purchased subsidized. The carrier is protect via contract that they will recover the cost of the phone.
3. Force the Big 3 to allow FREE roaming of the new entrants (Wind, Mobilicity, Videotron...) on their network when outside of service areas (or at least make it cheap enough for the new Entrants to absorb the cost).
4. Control/limit roaming costs to outside Canada. (Wind charges $0.25, Rogers $1.45 for roaming in the US, something's not right)
5. Offer ability to filter/block numbers via the customer's portal (If you frequently get a wrong number, you should be able to block it at the source).
6. Any increase in fees (plan or features) should automatically null a contract. Discounts should be valid for the length of the term.
7. Allow REAL foreign competition in Canada. France launched a 4th provider (FREE Mobile) at 20 Euros a month with unlimited calling and SMS to 41 countries, 3GB data, CID, VM, No contract. Overnight the others matched the offer. Our new entrants offer decent pricing, but because their coverage is so limited (See #3), the Big 3 don't see them as a threat.

I agree, this is extremely frustrating, and I wonder if the CRTC is trying to walk a fine line between appeasing consumers and wireless providers alike ... this already can't be popular with wireless providers because it means less easy profits for them, they will actually need to work for their money by satisfying customers rather than bending them over a barrel

1 - I will add my voice to the chorus of voices screaming for the end of 3 year contracts. 2 years MAX!

2 - Break up the Oligopoly! There is not really competition, more like mild collusion

3 - NO MORE FEES for INCOMING TEXT MESSAGES!!

4 - Strongly consider getting rid of incoming call charges

5 - If there are no more Canadian entrants into the Market, time to consider allowing more foreign competition

6 - MONEY DOES NOT EXPIRE! So how come prepaid minutes do?? It's like stealing! I BOUGHT THE MINUTES, I GET TO CHOOSE HOW AND WHEN I USE THEM!! If the company wants more of my service, offer better terms, don't strong-arm me into usage.

Canada is one of the few countries in the world that actually charges for incoming calls ... Australia, a demographically similar country, with a similar population density, has no such thing as incoming call charges. This is being double-charged.

re: D5.2

I would suggest that this aspect of the code require the company to include a date and time for which the online monitoring tool's information is accurate. An issue with the online monitoring tools offered by companies such as Fido is that it can take many days for them to reflect recent usage, especially with international roaming usage - one of the times that consumers most rely on such a tool. The code should either require that the online monitoring tool reflect usage as of a certain time (e.g. within 72 hours of the usage being incurred) or the tool should be required to inform the customer of how current its information is.

One of the things I have noticed is that the price of cell phones have not decreased since their inception 10 or more years ago. Why is this? I believe that it unlike say big screen tvs, computers, laptops, dvd/blue ray players and even game consules, we sign long term agreements which include the price of the inflated cell phone whereas if there were no long term contracts and open competition between the cell phone companies and not a third party then these prices would, as with all open compatitive purchasing items the prices would decrease to a reasonable price and then the purchaser could shop around for the best service provider deal available in the open market.

I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS BUT …

1. The fact that a phone in the US on a 2 year is the same price as a phone in Canada on a 3 year proves my point. If the networks were forced back to 2 years and did not change the price of the phone it would be the only goods or service in existence where US and Canadian pricing matched.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/05/pol-canada-us-price-diffe...

2. Just because you are on a 3 year contract does not mean you could not be eligible for a fully subsidized hardware upgrade after 1 or 2 years as has been the case in the past. Only recently did Rogers change eligibility from 2 to 3 years. This is something the draft code could address.

3. All the networks in Canada have strict contracts with the phone manufacturers stating that those manufacturers must sell exclusively (through Canadian distribution) to the networks and no other party. As a dealer we were forced to buy all of our product from Rogers. There are several businesses that import unlocked phones themselves but these phones have no Canadian manufacturer warranty. In many cases you’ll wait 2 months for a repair if the seller offers a warranty at all.

4. To address EthicalWireless - “First, it assumes that the Canadian public is stupid. If the carriers simply jacked up their rates by 50%, people might notice”

Let’s see …

- Overage Rates: In 2007 the average overage rate on a consumer plan was $0.20 a minute. Rogers has slowly moved this rate up $0.05 at a time to where it is now $0.45 per minute. They have millions more subscribers today but still have raised overage rates 125%.

- Long Distance: With long distance rates coming down everywhere else Rogers has increased the Canadian long distance rate for it’s users up 80% from $0.25 to $0.45 since 2007.

- US Roaming: US roaming rates were $1.25 per minute when the Canadian dollar was only worth $0.70 US. Now on par, current US roaming rates are $1.45 per minute.

- Unlimited Incoming Text: 2009 Rogers started charging customers for incoming text messages even though the contracts clearly stated this feature was included with all plans.

- US Travel Packages: Rogers removed monthly packages and replaced them with day and week passes in many cases doubling the cost of anybody traveling to the US for more than 7 days.

- Upgrade Eligibility: At one point a majority of customer were eligible for a fully subsidized hardware upgrade every year regardless of the term of their contract. This was moved to 18 months, 2 years and now most customers have to wait 3 years.

- PayGo: October 2011 every PayGo customer on Rogers using automatic credit card payment had their minute rate increased 20% and I have yet to find one customer who is aware of this fact.

- Paper Billing Fee: As of this month any customer who does an upgrade (keeping their existing contract and plan) or even a phone number change must first agree to start paying a $2.00 paper bill fee or opt for online billing.

The Canadian public is not stupid, just unaware or in most cases simply powerless.

My biggest problem with how the industry operates is how I pay for a service yet I have to use my 1gb of data and my 200 mins of talk time within a month. I know with prepaid phones I can pile on minutes and have them roll over for the next month or 3..I think up to 90 days. So what I would like to see is data roll over every month that I have not used and minute roll over as well. Why do I have to pay for 1gb of data if some months I dint use all 1gig? If I pay for something I should be able to use it out of the month, especially since I am mot on a month to month contract im on a 3 year contract so whatever data I have accumulated I should be able to use in my 3year contract. They already have been offering this in the U.S. for years why are we lagging so far behind? We are suppose to be a 1st world country not 3rd when it comes to advancing in this field.

Please correct this problem and make it right! It would be like you paying for gas in your car and you didnt use it within a months time and the gas company comes and syphons out your fuel and you need to get more.

This is not fair.

Prepaid phones -expiry dates
My complaint is with Telus and a particularily vile business practice they conduct. It involves the theft of unused time (monies) by an expiry date imposed by them.

For example: if you have say $15.00 left on your account by their expiry date, let's say it's the 1st of the month, and you do not top up the account before the 1st of the month, Telus takes the $15.00. I have had this very thing happen. I purchased additional time from Telus and when I went to apply the additional time to my pre-paid account on the 1st of the month - voila, Telus has absconded with my money.

I didn't contact Telus. They are very difficult to communicate with as their call centres are all in 3rd world countries manned by staff with limited english skills.

Their practice of impossing expiry dates on time you purchased from them is not only immoral it should be illegal.

Carriers should be required to release any operating system security patches released by a phone vendor.

Patches should be pushed to phones within 30 days of the phones vendor make the patch available to any carrier in the world (this is to avoid Canadian companies from saying 'we didn't get that patch')

This should apply to any model of phone currently being sold by the carrier and to any phone model currently under a contract with the carrier. So if they make a phone available for 2 years for sale on 3 year contracts the carrier must maintain secure operating systems for 5 years.

Carriers that fail to do this so should forfeit any claim to early cancellation fees, termination fees and device subsidies. It should also trigger immediate unlocking of the device with no fee to the client

Carriers should be required to publish the current OS version available from the phone vendor and the current version the carrier is distributing.

1. Maximum 2-year contracts. Longer contracts make no sense to customers because new cell phones models appear on the market every few months.
Right now long contracts are used to disguise high cost of a phone, that's why -

2. providers MUST clearly specify cell phone cost included in the contract and also to ensure competitive pricing for hardware.

3. All opreators MUST support option to reduce the cost of a contract if a client brings in his/her phone (unlocked or locked with the same operator). For example if a 2 year contract with $240 phone included costs $40/month that comes up to $960 (24 months x $40). If a person brings another phone or wants to use old phone the cost of the contract must be reduced by $240 and become $960-$240=$720, $720/24 = $30/month.

The reason for that is to ensure the operators are not pushing customers to upgrade when contract ends. There could be no model that client likes, or he/she might be willing to keep an old phone, or wants to upgrade a bit later when a new model becomes available without paying premium cost while he/she doesn't use new phone yet. Also indirectly that would promote competition between providers as they will need to offer better choice of phone models. Often the selection is very limited although there are hundreds and hundreds of phones that could work with that network.

4. 9-1-1 and ALL other mandatory fees must be included in contract.
The criteria is: if a customer cannot avoid a fee - do not mislead them by showing an attractive low cost that they will never get. Just say that contract is $XYZ dollars including 911 fee, etc. etc.

5. There must be caps on roaming fees and service costs and there must be a way to alert clients that they are overspending. For example if a cost of roaming and other fees suddenly rises above 50% of average monthly bill an operator should send an alert to the client to notify him or her about potential issue. Operators will benefit from that as well resolving less issues and dealing with less frustrated clients.

From Moonie:

I would like to see more transparency with billing, for example, I am being charged a lot of money in excess every month for text messages, I am limited to not being able to type too much. I admit I send text messages but not to the amount what Rogers is claiming and where they have the customers to really harm them is when they send their cell phone bill they show every call that came in and every call that went out, however, they do not send this for text messaging. I would like to see just like how they have the detailed billing for the incoming calls and outgoing calls I would like to see that for the text messages as well. And the other thing is that I know we are not in the States, but if it’s workable in the States I think it is workable in Canada but only because it’s a revenue generating strategy that is why it is not being implemented or enforced in Canada whereas if you live in the States and you are calling Alaska you are able to make these calls without 1) roaming; and 2) long distance so we should have nationwide text messaging and calling just like they have in the States with no extra additional cost. I would like to see no activation fee because and the only reason I would like to see this is how else they expect people to have a working phone. It should be part of the deal. And no add-ons unless the customer agreed to it and no handing over the customer’s information to third parties and no cancellation fee and it shouldn’t be mandatory to have a data package in order to get a smart phone. It’s like we are being forced to getting a data package in order to have the luxury of a smart phone. Unlock phones at the customer’s request at any time because the cost of the phone is already included and if they break a contract they still pay a penalty for breaking the contract and the cost of the phone is already covered there. Whether a contract is broken on the provider side or the customer’s side there shouldn’t be a penalty for unlocking the phone. Another thing is when you have a plan of 1000 minutes a month and you are paying for the whole 1000 minutes even though you did not use all of the 1000 minutes. I would like to see, because keep in mind the customer’s are not using half of the minutes they are paying for and the next month they may go over and the provider are charging them for going over and not crediting them the amount that was not used for the previous month. So it’s either they give a credit for the unused portion or they roll over the unused minutes to the next month. Let’s just say in January I had 700 minutes and only used 300 but I got charged 700 because that’s how cell phone providers do their thing. Then let’s say in February I used more than the 700 they charge in excess whatever I go over. Now, I’m not only speaking on my behalf but also speaking on behalf of a lot of other people as well. Now, let’s just say that prepaid customer’s pay $30 per month to use their service and they did not use all of the minutes and did not use all of the minutes by the end of the month, the customer would lose minutes and their money. So I would like to see the customer get reimbursed for the unused portion or get a credit to the next month. And now internet access, anybody can turn on and because the providers make a lot of money because when a customer gets a “hot spot” they are being charged for the connection. These same customers can pick up the service and be charged a theft of service. They have no control they have a connection. You say “oh my God I have a connection let me google this I’ll google that on my phone” you can be charged. It comes under theft of services because you have no control of what signal you pick up.

how about butt dialing police--- put a fee for customers doing so- lets say 100$ for first offence. 500$ for second, not allowed to ever use cellphones again for 3rd offence. etc...
How about telling customer about if any encryption technologies are used? and what are they?
and about E911 service always needs to be working, as long as there is a sim card or whatever in the phone even if it is not activated...etc
Also providing customers with % of drop calls, bad connections--- in certain areas. aka Which provider and cellphone has better service for which area.
give the levels of radiation, min while in sleep, max- while used. each device gives off in what ever units seem reasonable before customers purchase a device.
have a disclaimer about the radiation and cancer, and effecting sperm/baby development of the cellphones.

Customers who supply their own hardware should not be subject to the same contract terms or rates as those who are buying subsidized hardware. I understand having to agree to a term and a certain monthly rate if my carrier is providing me a $150 iPhone, but if I pay Apple several hundred for an unlocked iPhone, I shouldn't have to agree to the same contract length and rates to get service on it.

If I provide the phone, nothing is subsidized and my monthly rate should be lower and I shouldn't be obligated to be anyone's customer for any term length.

The fact that this discussion is finally taking place is great news for Canadian consumers but there is much work to be done. The draft is on the right steps to a better market for Canadians but looking over many peoples comments, there all valid points not implemented into the draft that should be.

1. Contract length: The current three year length of wireless contracts is unquestionably dated and illogical. Both the United States and the UK both do two year contracts, not three. Three years is far too long to hold onto an electronic device today. When cellular phones were simply phones then three years may not have mattered as much as newer phones were only design changes and call quality. Today the cell phone is no longer that, it is a personal item, a statement, a connection to the world, a way to remember loved ones, and by that extension it is one of the most important devices in many peoples lives. As a result of their importance they are now the target of massive research and development funds and constant change. iPhones change once a year, Android phone come out every month, people need choice and people like change. If the point of the Wireless Code is to be current, then adapt to the changing market and see that phones can no longer be three year commitments. The senate just released their report yesterday on Canadian goods vs. American good costs, well this is a good example of Canadians not being treated fairly and equally in a similar market for no apparent reason at all.

2. Contract Termination Fees: It is good that this is being addressed and I believe that many Canadians have wrote about this. The fee needs to be in plain English, it needs to be known at the time of signing what its cost will be and how to calculate it at any time, there needs to be no additional fees or time to wait before the cancellation takes place, and there needs to a maximum and NO minimum. If it would cost $22 to cancel then it shouldn't be that plus $50. If competition is one of the goals of this code than allow the consumer a reasonable opportunity to go to the competition should a better service price present itself somewhere else.

3. The Local Calling Area: This represents the modernization of international business and the constant reminder that we, as Canadians are not just Canadians. We are Italians, Turks, Korean, Polish, Spanish, and almost every other country around the world. There needs to be a recognition of this in the Wireless industry that people in this country have a need to stay in touch with their loved ones from around the world, not just their local area code. The current fees for international calling and texting is outrageously delusional for a service that costs barley anything at all to connect a call or send a SMS message. This is needs to regulated to benefit the millions of Canadians that live in Canada but have families elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, the United States of America is geographically and politically connected to us in so many ways. Millions of Canadians travel there each year to visit, shop, and do business. Most wireless plans in the USA include Canada texting and calling, why does Canada not have USA calling and texting? Some carriers in Canada have US texting but some don't, and some have cheaper international calling packages, and some don't. This needs to addressed. The USA should be included in all plans as well as Nationwide calling as local area codes are archaic and dated from years ago, and outside of North America should be regulated to be cheaper and more fair for Canadians.

4. Unlocked Phones: This is a topic that many of people have touched and it is true, locking phones is poor business strategy to force a consumer to stay with that company. It reflects badly on the company and unlocking phones should be free from the carrier.

5. The Review: This code needs to be reviewed periodically as this industry changes far to quickly to allow this to happen again. This has taken far to long for the industry watchdog to step in and try to modernize, this should have been a constant thing, make sure it is moving forwards.

Those are things that I believe should be added to the new draft code and it would allow Canada to become a leader in the wireless industry for attention to the consumer and fairness. We need to move forward and have thinking that reflects that forward direction or else we will be stuck in a stalemate with no room to grow.

*Eliminate 3 year contracts
*Eliminate onerous processes that make it harder to get out of a contract and go elsewhere for cellphone services.
*Making Carriers unlock cellphones (for free NOT a charge) and keep them unlocked so that you can more easily go elsewhere.
*Removing provisions that allow companies to continue to charge you (past the date of your contract renewal) if you are unable to pay overdue/pastdue amount in order to change your contract and stop occurring fees.

More elaborately and eloquently put are my comments predecessors:

" Eliminate 3 year fixed term contracts. The level of corporate competition is increasing at phenomenal speeds. Technology itself moves rapidly forward on an almost annual basis. Forcing customers into 3 year terms severely limits their ability to take advantage of both new technology and better pricing. If consumers can purchase new phones more quickly this also greatly helps the retail industry. Even if providers cannot offer so-called "$0" offers anymore, it promotes more consumer fiscal responsibility in spending and associated contracts and helps lower the amount of consumers defaulting on their contracts leading to bad credit, or loss revenue for the provider."

"Unlimited Plans need to be truly Unlimited otherwise they cannot be labelled as such. One of the main goals of the Code is to create simplicity for the consumer. When "unlimited" is not truly unlimited, it breaks with the purpose of the Code to create truthful, simple, and easy to understand marketing and concepts to the consumer."

If charges to unlock the phone are not stipulated (they should be free anyhow) then the companies will just make these charges so ridiculous and include a whole bunch of other nonsense like handling and delivery) that it will be almost impossible to have this be an effective option for consumers. Phones should be unlocked.. It should be up to the consumer if they wish to joing multiple networks with the same phone and it should certainly be their option to replace their sim card in other countries (while traveling) to avoid the ridiculous pricing set here for travels.

SLA - Issues with cell coverage and service

Why are cell contracts allowed to speculate that you pay whether the service is working or not or to what level. Shouldn't the providers have an SLA (Service Level Agreement) in place with the consumer?

Understood that if I am not in a designated area on the map I can't complain, bu, I have had many issues over the past 3 years with one of the prairies carriers. With the implementation of 3G/4G they have had lots of hiccups and the amount of dropped calls, data slower than dial-up among other issues for weeks/months at a time.The representatives would state on the phone and in the news that its all customers are affected and that they are 'working' on it. I am paying for a service that I expect it to be available 99.99% of the time and work to a certain quality.

If an SLA is not met in most industries, stiff penalties and fines are usually a result. I think if it is not met then reimburse parts of the bill or allow the contract to be terminated. This would also make the carrier to work harder towards on the quality and stability of there systems in fear of breaking the SLA.

Consumers need a cellphone lemon law.

If after three attempts within a 30-day period the carrier has not resolved the customer's issue the consumer should have the option of cancelling the contract without penalty, having all money due to him refunded within a reasonable time, and his cellphone unlocked so he can take his business to an alternate carrier.

Nothing about 3 yr contracts? Really?

Phones and mobile devices are built and upgraded in such a way that by the end of the 3rd year, the devices are practically unusable through things like software/firmware upgrades, and device compatibility.

3 years is completely too long for a contract. I'm shocked there's nothing written into the draft code about this considering every other comment here is about the ridiculous length of these contracts.

If you want to serve Canadians and look out for THEM instead of the corporations, that's how you do it best, in my opinion.

I think it's great that we are finally talking about a wireless code of conduct. It's overdue.

I understand the telcoms desire for 3 year contracts, but this is the biggest problem with our market. All long term contracts should be banned, as should locked phones. These companies make more than enough money from our usage. In most cases - so long as the company treats the customer fairly, customers rarely switch providers anyway. Having locked in phones and long term contracts allows a company to abuse the customer and massively charge.

The argument that the phone needs to be subsidized is false. When I get a gas line or phone line run to my house it costs the utility hundreds of dollars to do this. I am not locked in. The utility knows as long as they bill my fairly, I am not going to change companies. They recoup their installation cost over time. The same is true for handsets.

Until long term locked in contracts are abolished we won't have a fair, liquid market for phone services.

As i see it the biggest problem with the Canadian carriers is the 3 year contract. locking of phones, cancellation fees. and miss representation of plans.

the say we don't like to pay the large price for the phone upfront, which is true but you pay the same price for the plan regardless if you own the phone or if its subsidised. In the U.K if people sign up for a 2 year TERM they often get the phone for free..if they want to subsidies the phone a little they can put down $50 - $100 reducing there monthly charge. that is what true competition brings.

the locking of phones in my opinion is illegal it breaks the fair trade act by stopping Canadians from using there own property with competing carriers thus stopping any competition and forcing us in to high paying and long term contracts.

the cancellation fee is another sore point, it stops any competition. if carriers were worried about losing customers they would sharpen the pencils. there should be no cancellation fee. at all. i can understand paying for the phone if it was subsidised. but at the same time i would say we should only pay half the remaining fee for the phone, and be able to swap to another carrier. if customer serves was important we would see better plans and services. but it is not, we are lock to 3 year plans we are penalized for trying to get something better.

In reading over the proposed code of conduct, I believe that it is a very good start but it is missing a few components.

I am glad that the "System Access Fees" have been eliminated but the 911 fee has me scratching my head.

My wife and I are Snow Birds and as such have seen many differences between service providers in the United States and Canada.

In the United States you can call nationwide for one low rate per minute or second in some cases.

We live in the Niagara Falls region and it is "Long Distance" to call Hamilton as it is "Outside our Calling Area" or not in our calling circle.

Our service provider makes sure to tell us that if we forget to put a 1 at the beginning of the number and we get charged additional airtime to listen to their announcement plus the "Long Distance" charge.

Why should I pay a "Long Distance" charge on my cell phone if someone calls me from Toronto using their landline or cellphone? Seems to me that the originator should be paying as the originator of the call.

My wife and I both have smart phones and I have monitored the phones using some special software for activity over night and thru the day as the phones constantly contact our provider looking for updates, messages and the latest Apple stock reports. (REALLY!!)

While the data usage for this is low, how many phones are doing this and at who's expense?

Then of course there are the unsolicited automatic "Updates" of 600 to 900 meg. I know that I am paying for that!

If a phone is on contract or not, it should not be locked to any provider as using the phone in another country forces the user to pay very high fees or forces him to buy a special rate for traveling if he uses the phone.

Our phones are unlocked and we have multiple SIMS and multiple phone numbers that allow us to use our phones at reasonable rates when we travel.

We are forced in the USA and Canada to use MVNO services (resellers) as we do not want to pay for phone service in Canada when we are in the USA and vice versa. Getting a month to month contract that can be suspended for 6 months does not seem to be possible in Canada or the USA.

In the USA we purchase a $100.00 card that gives us voice/text/and data at a fixed rate per call or meg etc. and the data is not limited to just "Web Browsing"

In Canada we purchase a similar service but our data is limited to "Web Browsing"

In closing I believe that data services should be just as important, if not more important than voice services in the writing of this code of conduct.

Conventional voice services are starting to die, just like home phones.

There are multiple VOIP services available. VOIP generally uses less overall bandwidth than a voice call. Also people tend to text, email, or IM much more often than call.

Thank you

NETWORK CONTRACTS - 1

As a Rogers Agent, I have signed tens of thousands of contracts. I have even gone so far as to reproduce the Rogers’ contract in my own retail system in order to add more information for the customer. Essential details regarding the price plan (not included on Rogers version), a calculation of the first bill which includes proration and other one time fees as well as bolding the activation fee, system access fee and ‘911’ fee. The fact is, when a customer left my store they were fully aware of what they signed.

The problem is that in an alarming number of instances when I went into the Rogers system to confirm items and bonuses listed on the contract, often they were missing resulting in significant overcharges to the customer. The result is, it does not matter how clear and easily understood the contracts are if the networks do not honour what is stated and signed for.

Once these problems are brought to Rogers’ attention, efforts to have the contracts honored is exhausting and have to be done for each contract individually as the system issues are often not addressed. As well, Rogers refuses to credit back more than three months of unjustified charges (if that) and in many cases refuses to honor the contract going forward claiming that the options / bonuses were never included in the first place even though clearly stated on the legal document.

When contacting Rogers to challenge a contract no Rogers’ representative in Customer Service / Retention / the President’s Office even the Legal Department has a copy of the contract that a customer signed available, let alone a copy of the Rogers Terms of Service or “any Rogers brochure” they would be relying on in order justify their response. Instead, Rogers’ representatives quote “Rogers’ Policy” that often differs from what is stated on the signed legal document.

OTHER PROBLEMS

- Millions of contracts that the networks currently bind their customers to are negotiated and agreed to verbally over the phone thus no documents are discussed, explained or signed.

- The contract Rogers’ customers sign must be read in conjunction with the Rogers “Terms of Service” that turns out to be a 23 page legal document on the Rogers’ website. I do not know of any customer that has ever been directed to this document by any Rogers’ employee or representative. If you read the fine print on the contract (Wireless Service Agreement) you will find this …

"This document is in addition to the applicable Wireless Service
Agreement previously entered into between you and Rogers and
must be read in conjunction with the current Rogers Terms of
Service and Acceptable Use Policy provided to you and posted on
rogers.com (and which replace the Terms of Service and
Acceptable Use Policy previously provided to you), any Rogers
brochure or online material describing the plans, features,
services and/or products you have selected and the Starting Up
Guide that are currently in effect."

- In addition to the issues listed above is the fact a high percentage of these contracts are signed by Rogers Authorized Dealers (third party agents) who withhold, misrepresent or do not disclose vital information to customers when signing contracts.

SOLUTION

1. Any and all terms and conditions must be listed clearly and accurately on the document being signed by the customer and Rogers’ Representative (agent). Networks could no longer rely on lengthy secondary documents that are not provided in store and rely on the customer going home to search for on the internet. This ridiculous policy ensures documents such as the “Terms of Service” are read after the contract has been signed.

Networks would also not be allowed to reference;

“Rogers brochure or online material describing the plans, features, services and/or products you have selected and the Starting Up Guide that are currently in effect”.

Details of the plans, features etc. should be clearly listed on the contract as opposed to relying on secondary material that is often not provided to the customer.

2. Customers contracts would have to be honored for the term that they are signed and customer should have right to have credits applied for the length of that term. In other words, if a customer signs a 3 year contract and two years into that contract finds that they were missing a $7.00 monthly credit for early evenings and weekends, the network would be required to credit that customer $168.00 + taxes ($7 x 24 months). As well, the $7.00 credit would be added to future invoices and remain permanently or until that price plan was changed.

3. While Networks would still be allowed to offer one time PR credits, any monthly reoccurring credit would have to remain until the price plan was changed on a customers’ account. I have found recently an alarming trend of Rogers’ representative short dating credits to fall off well before the contract end date. This also violates customer’s rights when the credit is being used to match a competitive offer whose terms would guarantee the reduced rate permanently.

4. Each province must have its own contract. Having all the varying terms, conditions, fees and early cancellation penalties from every Province and Territory listed on one document is unnecessary and needlessly confusing.

5. To ensure compliance, all price plans and offers must be registered with the CRTC by all the Networks in a format dictated by the CRTC. The price plan or option codes must be listed on the customers’ bill next to the appropriate item. In an event where the Network refused to honour a contract, the customer would simply have to send a copy of their bill to the CRTC. The CRTC could refer to their data base to see when was included with the price plan registered and if it did not match the customer’s bill then severe penalties and fines would be applied to the offending Network.

To summarize, simplifying the contracts will change nothing if there is no enforcement of the networks to honour the contracts.

30 DAYS NOTICE

Not that I agree with the policy but just a little information. When you pay your bill with any network, the monthly service fee is billed in advance while the minutes, LD, text, etc. are billed based on usage for the previous month.

In other words, when you get your March bill, the monthly fees listed cover April. When you cancel and are told you have to wait 30 days you have already paid they monthly fees in advance. Your final bill covers usage. If you were allowed to cancel within 3 days, the networks in most cases would owe the customer a credit. As we all know, no network will voluntarily give any money back to anyone.

The result would be, on a cancelled line, a customer would receive a bill indefinitely showing a credit until the balance was $0.00. The amount of time it would take to call the network and actually have them issue a credit on a cancelled account for most people is not worth the amount of the additional monthly service fee.

Why not give people a choice? Now it is either 3 years or monthly. If they had 1, 2 and 3 year options then people could decide what was the best option for them so long as the subsidies were set fairly for the different terms.

3 Year contracts

3 Year contracts are unfair. I think that that they should regulate this better and allow a maximum of 2 years on a contract. Even in the states its 24 months and in the UK its 18 months i beleve. I see no reson for carriers to not substidize phones on a 2 year contract. They still make like $1500 - a $500 phone they are still raking it in. Another problem is roaming charges i think roaming should be caped pf at Max
$2 Per MB
75c per minuite
50c per text
Well thats all hope this gets put into law

The code should provide guidance on the Roaming charges. Compared to US cellular operators who offer interesting travel bundles, our Canadian Cellular Operators have a very limited offering, and when you prepay a package of minutes, they prorate your usage over the full month. If you travel for 2 days that happen to be the last two days of your billing cycle, your are only allowed to use 2/31 of the roaming minutes/data/text package you paid for (see below, conditions offered by a Canadian Carrier).

Canadian Carrier should provide a competitive per MB, per min, per text option that allow usage of the service at a preset price, and these packages should be independant of the moment one decides to travel within the billing cycle.

Proration of charges - Partial charges for each added service will appear along with the full monthly charge for such service in the "Other charges and credits" section of your next bill. The partial charges will reflect amounts owing for the period starting on the date each new service is added and ending on your next bill date.

Proration of usage - Any service with a limited allowance will be prorated from the date the service is added to your account until your next bill date. For example, a Text Messaging 250 add-on purchased fifteen days before your next bill date will be used up after 125 text messages.

Phone operating systems MUST be upgradable by the user ON-DEMAND in order to take full advantage of timely security & bug fixes when such upgrades & fixes have been released by the manufacturer (Apple, Blackberry, Google) -- and NOT when the Carrier desires it. Seldom, if ever, are Carrier-driven operating system updates pushed out to users. Updates occur on Apple & Blackberry devices directly from the manufacturers because they control the platform, but not so with Andriod handsets - arguably the #1 phone operating system in the world based on number of handsets in the field.

Foot-dragging by carriers on this matter results from the carriers insisting that their particular brand of 'bloatware' and 'locks' to tie users to the carrier are installed on the phones at time of manufacture. This often results in the phone operating system needing further software customization by the carrier when the Android operating system creator (Google) updates the operating system. The net result of this is that phones are often NEVER updated with security fixes -- thereby leaving millions of Canadians with phones which are vulnerable to hackers, credential theft, and financial losses.

As a class, the Carriers are **negligent** - possibly in both civil & criminal law - in not pushing operating system security updates to phones immediately as they are made available. The trend towards BYOD (bring your own device) by corporations & governments makes their data at risk as a result of Carrier selfish policies regarding operating system updates.

I recommend that the Code of Conduct make it mandatory that handset operating systems can be updated on-demand by users; that said updates are NOT blocked by any bloatware/crapware the Carrier installs on the handset; that Carrier bloatware/crapware is uninstallable by the user at any time without impairing ANY functionality the manufacturer has given the handset at any time; and finally & preferably that Carriers are prohibited from installing ANY bloatware/crapware on any handset at any time. Any software the Carrier would like its user to have must be installable only by the user.

http://bgr.com/2013/02/06/android-fragmentation-carriers-manufacturers-3...?

Wireless carriers are making your Android smartphone vulnerable to hackers

When Google (GOOG) discovers a vulnerability in the Android operating system it issues a fix in a small update or in a future software version. Millions of Android users will never see an update, however, and will be left vulnerable to hackers. Unlike the iPhone, which Apple (AAPL) controls and can freely distribute software updates to, Android users are left at the mercy of their manufacturers and wireless carriers.

“When Apple decides that it’s going to give a security update to consumers or a feature update, every consumer who plugs their phone into their computer gets the update whether or not their respective regional carrier likes it,” said Chris Soghoian, principal technologist and senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, at the Kaspersky Security Analyst Summit, according to Wired.

The analyst explained that with Android, “you get updates when the carrier wants it and when the hardware manufacturer wants it, and usually that’s not very often.”

More often than not, Android handsets are left forgotten and unprotected despite the fact that a customer is still on a two-year contract. It can take over a year for carriers and hardware vendors to distribute new firmware updates, even for the most popular Android smartphones.

“This is not an instance where I’m criticizing Google for not fixing the bugs,” Soghoian said. “Google’s team will usually fix it very promptly and make it available to all of their hardware partners. The problem here is that fixes for critical security vulnerabilities are simply not getting downstream and reaching consumers.”

Kim Zetter of Wired noted that a September 2012 study from DuoSecurity found that a majority of Android devices sampled in the study had unfixed vulnerabilities, despite the fact that Google had issued patches for the problems.

The truth of the matter is that manufacturers and wireless carriers are more interested in releasing new devices than fixing older ones. Sogohian pointed out that carriers and hardware makers blame each other for the delays and in the end consumers are left with an outdated and vulnerable device.

“You don’t need [a zero-day exploit] to attack most Android devices if consumers are running 13-month old software,” he said, adding that it is time for carriers to either accept responsibility for the devices they sell or grant Google the same control as Apple.

The analyst concluded by explaining that a solution will likely never be found unless the government steps in.

I would like the code to address the problem of incoming SMS/Text message spam.

Rogers provides users a way to block SMS/Text messages from a 10-digit number that the user can enter. If, however, the number is not 10-digits, there is no way to block this SMS/Text message spam. Could the Code include a requirement to allow better filtering of incoming SMS/Text messages? Here are some examples:

1. option to allow incoming SMS/Text messages from only Bell, Rogers, Telus, etc. mobile phones and not from VOIP, internet or other sources.
2. option to have whitelists or blacklists for filtering incoming SMS/Text messages. For some, a whitelist would work better, others might prefer to use a blacklist.
3. have easier ways to block incoming SMS/Text messages, e.g. instead of having to log into the Rogers or other website to block the incoming SMS/Text message, allow the user to do this from the phone by forwarding the incoming SMS/Text message spam to a short code or by hitting #82 or something to report the most recent incoming SMS/Text message as spam and have that number automatically blocked.

Also, once a user has reported an incoming SMS/Text message as spam, the user should not be charged for that spam.

Thanks!

My specific issues are with Rogers, but I understand that the problem is systemwide.
I have read through the code and find that it does not address some really frustrating issues. For example, how difficult it is to cancel a contract even when one is willing to pay the associated cost. This is what typically happens: You call the customer service number it can take you upto 30 minutes on the phone to get someone on line. That someone, when you get him or her gets all your personal information and the pin etc. and tells you that he does not have the authority to take instructions to cancel your contract and you need to speak with customer retention or something like that. When you ask him their direct number, he does not have the authrority to provide you that number and insists that you wait while he gets them on line. Sure enough, you are disonnected during the process several times and with every new call you make, there is a long wait and you keep proving your identitly. The whole process is repeated several times before you are finally able to get hold of someone, once again after proving your identity. Personally, it has taken me up to 3-4 hours to get the issues resolved. I have tried using the chat facility and was directed to the customer service phone. The funny thing is that when you have called a few times, they keep saying that you never called and you have no evidence of the call.
On top of that, most wireless providers do not provide a customer sevice email address, I guess to avoid having anything on record. So the consumers have no way of proving that they called to cancel the contract.
Suggestion:
The code should require the wireless companies to provide a mandatory customer service email and phone number on their website
Service standards should specified maximum Turn around time to respond to customer issues.
Customer should have access to a direct line to cancel the contract and should not have to go though many layers, specially when they are willing to pay the required penalties.

I also believe that 30 days notice period to cancel the service, specially after the intial term of the contract has expired is too long and should be cut short to maximum three days.

Suggestion:
All wireless service providers must respond to customer calls within a specified time period.

3 year contracts and the crazy jibberish written in them need to be changed.
I don't understand my contract now. When I first got the contract the person who signed me up gave me certain information which I somewhat understood but with every communication going forward the story seems to change.
There is no where to check the info. Being on hold and passed around listening to that God awful elevator music is torture. Every single employee has a different take on what can and can't be done.
And it is such a waste of valuable time talking to customer service people who have zero power to affect anything.
This is the only country of this type that allows cell phone/telecommunications companies to operate just a shade short of legally unethical and without question, immorally.
Whatever happens in your life, whatever downturns you may have-these companies are there ready to add to your difficulties without blinking an eye. We at least should have options and we definitely should understand in easy to read language, without have to consult a lawyer for understanding, when it comes to length and the mumbo jumbo contract language.

This is a forum for consumer feedback to the CRTC, not an advertising platform for Rogers. Go advertise/spam somewhere else.

Hey, Mary from Rogers, go advertise somewhere else. This is a forum for feedback from CONSUMERS, NOT a public relations forum for Rogers!

Hi Frank, this is Mary from Rogers Communication.

Back in October we encouraged our customers to input into the CRTC’s online consultation and it’s great to see so much participation here. We’ve seen a lot of comments about term contracts. At Rogers, we provide our customers with the flexibility to choose between a no-term contract or to sign up for a three-year term that comes with the benefit of a subsidy off the price of a handset.

And because we know some customers don’t want to be locked into a contract, we recently introduced FLEXtab. This gives customers the option to end their term early by paying off the remaining subsidy amount at any time.

Le Bureau de la concurrence est ravi de présenter ses observations sur le document de travail relatif au Code de conduite sur les services sans fil. Vous pouvez accéder à ces observations en ligne à : http://www.bureaudelaconcurrence.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/fra/03532.html.

The Competition Bureau is pleased to provide its comments on the Wireless Code of Conduct working paper. You can view them online at: http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03532.html.

D7.1 is the reason why I am writing to you today. I have a iPhone 3GS that is no longer on contract with Rogers. I have called them and asked them to unlock it. They want $50 to unlock a phone that has been paid for in full. This is ridiculous.

Please ensure D7.1 as it is written in the draft goes through.

Thank you.

D3.4

Force the provider to have the option not to auto renew when signing the contract, or anytime during the contract be able to cancel the auto renew.

Or there should be a one week grace period to cancelled the provider renewed contract.

To cancel on one specific day can be difficult because of unforeseen circumstances.

Included the plan for Local and Long distance...

I live in crowded "rural" Southwestern Ontario and we should not have to still be using wireless for home internet.

Usage based billing is another ridiculous idea made up by Rogers/Bell/Telus, but that and other consumer problems would leave if there was enough competition and investment in infrastructure. The wireless carriers wouldn't have to be more transparent with fees if there reasonable standard monthly payment.

The Early Cancellation Fees are absurd and unfair to consumers. I just called Rogers to inquire why my bill was so high since a phone was taken off the account and the contract had been over 3 years-- they responded that there are 3 different types of Early Cancellation Fees. One for the device itself, then the plan, then the DATA component of the plan. All three had to have been over 3 years and only the device had passed the 3 year mark-- the data plan was 6 weeks shy of contract completion so they charged $100 flat rate on the plan and an additional $25 for the data cancellation. This type of behaviour needs to be controlled by the government. These 3 year contracts are unduly long, devices typically do not last longer than 2 years, and their cancellation fees which they claim are to "compensate them for the hardware upgrade" typically go WELL beyond the price of the discounted hardware.

In addition-- plans should INCLUDE voicemail and caller ID as they do in the US. The phone companies here charge extremely high fees for this basic service. Companies also need to STOP charging for anything that is incoming as that cannot be controlled.

In total, it is clear that our country needs a better regulated phone industry to protect consumers and allow competition. My service is worse AND more expensive than all of my family members in the US and we shouldn't be falling behind on this.

Three year contracts are too long. Look at the contracts of carriers in the USA-they are much shorter ! The roaming charges are also exorbitant and should have firm caps. Phones should be unlockable at any time even though they are subsidized by the carrier. People who sign contracts with proper supporting documents are not going to be able to run even if they wanted to, since the phones can be tracked if there is a GPS chip inside the phone. The new entrants like Wind & Mobilicity should also have a level playing field in every sense of the word. Canada has a big land area, so mobile telephony is the most efficient way to improve our communications.

I think a key thing missing from the current stipulations regarding changing a contract is the absence of any language requiring providers to document the terms of a contract with their customers. Every time I have made a change to my account with a provider, some detail has been omitted, invariably resulting in the charge being more expensive than what I was told over the phone. (E.g. when I renewed my contract recently, I was promised free voicemail and free calling to my five most-called contacts, both of which I was billed for on my next bill.) If I call back, they always mysteriously have no record of any of the terms that I was promised when I spoke to a representative previously. This is straight up fraud plain and simple. I have requested written or emailed information when the terms of my contract change, but this is apparently "impossible" to provide.

Hi peugeot, this is Mary from Rogers Communications. It’s great to see so much input from Canadians into the CRTC’s draft code.

We’ve seen some questions such as yours here about charges for incoming text messages. We agree that customers shouldn’t have to pay for texts they didn’t want. That’s why all our in-market plans now include unlimited incoming text messaging.

Eliminate 3 year fixed term contracts. The level of corporate competition is increasing at phenomenal speeds. Technology itself moves rapidly forward on an almost annual basis. Forcing customers into 3 year terms severely limits their ability to take advantage of both new technology and better pricing. If consumers can purchase new phones more quickly this also greatly helps the retail industry. Even if providers cannot offer so-called "$0" offers anymore, it promotes more consumer fiscal responsibility in spending and associated contracts and helps lower the amount of consumers defaulting on their contracts leading to bad credit, or loss revenue for the provider.

Unlimited Plans need to be truly Unlimited otherwise they cannot be labelled as such. One of the main goals of the Code is to create simplicity for the consumer. When "unlimited" is not truly unlimited, it breaks with the purpose of the Code to create truthful, simple, and easy to understand marketing and concepts to the consumer.

How improve mobile phone service in Canada:

-Break up the big three: Bell, Rogers, and Telus. They're the ones who are controlling things. Start forcing them to complete against each other and allow foreign companies to enter the market.
-3 year contracts should be made illegal. No other country has that insane amount of contract time. Also, make the carriers disclose the minimum amount you'll pay over the length of the contract like what Denmark and Australia does.
-Locking phones should be illegal. If I travel overseas, I should have the right to use a local SIM card regardless of whether I'm in a contract or not.
-I should never be charged extra for roaming across Canada or making a Canadian long distance call. In the US you're never charged for roaming across the country or calling long distance on a mobile phone and that's how it should be in Canada.
-Incoming calls and texts should be free. Both the US and Canada are the only 2 countries I know that have this. Think about it, would you pay a fee every time you got your mail? Of course you wouldn't, so the same should apply to incoming calls and texts.

I would like to add my opinion on PHONE UNLOCK.
I believe it has to be FREE of CHARGE in any situation. If customer has a commitment (contract) to CSP, unlocking the phone should be a free option. If customer wants to travel without using atrocious roaming fees, the CSP can unlock the phone. Upon return, customer will still use his existing CSP and will not switch to different carrier. Otherwise customer has to pay for contract cancellation.

At the end customer owns a handset, would it be buying it outright or having it subsidized by CSP over a three year term.

I would like to add my opinion on PHONE UNLOCK.
I believe it has to be FREE of CHARGE in any situation. If customer has a commitment (contract) to CSP, unlocking the phone should be a free option. If customer wants to travel without using atrocious roaming fees, the CSP can unlock the phone. Upon return, customer will still use his existing CSP and will not switch to different carrier. Otherwise customer has to pay for contract cancellation.

At the end customer owns a handset, would it be buying it outright or having it subsidized by CSP over a three year term.

OK, virtually every comment received speaks to contract length, yet it appears CRTC will do nothing, no big surprise really. So what to do ? Maybe it boils down to economics, if you cant save the money for a phone, can you really afford to have one ... if you cant save for a down payment on a house, how do you expect to own none?

unlock fees need to be defined. no definition allows fees to be set so high (more than the cost of the phone ?) the rule wont work

Can you tell me where you got this information? I would love to read about it.

The draft code is a huge step in the right direction, but doesn't go far enough. Here are further topics to consider:
1. Stop the roaming nonsense within Canada. Australia doesn't have it - neither does the US. There is much confusion about "local calling minutes" when your local area is the nearest cellphone tower wherever you are. It costs long distance to phone your neighbour when you are out of your "local calling area". You can have the Bell unlimited FAB 10 calling and texting, but it comes with the deliberately confusing proviso: "Long distance charges apply if you don’t have an unlimited nationwide feature". In the cause of national unity and the ability to compare the competition easily - lets make all minutes "within Canada". Do away completely with roaming within the country. You buy the number of minutes you need regardless of where calling within the country. I have a 'family' sharing plan from Bell - local minutes are shared - long distance minutes are not! How do I track this? This is deliberate because phones track total use - not local or long distance. What nonsense!!!

Sorry - I have Verizon phones and they are same subsidized price for std 2 years as the 3 year deal in Canada. Your assumptions are wrong as is purely a profit generator for the mobile companies. I take the approach of what is a reasonable design lifetime of these phones: 1. the technology is advancing quickly enough that 2 years is reasonable with numerous increased features at that time. 2. The battery normally doesn't last 3 years.

(1) For pre-paid phones, CRTC shall mandate that the airtime minutes or cards (used to purchase airtime minutes) should not expire. This should extend indefinitely until they are used-up by the consumer. This legal rip-off should end immediately. If gift cards do not expire (thanks to McGuinty's legislation), then why should airtime minutes be allowed to expire?

(2) Put a maximum cap on roaming charges per plan per month.

(3) All locked phones should be unlocked at customer's request, for free by the carrier.

(4) 30-day notice requirement to the carrier as a pre-requisite to port number out to a different carrier should be eliminated. This is used as an opportunity by the corrupt Big 3 to milk their customers for another month. These companies do not deserve to be in business.

(5) All changes being made to a contract should require explicit customer acceptance. If customer is not willing to accept changes, contract should be considered annulled without triggering any early termination penalties.

My concern stems from the 3 year contract scenarios. I believe they should be abolished completely in favor of a maximum of two year contracts as our American counterparts are doing. Also, data plans are way too expensive they should have unlimited plans for a fixed fee and at rates which a competitive such as those in the USA or Europe. We are way behind and sadly the customer is the loosing party as always.

A1, A2 - need to ensure that there is no wiggle room in the language for service providers to get around the applicability of the code.

A3 - Option 1 is preferable. The code show apply to all types of services, whether pre-paid, post-paid or any other future types of service a provider may come up with.

B1 - Option 1 is preferable.

B2 - Option 1 is preferable. All consumers should be offered this protection. Perhaps provide service providers 6 months to send existing contract holders revised contract terms.

C2 - perhaps add something to the effect that the maximum, in exceptional circumstances, would be in the amount of the damages sought. There are extreme examples out there where more than 5K worth of charges have been incurred without the consumer knowing (cloned phone), and the service provider attempts to collect from the consumer. The consumer should be protected from this as well.

D1.1 - Some guidance on plain language should be provided to service providers. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada does provide plain language guidance to financial institutions - perhaps this model can be explored. Without guidance, service providers will likely not go as far as the authors of this code intended.

D1.3 - Option 2 is preferable.

D2.1 - Option 1 is preferable. The service provider should not have the exclusive right to change the terms of a contract part way through the obligation. The contractual obligation is a two way street. The provider agrees to provide specified services for a set period of time at a set cost, and the consumer agrees to this. Should the provider change the terms of the agreement, the consumer should have the right to cancel without penalty if they are not in agreement.

D3.1 - Option 1 is preferable.

D3.2 & 3.3 - There needs to be an acknowledgement that under certain circumstances a contract needs to be cancelled, and no additional fees should be applicable. For example, this contract holder passes away or relocates to an area of the country that the provider does not service, or another country. But to be reasonable and balanced, the consumer did sign a contract, and must fulfill certain obligations. As such, a termination fee should be applicable. The fee should also be reasonable.

D3.4 - Option 1 is preferable.

D4.1 - This should go further and embrace truth in advertising. Advertised costs must include all applicable fees and taxes, thus providing the consumer with the exact amount that they expect to pay. In many cases, fees and taxes drive up the final price of a plan by almost a third.

D4.2 - Agreed.

D4.3 - An unlimited plan, is an unlimited plan, is an unlimited plan. If a provider is advertising unlimited plans, then they must truly be unlimited. I agree with fair use policies, however, there must be a system whereby the provider gives a consumer who constantly abuses unlimited plans notice and provide the consumer with a change to change their behaviour. Perhaps three warnings in writing. Then it would make sense to automatically convert them to a limited plan. In this case, other parts of the code would apply, and the consumer would reserve the right to cancel without penalty.

D5.1 - Text message alerts from the service provider must be free of charge for the consumer. Many people continue to opt out of text messaging plans.

D5.2 - Agreed. These sound like good tools that will protect both the consumer and the service provider.

D7.1 - Option 2 is preferable. However, the unlock charge must be reasonable.

D8.1 - Agreed.

Every phone sold in Canada by a carrier should be unlocked, like the Google Nexus phones. Locking phones is a ridiculous thing to permit. There is no real rationale for it. Once they have you on a contract they have you. The phone should be unlocked so you are free to use it with foreign carriers when you travel and avoid the excessive roaming charges they continue to get away with.

In the end, I predict half measures that will assure the carriers their ongoing ability to get every possible penny from consumers. The CRTC doesn't have the guts to really take them on.

What is needed:
2 year contracts
No locking
Reduced roaming fees
Reduced data fees
No charge caller ID
No Charge voicemail

Three-year contracts are onerous and too one-sided in favor of the carriers;one to two-year contracts should be the norm. There should also be a roaming charge cap. All phones should be unlocked as long as there is a contract committing the buyer to a plan (voice, data & text or any combination thereof) for one to two years. How about satellite phones, are they not included in the discussion ?

D7.1 Unlocking phones

I strongly support Option 2. Once a contract is complete, "repayment" of the subsidy is complete and the device is property of the user, NOT the service provider. There is no reasonable or even ethical argument to support the carrier/service provider being allowed to restrict the use of a device I paid for and own outright. Unlocking MUST be provided AT NO COST if no subsidy is "owing." It's bad enough that service providers charge us to "activate" a new device -- they must not be allowed to bill us again for removing a restriction THEY impose and that benefits ONLY them.

Living in a rural area, I am forced to use a turbo hub to access the Internet. It is so disappointing that I am limited to only 15gb per month and that costs over $100! In today's world with a desktop pc, laptop, ps3, iPad and iPhones that is nowhere near enough data, not to mention those who have access to dsl or cable can have unlimited usage now. Something needs to be done to help out people living in rural areas. Even with satellite Internet the max usage I could get is 30gb which still isn't a whole lot.

The draft code proposed by the CRTC is so timid and unimaginative that it appears to have been written by the lobbyists of the telecom sector and the Office of Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. The arrogant and corrupt executives of the Big three Oligarchs (Bell, Rogers, and Telus) must be laughing at the weakness of the CRTC. Instead of being a watchdog, the CRTC has become a sycophantic lapdog of the industry.

The code does not address the fundamental deeply flawed structural problems in the telecom sector. There is no competition in this sector and the code does not do anything to foster and generate new competition in any way. It does not compel the incumbents thru' regulations to share their network and physical infrastructure at reasonable costs with new entrants. It does not put a maximum cap on roaming charges for voice plans, data plans or a combination of both. It does not give any breathing space to the new entrants to capture any customers from the corrupt incumbents. It does not allow third-party providers to provide cheap data plans on cell phones...an example of this would be where a customer has a voice plan from Bell but is allowed to have a cheaper data plan from Windmobile.

The staff at the CRTC should read the article from Prof. Michael Geist which recommends how CRTC can propose bold and audacious reforms and really shake-up the Canadian telecom landscape. It was posted online on the Toronto Star on Friday, 1 Feb 2013.

If the CRTC is unable or unwilling to carry out meaningful reforms and foster genuine competition, it should be euthanized and put out of business legislatively. The CRTC will lose credibility with consumers and taxpayers if it continues to put the interests of the entrenched businesses ahead of consumers.

Given that we've had electronic voice mail for over 20 years, could we not require that carriers delete, or make it possible for users to delete easily, the time-consuming prompt: "Record your message after the tone. When you are finished, you may hang up or press # for more options. To leave a callback..." Carriers elsewhere have admitted to New York Times writer David Pogue that these useless prompts produce revenue for the carriers. They certainly are of no help to anyone savvy enough to use a cell phone.

Rogers was taken to court over a 15 thousand dollar wireless bill. When forced to reveal how much the 15 thousand dollar bill actually cost Rogers to provide the services it was less than 5 dollars. Even a Halfwit can see that this might be construed as gouging. Why can't the CRTC?

If you are from Rogers, you shouldn't need regulations to do what's right.
Greed of communication companies is the reason we need this.
Give your head a shake.
You price fix, hold people hostage and make money hand over fist.
You know all the complaints, your the reason we complain.

Heritage minutes
Look to the past.

Why are the 3 biggest companies building something like this?

Trans Canada Microwave or Trans-Canada Skyway was a microwave system built in the 1950s to carry telephone and TV from Canada's east coast to its west coast. Because microwaves travel in a straight line and do not follow the curvature of the Earth, towers were built every 48 kilometres. The towers ranged from nine metres high to over 100 metres high in northern Ontario. The system included 139 towers spanning over 6275 kilometres and cost $50 million ($336 million in 2003 dollars).
It took just one-fiftieth of a second for a microwave signal to travel from one coast to the other.[1]
The Trans-Canada Microwave system was officially completed on 1 July 1958. It was the longest microwave transmission network in the world in 1958, stretching from Sydney, Nova Scotia to Victoria, British Columbia, placing Canada at the forefront of communications technology.
The system was implemented under Bell Canada president Thomas Wardrope Eadie as an all-Canadian microwave network for transporting telephone conversations, Teletype messages and television signals.

Instead of microwaves why not cellular?
We all know they work together to fix prices and buy hockey teams. Why not work together for the good of Canadian bank accounts.

Please keep us in tune with the rest of the world. Prices that are not the highest in the world.
2 year contracts.

Contract length should be restricted to no longer than 2 years.

I suspect that this was one of the most repeated comments during the consultation period prior to the draft code. Its omission in the draft is puzzling.

If 2 year contracts mean lower upfront subsidies on phones, so be it.

It provides a better, apples-to-apples comparison in pricing between Canada and the US or UK (both of which have 2 year max contracts).

Please make sure all the providers' bill to the customers are very clearly explaination of why we are paying for that and the usage if customer have the plan included and should show the break down with the meaning as respectful to the plan, not everything in the same line in the summary. They should break it down for more clearly on the bill!

All prepaid services, not just Telus. The same is true with Rogers and all others. Once we pay them money, it is unacceptable that this money "expires" meaning they keep it and we cannot use that credit anymore. And the expiration date is usually not in months or years but in weeks. Outrageous behavious from the companies. This is something really easy to include in a Code and not controversial.

there is alread options you can choose from, as far as term of contract. You can choose 1,2,or three year. It just how long do you want to defer payments on your hardware, is what it boils down to.

I would like to see a carrie over of data and minute. Also the price for data is very high. Hope this can be addresed.
Early cancelation, is just a way to insure payment for the hardware. So i dont think that can change.
Would be nice to have an afordable and truly all inclusive plan. With no fine print.

Thank you

The code does nothing in regards to preventing charges for services. For example, when roaming in the USA, I have a choice of if I want to use data by a setting on my phone. It is my choice to answer a phone call when it comes in and pay the fees. But when it comes to text messages, I do not have a choice. There is no way to block those from being received and unless you pay for a special plan, they can cost you a lot of money.

Hi all, this Mary with Rogers Communications.

We are big supporters of a single set of rules that apply to all Canadians from coast to coast. This will make it easier for Canadians to know what to expect from their service provider no matter which part of the country they live in.

Interesting point of view. However it is premised on the assumption that the carriers would simply increase their rates in order to make up for the last revenue of the 3 year contract if 2 year contracts are forbidden. This is faulty logic.

First, it assumes that the Canadian public is stupid. If the carriers simply jacked up their rates by 50%, people might notice. This might lead to at least one carrier not raising their rates. Second, you are assuming that they would have to raise their rates. They would not have to raise their rates. Canadian carriers have long enjoyed being the most profitable in the world. They have lots of room in the margins to accommodate realistic contract lengths and still remain VERY profitable. No other carrier in the world needs both world leading rates and world leading contract terms. Canadian carriers can survive without one without having to raise their already highest in the world rates any higher. They could, but they don't need to.

3 year terms can only become the norm if all major carriers work in conjunction to make them the norm. That in and of itself should be troubling to you. When the very first carrier went to 3 year terms, the others had a competitive advantage they could have used to cripple the carrier that moved to 3 years. Instead they all, seemingly by agreement, moved to 3 year contract at pretty much the same time. It is time to slap their hands for this type of apparent collusion and ban the 3 year contracts they created.

3 years terms were outlawed in the UK when the carriers started considering them. Their carriers didn't skyrocket their rates to compensate for their lost potential revenues.

I'm one of the few people who agree with you on the 3 year contract. It is a necessary evil for those who cannot afford to purchase a phone over a short period of time.
I think the problem that has been allowed to develop is that the service providers have created a system of integrating the phone and service plan into a single product. This code being developed by the CRTC needs to force the carriers to price the phone and the various components of the plan separately. Whether you want to purchase an $800 phone up front or make payments for 36 months should be the consumers choice.
The "subsidy" or discount should apply to the service plan, not the phone. For example, if I agree to a $50 month to month voice and data plan (with voice and data available separately as has been suggested in this forum), then perhaps the carrier will offer me the same plan for $40 if I agree to stay for a 3 year term. If I also agree to a 36 month term on the phone, I still am billed separately - voice, data, and hardware. Or I have the option of buying my phone outright for $800, and pay $50 month to month which would allow me to move to another carrier whenever I choose.
Think of the options that become available. I could buy my phone outright, and take a 24 month plan that carriers might discount to $45. Or maybe the 12 month plan for $48.
Will the carriers offer discounted plans for those willing to sign long term contracts for service? Maybe, maybe not, but I still will have the option of moving whenever I want. I can still say "Mr. Service Provider, if you give me a discounted service for 3 years, I'll stay with you. If not I am going to Mr. Other Service Provider because he offers the discount!"
I also think there is the possiblility of a new market for small businesses. Maybe we will see phone boutiques setup, that only sell phones, and arrange financing for those that need it. If the service providers start charging too much for the phones, then I can go the the phone boutique that may offer a better price.
We need competition, and the only way to get it is to force the carriers to break apart their pricing on phones, voice, data, and other services. Right now by combining everything together with this so called subsidy, the carriers have most consumers in a vicious circle of continuous renewals or expensive terminations.

One problem with the wireless companies that just came to light to us today is that if you are in a 3 year contract, the wireless company does not have to inform you that your contract is up. They automatically roll you in to a month to month plan, that you do not have to consent to, and then if you want out of the month to month plan, you have to give thirty days notice. However, they say that you are not in a contract. We called Rogers last August 2012 to ask when our plan was finished and we were told that they didn't know. We asked what our payout balance was and if we could pay it out and we were told that we could not pay it out, that we had to continue to make monthly payments until our contract is finished. Today we called and asked when our contract is up again, and now we were told it was up last March 2012. We have been paying for a month to month contract, apparently, since March 2012; this equates to over $400. We are told that there is nothing they can do and if we have a problem, to complain to the CRTC. I cannot understand how these companies can get away with changing/extending your service without your consent and then have the nerve to say you are not in a contract, but you must give us 30 days to cancel your contract. There needs to be something in the Wireless Code that prevents companies from automatically renewing your contract without your consent, either verbal or written.

3 year contracts should be made illegal. The draft code doesn't account for this. I can't think of another country in the world that makes use of 3 year contracts. This is insane.

Even though 1 and 2 year contracts do exist, they're not advertised with carriers on their websites. The main page will generally indicate a 3 year subsidized price for the phone, followed by the non-contract price. When 1 and 2 year subsidized pricing is reviewed, there's a HUGE discrepancy between those and the 3 year pricing. It's not balanced: The 1 and 2 year terms are almost the same as buying the phone without a contract. It's basically forcing people to either choose a 3 year term or buy the phone outright. This is heavy handed mob-style bullying and I can't for the life of me why the government is allowing this.

After reviewing this draft code, it's clear to me that the CRTC is merely a puppet of the telecommunications industry. This is a real shame.

The Code of Conduct is a good start. It will tell the companies what must be done when servicing their clients, us the public. Once this has been implemented, there are many issues that need to be addressed.

Like a conventional land line, cell phone companies should only charge for access to the service. But alas, they have found many different ways to implement charges on the public. Did you know that just 16 years ago texting was a free service on cell phones? The cost of such was so small (and still is) that the two largest carriers at the time did not charge for it till it became popular. Data, though it uses a small amount of resources, should not be measured. If you allow it, they are receiving compensation not only for allowing access to the data network, but they are charging for information supplied by another party without compensation to that other party. If they had to pay for the information to the supplier, then I could understand it, but not when the information is access by them for free.

There must also be a non hardware contract. I look at my wife using one of my old phones. She loves it and does not want to upgrade, but because she was added to my 16 year old service plan just last month, we pay more for her plan than mine which has hardware. Why? Beats me. She has the same option plans and no hardware supplied so you think it would cost her less.

We need to allow the emerging market to access the infrastructure of the incumbents as well, as long as they show and agree to a growth plan that will offer coverage with their own networks on a minimum growth scale. Thus it would end roaming charges in the Canada, period. It will also open up the market to competition, which is good for the Canadian people, and a way to protect us against the monopolies. Hopefully that will also come soon, for without it the code of conduct is just a piece of paper they have to supply.

It is a good start, but there needs to be more to protect the people. Please keep working on it.

If the CRTC implements the following rules then cell phone users will have nothing to complain about.
1. No locked phones 2. month to month : no contracts. 3. consumers buy their own phone. 4. The monthly contract is clearly written. 5. Data plans not tied to voice plans. In simple words consumers have a choice in what they want. New phones are developed every year and it is not fair to lock consumers into a one sided contract. I hope CRTC thinks of the CONSUMER FIRST WITHOUT WHOM CELL PHONE COMPANIES WOULD NOT EXIST.

3 YEAR CONTRACTS

I hate to be the one who goes against the crowd but the people who would enjoy the greatest benefit from eliminating 3 year contracts are the people who have a one year old iPhone 4S and want to get the new iPhone 5, even though there is nothing wrong with their current device. Customers use the 3 year term to heavily subsidize their current phone and then have no leverage to get the networks to help pay for a new phone a year later.

If the Networks are forced back to maximum 1 or 2 year contracts we all know they fill find a way to replace any lost revenue by increasing the price of the phones, raising the monthly service fees or manipulating overage, long distance or roaming rates as they have done in the past. The result would be that customers who only purchases new hardware every 2 to 3 years would be penalized and the people buying new phones every year would benefit.

PROBLEM

- There are no 1 or 2 year options with fair subsidies for phones. At this point if you go on Rogers’s website, the only two options are monthly or 3 year.

- The cellular companies in most cases only offer their best price plan deals on 3 year terms. If you own your own phone and wish to take advantage of a competitive price plan, you are forced to sign a 3 year term. In the past this would reset a customer’s cancellation fee up to $500.00 even though no hardware was taken.

NOTE: Rogers is still charging customers up to $500.00 who renewed their contracts to a new term after January 22nd, 2012 (without purchasing a phone) in an apparent clear violation of the conditions stated under Section 3, “Termination and Amendment” of the contract.

SOLUTION

1. Phone subsidies must be offered on 1, 2 and 3 year terms and must be scaled fairly. For example, if an $800.00 phone were offered for $200.00 on a 3 year term, it would be available for $350.00 on a 2 year and $500.00 on a 1 year. In the past the networks have offered 2 year subsidies but based on the example above customers would have to pay over $500.00 on a two year which gives far less incentive vs. the 3 year option.

2. Any an all price plans including promotional plans must be offered monthly or on 1, 2 or 3 year terms (with identical features). Networks could no longer force their customers into long term contracts in order to get a bonus or discount on their price plan.

The result of these types of policies (regulations) is that customers that wish to purchase their phones on a more frequent basis can pay more up front and sign shorter term contracts so they would have leverage and options when new or updated models arrive.

As well, customers who wished to change their price plan in order to take advantage of new completive offers could keep their existing contract term and not be forced (as is the case now) to have to renew for 3 years. However, if a customer negotiates a special plan through the networks Customer Retention Department, they would have the option of a 3 year term as in these cases it is often advantageous to lock into a long term contract guaranteeing the rate and any monthly credits that are usually set to expire at the end of the contract.

Two important things to note:

Over the years I have come across hundreds of cases where Rogers Dealers (in particular independent agents) would tell customers that their phones were not under warranty and that the only option was to purchase a new phone at full price when the phone in fact was fully covered and could have been serviced at no charge. In these situations customers tend to blame the phone manufacturer and/or the Rogers 3 year contract not realizing that the real issue was their dealers’ deceit.

Many people quote Europe and their 2 year contracts as an example. The fact is Europeans customers and the rest of the world is used to paying for their hardware. Highly subsidized phones are unique to North American and our customers have become accustomed to inexpensive and zero dollar phones. If 3 year contracts are taken away, the cost of the phones will increase and the networks will blame interference from the CRTC for any additional charges.

Overall this is a good draft, but I don't really think it will be adhered by the wireless companies so I feel that this is a waste of tax payers dollars. Here is what they need to do for wireless. In the USA they have no roaming charges and you can call anyone in the USA it does not matter where they are. When they say unlimited Data that is what is meant they don't slow you down after a certain amount and honestly here they don't really have unlimited Data. In the USA a $50.00 would include text. unlimited data, the regular 200 minutes but some make it unlimited and voice mail. Here you have to fight with the provide to include your request and still when they do give it to you they may charge you a fee, this is wrong and if does happen I think we should be given the option to cancel the contract since the wireless company broke their side of the contract. Well this is all for now if something else comes up I will put my 2 cents worth in.

Data Usage Code Needed

I access internet from home via mobile cellular modem, ie. Rogers Rocket Hub
however speeds during the day are very slow, sometimes 1:100 of the speed after 12am EST.
I incur server time outs which will cause me to reload the browser or re-download the file. This is an interesting concept as I PAY PER USAGE so I'm billed for the double download that was my providers fault.

Ideas to consider:

1. Plain language for MINIMUM SPEED and Maximum speed expectations (not the max 7.2 that can never be reached)

2. When billed by kilobyte ensure network did not time out or provide some fairness in disputing a timed usage for network failure

3. If cellular cannot deliver minimum service than contracts should be able to be canceled without penalty and equipment returned.

4. Clear language regarding data traffic throttling; abuse of service by user; heavy users; higher costs during peak times; etc. The end user should be made aware about how the network is billed, traffic throttled; or data shaping is done to affect his/her service.

I am frustrated daily for my Rogers Rocket Hub service from 7am till 11pm, even Rogers tech says phone users have a priority over hub users, so the network is separated based on how much Rogers will make from cell phone users compared to Hub users. This is fine if it was mentioned in my contract but it is missing.

Have a look at my current speed:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2483348531.png

1.07 Mbs (Megabits NOT Megabytes) download
174 ping time (Very bad lag time)

VERY UNACCEPTABLE ROGERS

1. Ability to cap monthly bills: AT LAST! :) but 911 should always be available even when phone is "capped"
2. Unlocking the phone: That's also great news but will it stay legal in Canada, since it's now illegal in the States

Cheers and GOOD WORK!! :)

Professor Michael Geist has written an excellent article on the CRTC's Draft Code of Wireless Conduct. It would be very judicious of the CRTC staff and Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais (Chair of the CRTC) to read this thoughtful, balanced, and well-written article and incorporate all of the key recommendations of Prof. Geist's article. Article can also be accessed at http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2013/02/01/crtc_should_be_bold... (Copy & Paste the link).

Why is the CRTC not being bolder and imaginative? It is time to squeeze the testicles of the Big three incumbents, protect consumers, and stop the telecom oligarchs from rigging the market and ripping off Canadians.

The CRTC should mandate a maximum cap per month on roaming charges for data plan and voice plan separately, of an amount of $10 per month respectively. This will encourage consumers from signing up with new entrants by giving them assurance of a fixed-amount of roaming caps (the 3 incumbents cellular plans are all similar and predatory in nature). The plans of the new entrants are terrific but they are constrained by the availability of their network coverage. Hence, capping the roaming chargers per month will foster competition and compel the incumbents to make their plans more attractive.

Looks like the CRTC is doing a really lousy job in this regard. It makes me wonder if the draft code of wireless conduct is being written by staff who want to go and work for the industry in the future and do not want to burn bridges.

Shame on the CRTC for not doing its job properly.

Absolutely!

After you phone is paid off, you are still being charged the monthly fee to pay off a phone if your rates are not accordingly reduced.

More on data plans:

One significant thing missing in the Canadian cell phone landscape is pay-for-use data.

Carriers only offer per-paid "plans" that lock you into amounts of data per month that you mostly won't use. You have to lock into a higher volume plan because if you don't and go over your allocation, you are charged ridiculous rates.

Like pay-as-you-go telephone plans, where you pay some $ for an amount of minutes, carriers should be required to offer data plans where you pay some $ per GB so that you can pay for what you actually use, rather than for a "plan" that you are unlikely to use.

Also, with the proliferation of devices, carriers should become customer-centric rather than device-centric. If I want to be on the road with my smart phone, tablet, and computer, why is it that I should have to buy a separate "plan" for each device? I should be able to have an account with one provider where all my devices can use a purchased amount of data. Currently this can be awkwardly achieved with cell phone tethering, but it would be far more convenient if each device could operate on its own without having to constantly managing interconnections. Of course the carriers would much rather sell you multiple plans so that you buy much more than you use on multiple devices...

The issue regarding the wireless technology has more to do with the health and safety of the population and the living organisims on the planet.
RF(radio frequency)/ microwave radiation according to the World Health Organization, in May 2011, is considered a Group 2B environmental toxin, a possible carcinogen. There is the Bioinitiative Report 2007 and 2012 with over 2000 and 1800 (>3,800) peer reviewed scientific research papers respectively that confirm the biological health hazards associated with this radiation and the scientists and medical professionals have been demanding biological based limits for over 10 years. The current Safety Code 6 Standards are based on Thermal Effects (ionizing radiation effects {SAR standard or Specific Absorption Rate}) however the major health issues relate to the non-thermal effects (non-ionizing biological effects). With the extensive proliferation of wireless devices / cell phone towers there is insufficient public data available on the electromagnetic pollution this technology may be contributing to the environment. How is the safety of the technology and the public being assessed when the field readings are not available?

To everyone commenting,

Keep in mind the old trick of the duck. You write exactly the spec you want, but you include or omit one thing that the readership will find unacceptable. Like painting a duck where it doesn't belong. In this case, it's the lack of ban on 3 year contracts.

Then the CRTC can swoop in and make minor adjustments, including the one thing they were going to have to do anyway, and say "Look! We listened to your feedback! We got rid of the duck!"

Keep pushing on all of these issues. Do not let them pull the wool over Canada's eyes.

I too am disappointed that the code does not focus more on data plans and data usage. In a world of iPads and VoIP, this is not just an issue for deaf/hard of hearing customers.

Everyone should have the ability to just get mobile internet access, and not be dependent on exorbitantly priced voice plans and text messages worth their weight in gold. I travelled to the UK a couple months ago. The airport has vending machines that sell SIM cards with 1, 3 or 5GB of prepaid data for a reasonable price (~£10-20).

I'm on Mobilicity, on their "unlimited data" plan. Yet it's sold with a catch-all "Fair Use Policy" which allows them to deny any responsibility of the quality of service. Often during peak hours, it is impossible to do real work over your mobile connection, as they prioritize services like Facebook and YouTube over others.

Mobile providers keep focusing on misleading numbers like theoretical maximum bandwidth, when in fact it's things like congestion and latency that determine the responsiveness in every day use. The wireless code should demand full disclosure of network management policies, including throttling, guaranteed latency during peak times, and exactly which traffic is prioritized over others. Without this information, consumers are effectively buying a black box, and have no way to compare products without trying each and manually checking out the service quality at various times and locations.

The wireless code should be amended such that cell phone service providers may not sell locked cell phones or offer inducements except for direct payment (rebate cheque) or account credit. It is clearly insane to subsidize phone prices by buying cell phone service.

Changes to D6.1 -Warranties

The period of warranty coverage must be greater than the duration of any contract for service.

Consumer protection with the Code is missing a vital issue. small user guide to use the device at least 12" from your body. A 2B possible carcinogen. the device radiates pain when in use in close range to my body. There needs to be sheilding between people and the phone devices. It needs to mandatory that all devices be used with a corded earpiece at all times. A less harmful Frequency needs to be implemented or public pressure to force research on the harm and solutions to these discoveries to be pushed into mainstream media for quicker resolution to the harmful side affects that are being hidden.
The cell towers are not to be built in dense population and especially not near our vulnerable childrens schools. research should be implemented with regard to car accidents and locations of towers.

Sales agents should be able to troubleshoot accounts.

I think it's highly unfair that Telecoms have specialized their sales reps to only sell/renew services and can't address account troubleshooting/charges. It makes much more difficult for customers to express their issues and solve their account issues especially when wait times are horrendous when trying to contact the call-centres, meanwhile sales agents are standing around twiddling their thumbs in their kiosks at the mall, chatting with friends/coworkers, on their phones/computer.

Option to Opt-Out of Pay-per-use features at any point of the service agreement.

I find that Telecoms routinely gauge their customers based on the ability for them to charge customers to exceed/roam/etc even though phone options have been set to not do so. It's essentially forcing customers to pay for random services they didn't want (weren't aware of). Individual service agreement allotments needs to be enforced from their service billing system. Example: Don't let a mobile customer exceed 200 minutes or 500mb of data if the customer had elected to not allow their plan to exceed the allotments. Make it mandatory for mobile providers to adopt a pay-before approach in all mobile services, and unlawful for them to charge pay-per-use/additional fees unless authorized by the customer.

When cancelling a plan or porting a number out, the carriers charge you 1 extra month. Why do we have to pay the extra month when we are not using the service?

I totally agree the the above comment.

I believe these points should be added:

1: Airtime needs to be billed by the second, not by the minute. Currently, a 61 second call is charged 2 minutes. This means the consumer paid for 59 seconds of airtime that was not used.

2: If a consumer pays for 200 minutes per month and only uses 150 minutes, the unused 50 minutes should be carried over and added to the next month cycle. Or, the unused 50 minutes should be refunded.

3: When buying a phone from a carrier under contract. The carrier needs to provide device warranty for the life of the contract.

Get rid of 3 year contracts, that is just RIDICULOUS. It used to be 12 months, then 24 months, now with a 3 year contract, your smartphone is 4 generations obsolete by the time your contract expires, just RIDICULOUS.
As well, the bandwidth provided by Canadian Telecoms is PATHETIC. $90/month for 1 Gig of data, compare this to US carriers, it's a FARCE!!!!!!

1 advertising: the use of the word unlimited should only be used if the vendor is really intending to supply unlimited service. Neither the provider nor the CRTC should be allowed to re-define the word unlimited. Any advertised price should also include information on any additional charges that find its way into the final monthly bill. Any additional prices should be the same font size as the normal text on the ad.

2 locked phones. While I agree with other comments that the providers have contracts so locked phones should not be needed, if providers are allowed to lock phones they should be automatically unlocked as soon as the subsidized cost of the phone is covered. Of course if a customer pays full price for a phone it should be unlocked at purchase.

3 length of contracts. Providers should have warranties to cover the phone for the length of the contract. If the provider does not like the length of time they are required to keep warranty on the phones then they should have shorter contracts.

4 Providers should be required to give written/email confirmation of offers given over the phone. When getting over the phone offers customers have nothing to fall back on. You come to an agreement over the phone and when the first bill shows up it is a different pricing structure. If you call in to complain even if you have customer service rep name and id number and have written down everything you confirmed with the operator you talked to, it can still be impossible to get the deal you agreed to on the phone. We are running into this problem again new. Our contract is up in 45 days so we are looking at our options. My wife called and talked to a customer service rep, got information and said she would have to talk to me about it and call back. After talking to me she called back and was told the info she was given before was not all correct. Customers should be able to get the deal they arrive at when talking to the customer service rep.

I don't comment on things normally, but I felt very compelled to on this subject after learning that contract length was not going to be addressed with the new wireless code. There must be a cap but on contracts lengths to 2 years at most. I feel like Canada is living in the stone ages when it comes to contracts and service sometimes. It's archaic that we have such long contracts, especially at the pace with which technology moves and given we're one of only a handful of countries in the world that still allow it. It's not like the service providers are losing money, they're racking in so much profit off of us.

Three year contracts really dissuade competition and make it extremely difficult for customers to move to other providers. The only group it benefits is the provider as it keeps customers locked in for ages. Given the fact that all other carriers around the world can afford to offer the same device subsidy to their customers on a 2 year contract that we do on a 3 year contract, I'm pretty sure our suppliers can afford to do the same. It also requires some education and change on the part of the consumers who for so long have been groomed into having cheap or free phones. They need to start understanding that they do cost money.

Having a clear breakdown on the monthly bills between the service cost and the device subsidy is important. I don't think the device subsidy should be built into the monthly cost. This makes it hard to understand how much you're actually paying back for the phone. It is also unfair to other customers who choose not to take a subsidized phone from the provider, yet they still pay the same month rate as a customer who did choose to take the subsidy.

The 3 year contract situation is the biggest issue strangling the industry right now and it really has to go. If this wireless code is supposed to be for consumers and is consumer friendly, then ignoring the issue of 3 year contracts is a major flaw. Clearly as you can see by everyone that has commented on this draft and in the initial consultation, this is the biggest issue plaguing Canadians when it comes to cell phone service.

I agree 100% with this. Right now there is no incentive to bring your own device to a carrier because you still pay the same price per month for your service that other customers pay who are getting a subsidized phone from the carrier. This would be much more consumer friendly and would hopefully offer up more competition and choices for consumers.

I hate the fact that people can get wildly different deals on they're plans IF they are good at negotiating. It is really unfair to people who are not good at negotiating. Imagine everyone paid a different amount for gasoline at the pump based on how well they can negotiate. Not fair, frankly discriminatory to people who are not good with English or who just don't know they can try to negotiate a better deal.

Data prices are way too high. Home internet 300GB/$50. Old data contract 6GB/$30, Newer contract 0.5GB/$25. Prepaid is even worse, often the price difference can be triple per MB. I don't like feeling like I"m being hugely taken advantage of, which I am.

What is lacking: the clarity section should include terms for overages and controls for overage charging...

1) My data plan includes 6GB per month for $30, but beyond that I must pay $20 per GB. If the provider can support 6GB for $30, the astronomical overage charge is stealing as far as I am concerned.

2) When roaming, charges should be outlined in similar terms. For instance data locally is quoted in terms of $/GB, but if roaming, they quote in terms of $/MB, of $/KB. So, for instance, traveling to Europe my plan says $5/MB,which could confuse the technically illiterate. They should really state that it is $5000/GB, which may cause user to be more cautious, and switch their data off. Alternatively ther should be legislation about maximums that can be charged for access abroad (e.g. 200% of local rates) to ensure consumers aren't being ripped off like this.

I would like to see locked devices be automatically unlocked when the contract is up OR when the device is upgraded OR if the early cancel penalty is paid. My experience now is that while technically providers will unlock a device, I have two locked devices that I can't get unlocked. I just get one excuse after another, call this number, call that number. For me, getting a device I paid for unlocked is practically not possible once I've upgraded the device.

this is about prepaid phonecards from Telus. After a certain period , if you dont upload your account, the unused money left in the account is gone, confiscated by Telus. I dont think this very ethical. The government should outlaw these practises. It is amazing what the telecoms get away with

I find the US roaming charges totally exorbitant. I was in the US for 10 days in November. Before I left, I purchased a $50 roaming package from Bell. It allowed for 50 minutes of calls, a certain number of text messages and 50MB of data. I used my smartphone very sparingly -- actually almost never, as i used my tablet on wifi to get email. I managed to rack up $22 in additional data usage, nonetheless. Lots of people go to the US. And when we are travelling is when many of us want to use our phone to locate restaurants and other tourist places. With such a puny amount of data, our apps are basically useless when we need them most. I find it impossible to believe that Cdn ISPs have to pay huge fees to US carriers, whose own customers get lots of data, etc. on their plans for reasonable prices. This is not "customer service", any way you slice it. I get that maybe in Europe it would be more $$ but I'd never even think of using any features of my phone except free wifi service there. I value my bank account too much!! Anyway, I hope you can do something about this. Thanks for consulting Canadians.

Why would I or anyone else leave any further comments. Like so many times in history the CRTC has asked for Canadian feedback and then decided to ignore them.
The most requested item for the code, by far, was the removal of 3 year terms. The CRTC did not even mention the term in the code.
Perhaps, the problem is the CRTC and what we really need is open competition, removing the protection the wireless companies currently enjoy !!

I have a few comments.

First, I agree with some of the remarks made by 'rjb' on Thu, 01/31/2013, and no doubt many others. I do not understand why providers are permitted to 'lock' phones to their network at all. I can hardly think of a more anticompetitive practice. Comments that others have made on international/US roaming rates are very much related to this insofar as locked phones prevent consumers from easily accessing competing services while abroad. I appreciate the draft code currently calls for reasonable fees for unlocking phones, but why permit locked phones in the first place? The providers already lock the consumer into a service contract, so I don't believe they should be permitted to lock phones AT ALL.

My second comment is regarding the new providers and the possibility of them being sold to the incumbents. I'm unsure if this falls within the scope of this Wireless Code, but I have heard the possibility of Wind being sold to an incumbent. This would be devastating. I live in Vancouver and Wind Mobile's presence has forced the Telus/Rogers/Bell oligopoly to actually compete. I don't believe any of the incumbents should be permitted to buy up the new providers or any of the spectrum the new providers have rights to. I'm not concerned if the new providers were to merge or buy each other, but having a new legitimate competitor to Telus/Bell/Rogers has had and will continue to have a very measurable benefit to consumers.

Lastly, and this comment is more particular but nonetheless relevant. Obviously the Wireless Code can't call out specific handset models, brands, etc., but we would all be remiss to not acknowledge what is happening with the iPhone right now. Since the various models of iPhone don't work on Wind, Mobility, etc networks, the incumbents are charging grossly more for services for iPhones than with other handsets that are available on the new providers' networks. For example, Fido and others (Telus/Koodo, I believe) were recently offering a $57 plan that included canada-wide calling, unlimited text/picture messaging, 2GB of data, voicemail, call display, etc. The plans were notably only available on "2 year" contracts, not "3 year" contracts. Basically the providers were specifically excluding the iPhone. To get the same service for the iPhone, the rate was/is $80/month -- a difference of $23/month or $828 over 3 years. Now the provider might argue that the iPhone carries a higher subsidy than a high end Android phone, and they are correct, but the difference is on the order of $100 or $200, and yet they are charging $828 more. Why? Because they have no competition. I'm unsure what the solution is here, but I think it's an issue and the draft Wireless Code does not address it. My suggestion is perhaps some rules surrounding separation of handsets and plans. For example, 2 and 3 year service plans can come with a certain $ subsidy that can be applied to ANY phone, and phones are otherwise priced without subsidy. This way consumers are free to pair any phone with any service plan. Providers can still subsidize phones and build that subsidy into the pricing of 2 and 3 year service plans, but cannot discriminate based on the phone the consumer would like.

Thank you CRTC for your work on this. An order of magnitude more Canadians are aware of and appreciate this work than are able to comment.

Thanks for this opportunity to provide feedback.

The code spells out that wireless providers have to specify the monthly subsidy in the written contract, but does not place any limitations on post-subsidy plans. So for example, if I pay $45/month for my contract, the provider is free to say "$30 - promotional subsidy plan. $15 - device subsidy". Then when I have paid off my device subsidy, the provider can say I am no longer on the promotional subsidy plan, and I have to pay $45/month still, even though I've paid off my device. This gains the consumer nothing, is an unfair situation, and should be addressed.

There is also no limitation that I can see on the percentage of device subsidy that must be included in each month's payment. Please add something saying that the subsidy is considered to be paid off on conclusion of the contract's term.

Data plan only...

I'm speaking for majority of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Canadian. I have been traveling between US and Canada on monthly basis. I have been told many stories how Deaf Canadian dealing with their telecom wireless carrier. Majority of them want to use data plan only since they never use voice plan at all.

I'm appalling to learn that they forced them to pay voice plan included even they never use it. Down in the state, I use my AT&T iPhone 5 with TAP plan with 3GB data plan that have no voice plan at all. It only cost me $50 dollar monthly.

We need to stop wireless carrier from abuse and take advantage from them by force to paying voice plan that they never use. Telecom wireless carrier made more than $4.5 million dollar per month off from them.

I believe that we need to establish wireless code for allow safeguard Deaf and Hard of Hearing to choose data plan only. We all are working with CRTC to establish our Canada Video Relay Service (VRS). We must protect Deaf and Hard of Hearing from wireless carrier's abusing system.

I would recommend to have special section on wireless code for Deaf and Hard of Hearing's data plan only. All Telecom wireless carrier will able to provide special data plan only.

With "Special Data plan only" must prohibit throttling on our data plan only because it will effect us during emergency call 9-1-1 on videophone. Same way, if we can allow throttling on voice call to get all garble on the phone call! It should be illegal for wireless carrier to put throttling on our special data plan.

This wireless code section should be reconsider important part to ensure that we have the proper choice on our wireless phone plan.

With emerging VRS Relay Service can significantly enhance the integration and independence of deaf and hard of hearing people. It can provide deaf and hard of hearing users with multiple options for conversing, the ability to perform numerous functions through a single device, "Always on" service, clear video communications and software solutions.

As novel ways to exchange communication and information continue to radically change the way that Canadians work, learn, shop, and participate in civic affairs, it is critical that Deaf and Hard of Hearing Canadians have equal access to these technologies.

We are now "21st century VP mobile users"

Overall this is a great step in the right direction. Here are some of the further changes I’d like to see, most of which others have already touched on:

All fees that a company may charge should be disclosed up-front, in a simple table, like credit card companies do.
As stated in the current draft, prepaid cards should not expire, but this should be made more explicit to also include prepaid pay-per-use “extras”, “add-ons”, “boosters”, etc. If one purchases 100 airtime minutes or 1 GB of data with their credit, this additional time or data should not expire either, unless billed as “24 hours unlimited access pass” or similar.
Overages should be charged in fair increments, for example, per second and per megabyte. Some carriers currently bump customers up into plans costing $5-$10 more even if they only go slightly over a data cap, or charge outrageous amounts per minute or megabyte when purchased standalone.
Carriers should be required to unlock phones at no charge at the end of a contract period, if not earlier. If the contract is long enough to pay off the carrier’s subsidy, the customer should not be required to pay twice for unlocking; similarly, if a contract is paid off through an early termination fee, the customer should get their phone unlocked at no charge.
Charges for incoming text messages should be prohibited, as customers don’t have a choice whether or not to receive a text sent to them. Ideally, incoming calls should not be charged, but more realistically, the carrier should be required to offer call display for free if incoming calls are charged for.

I don’t particularly see the value in regulating the maximum contract length; a 24-month contract is simply going to cause prices to go up so carries can ensure they pay off their devices. What should be stipulated, however, is a compensatory program for individuals who keep using their phone for longer than the contractual time. Because carriers are not forthcoming in providing discounts to customers after their contracts expire, consumerism is encouraged, and this would be worse on a 24-month contract, as people would buy new phones to maximize the value they get from the carrier rather than because they need it. The ideal way for this to be resolved is for carriers to be required to offer a discount equal to the subsidy amount after the subsidy is paid off. Persons staying with a company after paying off their phone, or bringing an unlocked phone to a carrier, should receive a substantial discount (~$15/mo) off the full price.

Better yet, be up-front and eliminate advertising prices with subsidies altogether. This would not be a popular option with consumers, but would make people much more aware of how much their phone is costing. The companies can still hide the total price of the phone – say, “$200 phone, $65/month plan (fine print: $50/month unlimited plan plus $15-3-year subsidy contract).”, but this would make it clear how much the carrier is subsidizing off the phone. This would come with new rights for the customer – they could break the contract, with absolute clarity in how much of it is left (36 * $15 total, pro-rated monthly); continue using the phone at the $50/month price after their 3 years are up; or bring their own phone to the network without being ripped off. An ideal extension of this would be to require the subsidy and plan to be completely interchangeable (and offer all plans at their base rate without subsidy). Presently, many carriers stipulate a minimum monthly spend on a high-end smartphone, but many users don’t need all the features in the high-cost plans. Bundling a basic $20/month plan with the $15/month subsidy would still allow a customer who can’t afford their phone up-front to get service, without being forced into the more costly plan they don’t need. Likewise, unlocked phone owners who take care of their device can get the same features at a much lower long-term cost.

So far draft addresses a few problem areas.

I did not see any mention of elimination of 3 year terms. I'd like to see contracts or financing capped at 2 years.

Plans claiming "everything unlimited" must really mean everything. I bought an everything plan and get stuck paying for MMS messages. I can understand Long distance not being included but all other services should be included.

Advertised "unlimited" plans should not have any caps or throttling of service.

Thanks

Just send your complaint to cellphonehorrorstory.ca

So far the draft is excellent, covering many of the key concerns that were brought up. There is one issue that is noticeably absent from the draft.

There were a lot of requests to have the standard contract length lowered to two years. This seems to have been ignored by the CRTC and not placed in the draft code. It's clear this is something most Canadians would like, based on the original feed back for the draft.

Hopefully this issue doesn't continue to just be ignored. The public is giving its input as requested, as long as it's reasonable like this, it should make it to the code.

Having lived overseas in different countries and having used cell phone providers in those countries, I'd like to comment on some of the differences between using a wireless provider in Canada versus using one in another continent, as most of these aspects are not covered by the draft Code and those are probably the main areas that need to be addressed.
The main difference between usage costs here and in other countries is the charge for "long distance calls", a concept that does not exist for cell phones anywhere else in the world. If I have a cell phone in Toronto and I make a call to another cell phone anywhere in the country -whether Vancouver, St. John's or Toronto itself- it costs the provider exactly the same amount to process the call no matter where I'm calling (or where I'm calling from) but the consumer gets charged substantially more to call a cell phone in a different area than to a cell phone in the same area which is ludicrous. The consumer is duped by the fact that our cell phone numbers have the same area code as landlines -another difference with other countries where cell phones have their own area codes- and we end up with contracts that have say 200 local minutes but zero long distance minutes while we should have 200 minutes anywhere in Canada for the same price.
This problem gets worse with the second major difference between North American providers and the rest: charges for incoming calls. This is not a problem for people that are never moving around but for anyone who travels even short distance (e.g. Montreal-Ottawa), you get charged roaming fees within your own country including for receiving calls you do not want to receive. The other people affected by this are those using pay-as-you-go, they pay the full cost for incoming calls as they don't have 200 local minutes included or anything of the sort.
The third issue is the length of contracts - they are typically 18-24 months in other countries but 36 months in Canada. This point has largely been commented on.
Another anomaly is the "activation fee" (typically 35$) charged with new phones but not with new SIM cards, proving the point they are ridiculous. How is activating a SIM card in a new phone more expensive than activating one in an old phone? This is just a way for providers to advertise phones cheaper than their actual price. My suggestion here would be to force providers to include the activation fees in the cost of the phone the same way taxes and fees must be included in airline ticket advertisements or for contract charges suggested under section D4.1 of the draft Code.
Finally, as all cell phones nowadays come with the call display function integrated, Canadian providers are the only ones who block the call display feature in order to charge people for it (except for pay-as-you-go customers). This feature should be free for everyone as it does not cost providers any money.
These are all concrete examples of how cell phone providers abuse Canadian consumers and unfortunately none of these aspects have been covered under the draft Code. I would encourage the CRTC to consider including them in the Code or, alternatively, coming up with other regulations on cell phone services.
That said, I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on this draft Code, I think it is very positive that this conversation is taking place and I would like to commend the CRTC for consulting the Canadian public on this issue and I sincerleey hope that the public's comments will be taken onboard when revising the Code.

CRTC, thank you for this code, which is making good progress. I have made specific comments elsewhere, but have one general comment:

I am not satisfied that the Code does not correct the long (3 year) contract period for post-paid subscribers:
1. It is reasonable to expect that subsidized handsets will be repaid by a retention contract. However, 2 years is the international “standard” and Canadian companies should be able to match this.
2. There must be a requirement for a separate (lower) fee for those who have their own device, whether they purchase it outright or have completed the payback of the subsidized period. It is not reasonable to continue to charge the high subsidized rate once the device has been paid for.

Reading through the draft I am impressed with the contents but wish the CRTC could expand the new code further. When cell phones became available to the average citizen, I purchased a used bag phone , which lasted me over ten years.The phone was a tank. I then had another phone that lasted me 6 years. Over the last 22 years, I have 3 additional small cell phones for myself and purchased at least 2 each for each of my four children. Of the last 11 phones, only one kept functioning well after it was 2 years old. Even though my personal cell phones were treated with extreme care and physically appear in pristine condition , it seems no cell phone functions well for three years. If the cell phone providers want to sign consumers to 'any number' of year contracts, shouldn't they be supplying merchandise that actually lasts as long as the contract? If something goes wrong with the internal functioning of a cell phone during the contract time, shouldn't the provider or manufacturer have to replace the appliance as part of their contractual obligations? And the other point to this is, why are cell phones that cost $500 and more, so poorly built that they do not last more than 2 years. A phone company representative advised me that the life span of a cell phone is estimated to be no more than 2 years . He then said the consumer should buy a $ 99 warranty extension to add a second year to the manufacturer's one year warranty,when a new phone is purchased , so that before 2 years are up you can bring the phone in and upgrade it to a new model under the warranty. Shouldn't the manufacturer have to honour a two year warranty ? And what are we doing to our world's limited natural resources by allowing this 2 year obsolescence to exist in our marketplace? It is obscene to abuse our resources and consumers with shoddy cell phones that get tossed after 2 years.

I agree with everything in this post. I lived in India for sometime and the private telecom companies there offer excellent rates, no charges for incoming - all because there is a healthy competition and consumer is the king.

First and foremost, I am overjoyed to see the progress on this! It has reinforced my waning pride in being Canadian and rebuilt my faith in the system. I felt relevant... so thank you CRTC!
Okay, most of what I've read seems great! My greatest frustration with telecom was the ridiculous "up to a maximum of $400" that Rogers used as a baton to beat me into submission. Without that outrageous cancellation fee, I'd have changed providers two (of my three year contract) years ago! So seeing cancellation fees capped to an understandable amount is WONDERFUL!
I WOULD, however, like to see two updates...
First, a thirty day no-cancellation penalty clause for contracts of six months or more. That is, if the contract is of six months or more, the consumer should have the option of cancelling without an early termination fee.
Practically all types of product purchases allow for a "return and refund" period to protect customers from poor service and promote freedom of choice. Wireless phone contracts are no exception!
So please make it mandatory for the first thirty days of a long term contract to be like a trial period.
The second update to the code that i'd like to see is to "D7. Unlocking wireless devices". There should be a maximum fee cap here too. The cost of unlocking your phone is never more than $10... even at the very highest range. I've gotten my phone unlocked for $8. Unlocking a phone is not a difficult task, nor is it costly. All phones are equipped with the programming to be unlocked, only the retrieval of the unlock code for a phone needs to be looked up which is done by using the phone's unique IMEI code (which is also retrieved by simply dialing a phone number code as if placing a call).
In my experience, Big Telecom will cheat you if they get the smallest loophole. Since the craft doesn't have a maximum dollar value for unlocking the phone, I can just see Big Telecom charging $60 or even $100 for an inexpensive thing like phone unlocking.
Please, please, please close this loophole!
Once again, thank you CRTC for renewing my faith in the fairness of our most wonderful country!

Unfortunately, I didn't know about the consultation prior to releasing the draft.
I can only talk from my experience with one carrier, but in general I find many provisions are unnecessary, I think the carriers already provide with a clear contract and are clear about fees, prices, etc.

But there are some areas that are important that I feel are not being addressed.
1) Premium text messages. It's very common that consumers are cheated into "signing up" for this type of premium service that are obviously a scam, who would pay $70/month to get jokes on the phone? If we pay with credit card there are all kinds of safeguards, but with this services there are none. I don't think the phone bill should be used to pay third parties and consumers should be able to specify that they don't want this to happen.
2) Locked phones. I did get a subsidized phone, signing a 3 years contract and it's a locked phone.
The carrier recovers that cost many times during the life of the contract, and if I walk away I have to pay a hefty fee, yet the phone is locked. That means if I travel abroad I can't use my phone or I have to incur in outrageous roaming costs.
Moreover, the code says that if the carrier changes the terms of the contract in a way that increases the consumer's obligations or decreases the carrier's obligation, the consumer can walk away without penalty, yet, the phone will still be locked and won't be able to use with another carrier.
My carrier charges $50 to unlock the phone but, you also have to pay the subsidy back, why is that? I still have a contract, I won't walk away without paying a penalty. They are tying consumers 2 ways, through the contract and through the locked phone.
3) I received a lot of calls asking me to renew my contract, apparently from my carrier, it turned up it wasn't my carrier but a maketing company, but they pretended to be my carrier, this should not be allowed.

I had hoped that the excessive roaming and long-distance charges loaded onto cell phone contracts would be addressed. One example: I have a land-line contract with Telus and a cell contract with Telus Mobility. Last month I placed a 19 minute call to the Netherlands on the land line, at a cost of $0.76. This month I placed a 13 minute call to the same Netherlands number on my cell phone, at a cost of $14.50. Second example: on a former cell phone contract with Fido, while in Europe, I sent and received several e-mail messages via data-roaming to someone with whom I had been trying to arrange a meeting. There was no data-roaming activity outside the day these exchanges took place. Total charge was $800.

Thank you very much for allowing the public to provide opinions on the Draft Code.
HERE'S what I would like to see

1. Elimination of the 911 Emergency Access Fee AND the System Access Fee. It seems more than a little ludicrous to have to pay a fee to be able to call in an emergency OR to simply be able to use my phone.

2. Elimination of early cancellation fees.

3. Elimination of 'locked' phones. If I fulfill my mobile phone contract, why should I not be able to use the same phone with a different service provider, if I choose to switch?!

4. Changes to the way long-distance and roaming charges are applied. It has ALWAYS annoyed me to no end that if I'm calling someone out of my 'zone', even if I'm standing right beside them, I'm charged long-distance charges!! To clarify:

I often travel from Hamilton to London, Ontario to visit friends, and when I'm getting close to their residence (usually within ten or fifteen minutes) I'll call to see whether to meet them at home or at their farm. And when I get my next cellphone bill, there's the long-distance charge!

Here's a suggestion: If a call is made from one phone number to another number within, say, fifty kilometers of the originating phone number, then no long-distance charges are incurred.

Finally, I'd LOVE to suggest the complete elimination of long-distance charges, the 911 Emergency Access Fee, the System Access Fee AND roaming charges. A telephone, whether mobile or at home, has become more of a necessity than we could have ever predicted, ESPECIALLY during emergencies.

But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my suggestions for the Draft Code.

I agree partially with what you are saying. However, it is not the Cellcos that pay the cost of these $700 iphones, it is the people with the $250 basic phone or those who purchase their own phone outright who pay for these iphones. For example, in a $60 voice and data plan there is a portion that reimburses the Cellco for the phone. If you bring your own phone, you still pay the same $60, so where does the extra money go? To subsidize the $700 Iphone! Think about it. If you have a $700 Iphone on a 36 month contract, the Cellco needs to collect almost $20 a month to pay for the Iphone (excluding an interest charge).

THE DRAFT CODE IS A GOOD START BUT LET'S DO MORE FOR AFFORDABILITY...
*** Probihit expiry dates on prepaid
*** If the CRTC is not going to act on 3-year contracts, then let customers opt out by requiring the companies to take service without hardware -- at a discount equal to the subsidy offered. Otherwise, customers have no sensible choice but to lock into a contract or tab scheme
*** Great to have all contracts summarized in a simple, standard way. Why not put it in a simple table? Why not include the overage and roaming rates too, rather than providng a web link? And PLEASE require that these be sent by email, so that consumers can share & compare.
*** Allow ONLY the TRUE handset subsidy to be included in early termination fee, not discounts and other "economic incentives. Otherwise, the cellcos can inflate the handset price, or play games with inflated "standard" (pre-discount) service prices.

The draft code is a great start -- let's get the job finished properly !

The CRTC is being smart in not doing this. If 3-year contracts are banned, the companies will move entirely to TAB schemes, like what you see on Virgin.... and take a close look at those. They are really 4, 5, or 6 year "contracts". Better to let customers opt out of these subsidy schemes totally, and buy their own phones. Why does it make sense for kids and minimum wage workers to walk around with $700 iphones? THey do it because the cellcos pay most of the cost, and don't give customers any real choice about that.

LET'S HELP MAKE WIRELESS PRICING FAIR AND AFFORDABLE...
*** The proposed ban on prepaid expiry dates is terrific. So are the caps and warnings on overage and roaming.
*** Why should those taking phone subsidies pay for those who don't: Require cellcos to offer a no-subsidy discount, equal to the regular price, less the susbidy benefit.
*** Allow only REAL handset subsidies to be included in the early termination penalty. Otherwise, the companies can play games by inflating phone prices and posted prices
*** Require that contracts be sent by email, as well as in writing. That will make it easier for consumers to see what deals the companies are offering.
*** Put the standard contract summary in table form, for easy comparison. Include the main overage rates too, not just the monthly fees.

The draft code is a great start. Let's get the job finished properly!

Topics that need to be discussed and added to make this procedure worth while.

-2 Year Contract limits max.
-Free Call Display and Voice Mail, there is no reason to charge for this, I currently pay $12 a month to Bell for these.
-Lower Data fees, there is no reason I need to pay so much for data.
-Travel Packages are highway robbery, and roaming fees are plain extortion.
-Cancellation fees are not based in reality.

I think you should not be charged when switching to a new mobile device with your existing carrier. Most carriers charge you an 'activation fee' to upgrade or switch your phone which is pointless as you already have a plan with them that is activated why do you need to pay another fee simply for switching or renewing your contract with an upgradded phone? this should not be allowed! Furthermore once your 2 or 3 year contract is over you should be able to leave your carrier with no strings attached right? well not currently many providers will charge you a dissabaling fee of some sort (usually 50$) so you give them your business for 3 years and they thank you for your commitment by giving you a final bill to pay, thats a nice kick to the teeth after being a loyal customer for 3 plus years! outrageous and should be banned!

Forbid double dipping, incoming text and phone calls MUST be FREE. How is that normal to bill sender as well as receiver of the call or sms??? It is INSANE!!! Especially where Call Display is not included in the main user plan.
Just check the Vodafone contracts length and cost of devices (e.g. iphones 5, let alone others)they pay? What we pay is out of this world.
Unlocking?? How would you like to buy TV that will work only with Bell but not with Rogers or AT&T etc??? You did not get it for free, but yet it is not yours as you can not do anything with it unless its with proper tv provider??? Well lets say that is OK, so what do you use to negotiate cable plan with provider?

This is an excellent suggestion.

There are two main things that I think need to be addressed within the code in some way:

1) 36 month term contracts should not be allowed, especially now that carriers don't allow upgrades until the end of the contract without a fight. The length of these contracts ensures that Canadians fall behind the rest of the world when it comes to new technology adoption. Regardless of how much smaller our market may be than others, the amount we pay per month for the "subsidy" easily outweighs any need for a longer term.

2) Price fixing - Anyone who thinks there isn't anti-competitive pricing in the Canadian wireless industry is blind. The carriers create carbon-copies of the others plans. I have two examples of this: Fido (Rogers) launches a $56 plan that includes unlimited talk/text, call display, voicemail, 2 gigs of data, etc. Within less than a month, Virgin Mobile (Bell) AND Koodo (Telus) launch the EXACT same plan. How is that competitive?

Example 2 - Chatr Wireless (Rogers) - right as Wind launches, Rogers creates a new "carrier" to be competitive with Wind. What do they offer? The EXACT same plan as Wind, with the EXACT same coverage area as Wind, despite the fact that they are using Rogers' own network, they can somehow get away with charging for an "away" zone, ON THEIR OWN NETWORK! Again, how anti-competitive can you get?

I agree with eliminating 36 months contract, but sorry i don't agree with a 24 months contract, I don't agree with any form of contracts at all. Whether it's 1 day or 36 months, no contracts period!

NO CONTRACTS PERIOD!!! No 1 day, 12 months, 24 months and no 36 months contracts. Contracts are a form of slavery and who wants to be anyone's slave? especially to a phone company!

The CRTC also needs to ban expiry dates on cell phone prepaid plans/cards as well. Since I rarely use my cell phone I refuse to get a contract so I have a pay as you go plan, but the problem is that if I don't use all of my minutes I'm forced to buy another card or I lose the balance, and the cards are only good for about 30 to 45 days depending on the cards you buy. This is bull!

So besides banning contracts the CRTC also needs to ban expiry on prepaid cell phone plans as well. The government has already banned expiry dates on gift cards so why have they not done it on cell phone prepaid plans? Phone companies are crooks!

allowing companies to set an unspecified fee for unlocking leaves the barn door open ... set the fee high enough and no one is going to unlock their phone .... either specify a maximum fee or, here's an idea, don't allow locking. If you want ou of the contract, they'll get your money, what's the big worry, offer a good service, happy customers won't bolt.

so, they are protecting us from ourselves ? weak, lame, brutal. bottom line is the crriers cant support their own phones let alone any one elses ... unlock the phones.

I do not agree that 36 months, or 24 months contracts should be banned. The reality is that the device subsidy that is provided is a real cost to the service provider. These costs can be $300 to $400. However, Rogers, Bell and Telus claim that these subsidies are used to secure a multi-year commitment and not related to the monthly service fee.

If this is true (which most people have issues with), then this dollar incentive should be offered to all consumers if they are willing to make the same 24 month or 36 month commitment. If I have my own device, and I don't accept a device subsidy, then I should be offered the same $400 incentive to sign up for a 36 month contract.

As Rogers stated in their initial submissions, the device incentive is provided to reduce churn and reward a commitment to 24 months or 36 months. If this is true, then there is no reason not to extend the same offer/incentive to all customers willing to make the same contract commitment.

This will ensure that the device subsidy is not used to subsidize the service cost, which is the primary objection of most consumers.

If a phone is purchased from the Service provider at a full no contract price, that phone should also be unlocked.

Re: Contract End Dates
I choose option 2, when the contract is over it should be the customers option to extend it. I also believe that if the service providers continue to sell and subsidize devices, the contract should be written with a service cost, and a separate billing schedule for the device payments. This is the only way to ensure that service only customers are not subsidizing other peoples device payments. This makes the accounting of cancellations more transparent and also makes it possible for the customer to work out their cancellation situation before they cancel.

Mel Brundige

BTW what happened to 3 year contracts ban request made by almost every user who posted their comment? Very very disappointing.....

i been Really disappointed with the draft there is no sign of getting rid 3 years contract where everyone talked about getting get rid of 3 years contracts they are just too long special with today technology changing very quickly every years new phones with the high end specs coming out, Please cut out these 3 years contracts just make it 2 years. Because in every country its 2 years and only in Canada its 3 years. Canadian will appreciate it.

I note the comments about the "big 3" ... go ahead and add sasktel to the mix, i think they could teach the big three a thing or two

My number one thing .... there is simply no justification for locking a phone, especially if you buy it outright ... it should be yours to use as you see fit ... if the carrier is credible, you'll stick around ... if not vote with your feet.... but oh where to turn ???

2) way more transparency required for billing ... sask tel provides paper statements for a fee, but there is no detail about text messaging, you just need to take their word or, as I was told, have your lawyer contact us blah blah blah ... in the end i got a copy but they charged me 5 dollars BAD CUSTOMER SERVICE

3) the whole long distance vs local minutes is archaic. sask tel has us set up so that it is long distance from our driveway to our living room (about thirty feet ... house isn't that big) ... make a minute a minute, and on that note

4) make a minute a full minute, not ten seconds. sask tel doesn't even answer their 411 for 50 seconds, you incur a two minute charge no matter what

5) make switching carriers easier (unlocking is a big first step) ... our experience with sask tel and virgin is equal in this respect, they make it as difficult as possible to switch, in my case a solid half day and a thirty mile trip to town .. .signing up on the other hand NO PROBLEM ... what does that tell you

I was surprised that a maximum term of 2 years is not even in the draft despite this being the #1 request from almost every user who posted their comment earlier. Very very disappointing.....

PLEASE get rid of the 36 month contract, phones dont last 3 years, so when the phone breaks, which is usually between 18-24 months, we end up either paying for a huge penalty fee to buyout the contract so we can RENEW ANOTHER 36 months or buying a phone at full price (and sometimes locked to that carrier).

4) When you change your device before the end of your service agreement you do not pay a penalty but the residual value of the no-interest funding who was granted on the original price of your phone. I think two-year contract might be a good idea but you should be realistic, you should expect to pay for the high-end devices.

Many issues:
1) Subsidized phones and monthly charges. If a carrier offers you a $600 phone for $149 now with a 3-year contract, then roughly speaking they are charging you @12.50 per month for the phone as part of your contract. I you decide to simply purchase the $600 phone, the monthly plan charges should be reduced by $12.50 per month. So a $50/month plan with a subsidized phone should be $37.50/month if you bought the phone. The subsidy should be a separate line item on your bill and it should be zero if you bought the phone.
2) Per minute billing. As others have pointed out, this is theft, pure and simple. a 200 minute plan can be eaten up in only 200 seconds. Gas stations can't round up to the nearest liter, grocery stores can't round up to the nearest kg. What do you think would happen if retailers decided to round all penny transactions up to the nearest nickel now that the penny is disappearing? Why are carriers allowed to round up? There is absolutely no technical reason not to have per second billing. Today's computers are very good at this kind of thing. In fact, some carriers have recently discontinued their per second plans, so they do have the capability.
3) More, real competition. Lets have some real dog-fights. Bring in Verizon, AT&T, Orange. Maybe our world's highest mobile rates will actually start to come down.
4) No locked phones. This is equivalent to a car manufacturer locking your car so that only their service stations can open the hood. Unacceptable. Especially if you bought the phone.

I believe that the section D1.2 J should be changed as this problem is happening to me as we speak. I am stuck into a 3 year term with my blackberry and I would like to switch over to an iphone. I am currently at 2 years of my contract and to get that iphone I would have to pay $270 to cancel my contract. This is rediculous for the fact that all I want to do is switch phones, is that too much to ask! - think that not only should 3 year terms be erased but the 2 year term, 1 year term and the no term contract phone fee's should be dramatically lower then what they are. As tapped on earlier, I think that cancellation fee's should either be nothing under certain conditions or should be very little (under $100 - $75).

I am just echoing other comments. After having traveled globally how are we the only western nation to have 3 year contracts? You should look to Australia for guidance. They have a similar demographic, geography and population. They only do 1 and 2 year contracts there. Even in the states 2 years is the limit. Please add this limitation to the new code of conduct.

The draft needs to limit the length of mobile contracts. 3 years is unacceptable. 2 year max should be enforced. There is no reason not to reduce the length of contracts. The 2 year model works in the US and their is no indication that it could not work here.

The CRTC has generally been useless at protecting Canadians from corporate greed and price fixing. I hope they can finally do something that would benefit Canadians and not Canadian companies.

for a reasonable fee, all service providers should allow roaming on their towers by all cell owners so as not to have unnecessary towers all over the country side.

Contracts should be limited to 24 months max and carriers should also be made to offer an option of a 12 month contract.

Users should be protected in regards to data roaming and not be made to jump through hoops with complicated methods for data roaming package sign ups

Incoming messages and calls should be free at all times

Best price available should be default. Should not require customers to jump through back room retentions negotiations

I'm not adverse to the existing 3 year contracts currently offered by carriers for heavily subsidized phone prices, as I understand it takes a certain amount of time for the carrier to re-coupe the cost of the handset.

However, what I am apposed to is the current trend of carriers ONLY offering 3 year contracts on new phones. Take for example the new Blackberry Z10 released by Telus and Bell. Other carriers are doing the same for various other devices. They aren't even giving you the option of anything less than 3 years on high end devices! You can't even purchase it no term if you want too!

Also, why is it that a device that would cost $600 no term is available on a 3 year contract for $50, but would cost you $550 on a 2 year contract saving you a measly $50, and if you want it on only a 1 year contract would cost you $575 saving you a measly $25..

Simply put. No term, 1 year, 2 year, and 3 year contracts should be available for all devices at fair and reasonable terms, and subsidized pricing on devices should scale a little more fairly for contract terms less than 3 years.

I believe that until the 36 month contract dilemma is solved, Canadian consumers will continue to be ripped off by the the telecom giants. 24 month contracts as the norm is my primary concern, and a majority of other Canadians. Please address this issue. Thanks!

This code does not address the worst aspect of the Canadian mobility marketplace: the standard three (3) year contract.

The fact we even have a CRTC is insane; it's ironic that we are all putting our heads together to come up with suggestions to make the current government regulated mobility monopoly more fair.

Anyhow, since the CRTC isn't going anywhere, please GET RID OF THE 3 YEAR CONTRACT. The Americans and Europeans have cheaper rates, better service, and more competition; all with 2 year contracts. Three years eclipses the technological lifecycle of the phone, which pressures the consumer to upgrade and lock-in to a plan with the same carrier. It is detrimental to the competition a healthy marketplace requires.

Or, how about we get rid of the CRTC, allow Bell and Rogers and Telus the opportunity to compete with all the American wireless carriers. I bet we would have 2 year contracts pretty darn quickly. We also wouldn't have to listen to Kim Mitchell or Bryan Adams on the radio as much, and Little Mosque on the Prarie and Heartland would dissapear to. Oh well, a guy can dream.

Contract length has been brought up many times, but it has not been addressed. This does worry me as a consumer. Contracts should be limited to two yearse, but three years is just a gouge by ROBELUS.

Very well put. I can think of only a few things I would add to this:

1. In relation to the clarity of advertised prices, more detailed information provided on the advertised price and/or feature(s), otherwise known as 'small print', should:

a) be no smaller than 1/8 of the size of the largest text on the page, or 'large print', and
b) any further information not contained in the text of the advertisement should be easily and readily available on the service provider's website, in easy to read language, and in a reasonably readable font, and
c) any assurances made in large print may not be amended in the small print (eg. a claim in large print that states that the plan is unlimited should not contain small print that lists limitations).

2. This code shall apply to new contracts as well as existing contracts. There are thousands of people right now with existing contracts, and if they are not included in this code, their contracts will be greatly altered without their consent, ripping them off without mercy, so that the service providers can make maximum profit. The possibility that this could happen thoroughly disgusts me.

3. Regarding D2.1, dealing with changes to the contract, I think that option 2 is reasonable provided that
a) cancellation of the contract is not overly complicated, and
b) can be done on the provider's website or over the phone, at any time within the given period, and
c) if it is impossible to do through the website or over the phone for any reason (eg. website down for maintenance, extensive call volumes, etc.) an extension to the deadline without penalty.

4. If, for any reason, there is a network wide outage
a) a discount should be given to compensate for the loss of services, and/or
b) no roaming charges apply, provided that the user remains in the country.

5. Automatic contract renewal should be prohibited, unless explicit consent is given by the user.

6. Regarding any part of the code that allows the service provider to act with the user's consent, or allows for flexibility and negotiation,
a) said consent cannot be a requirement of the contract, and
b) preferencec will not be given to users who give said consent, and
c) the above restrictions also apply to negotiation (ie a negotiated cap on additional fees shall not be a requirement of the contract, nor should users who have a higher cap be given a preferred status, etc.)

In addition, before signing the contract, the user has the right to discuss amendments and/or changes to the agreement with the sales associate without penalty or complication.

I'm really not a lawyer, so if my language is confusing you, feel free to email me. I think my issues are clear though.

Phone locking practices by carriers should be addressed in a better way. We understand that phones are subsidized, however, people pay that subsidy by monthly bill or if you break your contract, you have to pay the subsidy. Then why are phones being locked? if someone break the contract, the subsidy is being added to final bill automatically. There is no point of locking the device and they asking for more than $50 (in case of apple devices) to unlock it.
Phones should not be locked at first place as carriers do credit checks and give subsidy to approved customers.

It seems this draft was written to help providers more than assist the general public.

Almost every statement in the draft appears to provide basically no actual benefit to consumers.

Its missing:
1) Banning 3 year contracts. Simply put mobile devices fail - frequently and 3 years is simply too long.
2) Unlocking phones at the end of contract should be mandated at a fixed (reasonable - ie less than $50) rate. With an option to unlock the phone during the contract - all other options in the contract should continue (so any plan limits etc should continue to exist).
3) Providers should not be allowed to adjust rates for the duration of any given contract. So fee increases, changes in service (such as adding a $2 fee to mail invoices) or modifications in service (such as adding charges to incoming txts) should be considered breach of contract with a option to the consumer to cancel/break the contract with a significantly reduced penalty.

Why has the CRTC not covered the use of Rocket Hub or Turbo Hub equipment which also use wireless signal for cell phone and internet? These devices have been overlooked in this exercise and should have been included in all aspects of the CRTC draft intended to become law. The hubs are wireless phones just like a cell phone and have the same issues as the cell phone contracts. As well the providers fail to apply fair charges for internet services as well as limiting internet use. These devices were designed to be used while travelling or moving about locally but are increasingly becoming the internet/phone of choice in the rural community and now the rural users are finding they are being gouged horribly for their user charges particularly for internet use. Complaints of unfair fees for internet service to providers falls on deaf ears. Please help those deaf ears to hear once again.

I am entirely disgusted by the fact that our wireless service costs are among the highest in the world. Please see this wonderful article: http://www.arbitragemagazine.com/topics/culture/canada-world-leader-cell.... I would be happy to have my $80 (incl tax) phone bill go down to $60 or less.
I also agree with the termination of the 3-year contract.
Technology is moving and we should move with it.

I only agree to Option 1 on D3.3.
Length of Contract should be longer than 24 months.

CRTC Please Listen to Canadian. Lots of people don't want any contract more than 24 months

I only have 2 months on my contract with Bell. Bell requires me to pay min. of $300 plus early cancellation fee. I can't just the last 2 months to cancel my contract. If I wait for 2 more months, I just pay $130. I will change my provider either now or 2 months later anyways.

D3.3
Calculation of early termination fees
Option 1: Early termination fees are to be calculated as follows:
Pre-paid: Early termination fees do not apply to pre-paid wireless services.

Post-paid: The early termination fee cannot be more than the “Amount applied toward subsidy each month” as set out in the contract summary multiplied by the number of full months remaining on the contract.

If this amount is fully paid before the consumer cancels the service, no early termination fee will apply.

In all cases, the consumer is required to pay for any services provided up to the time that the contract was cancelled.

General Comment: Ever since the wireless industry has existed, Canadian consumers have been dealt a distasteful menu of exorbitantly high prices, woefully absent transparency and restrictions galore. Given this bad behaviour, the CRTC should impose much harsher penalties on wireless providers that violate this Wireless Code. Whenever the CCTS finds a wireless provider guilty of a violation, the company should be required to pay the consumer victim $ 100 (cheque, not credit towards future service). That's a language the telecom companies understand. Furthermore, the CCTS should publicize the name of every wireless provider that violates the Wireless Code. Also, to root out repeat offenders, the CRTC must make this Wireless Code a mandatory CONDITION OF LICENCE for every wireless provider.

Specific Comments: I agree with the following specific proposals:

A3 – Option 1 (Yes, applies to every wireless carrier no matter the method of payment)

B1 – Option 1 (Yes, effective in six months, although three months would be better)

B2 – Option 1 (Yes, grandfather everything)

D1.1 – Replace the words “appropriate font size” with “no less than 14 font size”

D1.3 - Option 2 (Yes, disallow all expiry dates)

D2 – Option 1 (Yes, consumer can cancel without charge if any changes made.) But prohibit any changes in the first place.

D3.4 – Option 2 (Yes, prohibit all automatic renewals no matter the length of contract. Did the telecom industry not learn its lesson years ago with consumer anger over negative option billing?

Specific Objections: Change Section D4.3 permits misleading advertising

D4.3 proposes identifying what limits exist to unlimited contracts ... but doesn't go far enough. Therefore, eliminate the "unlimited"/"limited" nonsense ... and instead demand the "truth and nothing but the truth" in advertising and contracts. Change this section to clearly state that if the industry uses the word “unlimited”, there can’t be any exceptions. Check your dictionary; unlimited means unlimited.

Hopefully this Wireless Code will work better for consumers than the Do Not Call List has.

1. eliminate 36 months contract - 24 months is ok
2. monitoring talk, text, and data usage - no surprise bills
3. data connection will stop working if we’ve reached our limit
4. simple to read documentation about the contract, before signing
5 . simple to read phone bill
6. wireless providers can unlock customer's devices, at their request, FREE
7. early termination fee based on the subsidy of the consumer’s device

thank you.

Section D5.2, Tools to monitor and manage data usage, does not address the situation whereby service providers are charging consumers for wireless data they do not receive. Most smartphones provide a means of metering data usage. The tools provided by the service provider may differ from the phone’s meter, and in my experience generally do, with the service provider’s numbers showing more data usage than the phone has actually used.

According to the MIT Technology Review, research published by PhD researcher Chunyi Peng of UCLA found that mobile carriers over-count data, with typical cell phone use leading to data usage being overstated by 5 to 7 percent.

Since one of the contributing factors of this over-counting is weak signal coverage, consumers are being charged for data they do not receive when using their devices in areas where the carrier’s signal coverage is inadequate. This would be a particular problem for those living in rural or less-densely populated areas, or those who travel a great deal with their mobile devices.

The code of conduct should require service providers to address this discrepancy, possibly by providing an adjustment or grace-data-amount, and publishing more accurate coverage maps, so that consumers know that they may not be able to receive data at a 1:1 ratio, in their calling area. Or, service providers should plainly acknowledge that they may charge for data that the consumer does not receive.

Section D7.1, Unlocking phones, should be expanded to include the case where the phone was purchased directly from the manufacturer (or other third party) without a subsidy. In some cases, the manufacturer directs consumers to the service provider for unlocking, regardless of the fact that the phone was not provided by the service provider and was never subsidized.

Generally, incoming Caller-ID and by-the-second billing are (or should be) required features of a metered service (as wireless is). Although the CRTC wishes to avoid regulating prices, that makes no sense with respect to Caller-ID, since in effect it is required for the consumer to know what they are buying. It cannot be expensive for the providers to provide this, and yet is disproportionately expensive. By-the-minute billing essentially forces consumers to pay for airtime that is not used, and creates a minimum charge for not reaching the party one is calling (e.g. voice mail, wrong number, someone else answers).

Locking and 3-year contracts: the people have spoken. The CRTC simply must address these concerns.

I'm quite disappointed with the draft code, as I don't believe it will address the fundamental issues that are handicapping Canada's innovation and mobile development. This is more than simply about consumer protection; this is about our economy. Canada is losing its place as a forefront of technical innovation because of our high data and mobile rates, lengthy contracts and telecom oligopoly.

The code should include the following:

1) Incoming voice minutes and text messages should always be free, always, no matter where, no matter when. Double-charging, or charging for unsolicited calls or texts, should be forbidden by the code.

2) Roaming charges should have caps to keep them within "reasonable" rates. More and more Canadians travel abroad for business purposes, and they need to be able t

3) Carriers should be prohibited from gouging consumers on mobile data bandwidth. Plans by default should include far higher bandwidth limits. If the competition in the marketplace is insufficient to compel carriers to increase limits and reduce rates on their own, then the CRTC should periodically impose price ceilings and minimums in conjunction with international standards and averages.

4) Contract terms should be no longer than 24 months, and consumers should be eligible to upgrade their handsets at any time during the contract term with no penalty.

5) The industry needs to be massively opened up to competition. Foreign competitors should be allowed to compete directly with Canadian telecoms to provide mobile wireless service, since clearly, limiting the marketplace to Canadian competitors only has not created sufficient competition so as to be consumer-friendly.

A3 Application of the Wireless Code to prepaid and post-paid wireless services - Option 1 should be the preferred choice (i.e. Wireless Code applies equally to pre-paid and post-paid services).

B1. Implementation Date - Option 2 should be the preferred option. Only the most onerous provisions that should come into force six months after the date of publication.

B2. Implementation in relation to new and existing contracts - Option 1 should be the preferred option. The creation of two-tiers of contracts must not occur.

C2. Recourse for Consumers - establish a floor price for penalties (e.g. $200) to offer Service Providers an economic incentive to avoid situations in which complaints are escalated to the CCTS.

D1.2. Issues that must be addressed in a contract to ensure completeness - If the goal is to ensure completeness, the contract should include an itemized cost breakdown of the services being provide, if applicable (e.g. in instances of true unlimited plans, this would not apply). For example, what is the rate for talk ($ per minute), what is the rate for text ($ per text), what is the rate for data ($ per GB), etc.

D1.3 Additional information specific to pre-paid services - Option 2 is the only option that should be considered. Credits on pre-paid phones must never expiry. Under no circumstances should service providers be able to continue to profit by taking funds from those who under-utilize the services they offer. That being said, in topping up a pre-paid balance, the consumer should not incur a fee.

D1.5 How and when contracts and related policies are to be provide: In addition what is under this section, service provides must provide the consumer with the option to access the contract via an online tool.

D2.1 Changes to contracts by service providers: Option 1 should be the preferred option. In addition, however, the service provides must notify the customer of any changes to the contract through a clear written notice of the change, at least 30 days before the change comes into force. The written notice must indicate that as a result of the change, the customer has the option to cancel the contract without penalty. Service providers must provide the consumer with the option to cancel the contract via an online tool.

D3.1 Effective Date of Cancellation - The cancellation takes effect on the date that notice is provided. Services providers must provide the consumer with the option to cancel a contract via an online tool. A 48-business hour processing time could be considered for cancellations via the online tool.

D4. Clarity of advertised prices - Advertised prices included in the contract must be final, including sales taxes, government-mandated fees, and any other charges/fees.

D5.2 Tools to monitor and manage usage - Service providers should provide any services to monitor and manage usage via an online tool. and at no additional charge.

D7.1 Unlocking phones - All of the options presented are inadequate. All phones available in Canada should be unlocked. Rather than have an option for service providers offering the customer with the service to unlock phones, the Code should provide the customer with the option of receiving a locked phone upon request. A discount to the phone could be applied in such instances.

D8. Loss or theft of wireless devices - Service providers should provide the customer with the option to report loss or theft of a wireless device via an online tool.

F1. Measuring the effectiveness of the Wireless Code - Given the pace on which this industry evolves, that maximum amount of time for the initial review of the Wireless Code should be three years.

New provision. Duration of Contracts - No contract may exceed two years.

New provision. Text received - To prevent abuse and fraud, service providers will no longer be able to charge the customer for text received.

In regards to Mobile Premium Services, 3rd party carrier billing should be by default disabled by all carriers for all new and existing mobile subscribers. Many of these premium mobile SMS services exist as companies outside Canada and canadian regulations (through Canadian subsidiary companies that only really exist to forward the income being paid to them). And many times consumers have been victims of Hundreds of dollars in fraudulent premium SMS charges which they have absolutely no way to contest as the carrier is billing on a 3rd party's behalf. This is an area that needs to be regulated to protect consumers from excessive charges as attempting to unsubscribe to these services by contacting the 3rd party is sometimes a futile affair. However there are legitimate mobile premium service businesses. Therefore to take advantage of them, consumers could simply contact their carrier, go online, or access their account via the already available smartphones apps and select on their account to allow Mobile Premium Services. It should be an "opt-in" service, not a complicated "opt-out."

As the CRTC is avoiding the largest single issue that people would like to have addressed -3 year contracts.I would guess that this code will be a toothless waste of time for all consumers! The CRTC would be further ahead if this code addressed that one single issue - NO MORE 3 YEAR CONTRACTS!
Most consumers will be very disappointed at the end of this process as nothing will change.

I believe the code should allow for penalties against service providers who abuse their customers. For example , i had to pursue my providor through the Complaints Comissioner to recover $138.00 in charges to my VISA account after I cancelled my service.The charges violated the terms of our contract. Calls to my providor were not answered. They had my VISA account number so were free to charge whatever they choose. They also ignored the Complaint Commission's process until it reached the second stage. Only then did they phone me and agreed to refund the bogus charges.One of the charges to my VISA , for $115.00 was made 7 months after my contract term expired . They charged me for the basic cell phone provided to me when I signed the contract. Maybe I should have pursued a charge of credit card fraud. In any event they provided an email to me and the Complaints Commission agreeing to refund the bogus charges. But agreeing to refund bogus charges is not a deterent against repeating the caper with another customer.

NO CONTRACTS OR LOCKED PHONES

There should be a provision in this document PROHIBITING ALL CONTRACTS of any length of time other than detail on agreed services to be provided and at what cost. All services should be provided on a month to month basis. Let the companies work for customer loyalty. This action would boost competition and lower prices. Oh, I forgot, competition, customer service and lower prices have been contrary to the policies of service provider for years. That's why we are engaged in this excercise for a fair code of conduct.

In a month to month contract scenario, where a subsidy has been applied to the purchase of a phone and the customer no longer wishes to do business with the service provider, the customer should be required to pay the balance of the subsidy.

The Code should also prohibit a service provider or retailer of a cell phone from selling a phone that is locked. Once I buy a phone, I should be able to choose the service provider is giving me the best price for service without the need to unlock my phone AT A COST.

MONTH TO MONTH ONLY, UNLOCKED PHONES, Whow! what a great ideal. I'm surprised the service providers didn't think of it.

THIS CODE IS ENTENDED TO PROTECT THE CUSTOMER, LET"S ENSURE IT DOES THAT.

Utterly disappointed that rates are not adequately addressed or capped to prevent gouging by providers. This discussion has been effectively addressed by Europeans that put in place measures to prevent this type of activity by providers particularly where excessive roaming rates were applied. The duration of contracts at 3 years is ludicrously long without effective recourse to get out of them other than to pay full balance of contract rather than the advertised or mentioned subsidy on the phone (usually based on full retail value on the phone). Certain phone users are also penalized by their providers depending on their device; FIDO, for instance during fall 2012/early Jan 2013 provided much more advantageous text (unlimited national/international) and call plans (unlimited/ Canada-wide) and data plans (1 Gb) on 2 year basis for users that do NOT have iPhones or Samsung Galaxy devices; if you have any of the latter two devices you were forced on 3 year contract, that has higher monthly rates for limited amount of minutes, no Canada-wide calling, less data and no international texting. The reason for discrepancy on monthly plans from Fido: iPhone and Galaxy phone users would likely use more data? Huh?!!! Okay? but are we not allowed to have same calling/texting priviliges? Something very amiss with these companies and CRTC that is taking a very, very slow and overly-business friendly approach on the code of ethics. Without regulations or restrictions on pricing practices, the companies will follow their own code, which is to charge, charge, charge because no one has the consumers' best interest in mind. There is also limited competition since the big providers have stakes or own the 'discount' cell providers. Europe has made real progress, we certainly can since there is a precedent in place - we can take the best of their guidelines and adopt them here.

There will be a need for some real teeth being brought forth with the final legislation that will see some severe penalties being handed out to service providers who are found in contravention of the new rules whatever they eventually are! There should be some legislation regarding the "customer no service" policies that have been adopted by the big three. They are laughing in our faces at the frustration we experience when our calls to their customer service are routed to some off shore country where the person on the other end is virtually impossible to understand after having sufferred through an inexcusable amount of time on hold. These companies are far too insulated from the wrath they should suffer from their "screw the consumer" policies!
As Free Canadians we should collectively set a date when we all bring our phones to the point of purchase and just hand them back! That would send a very loud and clear message to the extortionists that we set the rules and will no longer play by theirs!

==Paperless Bill==
Obvious money grabbing tactic. Paper bills were free years ago. Why charge money for them now? The 'green environment' bs doesnt count or they'd give us a $2 credit for going paperless.

==Unlocking==
Locked phones forces the customer to be on overcharged roaming fees when in another country. Phones are unlocked initially, but the stupid carriers force a lock on it. Then charges $25 for the unlock.
There is no need for locked phones if their pricing and service is decent. Plus, the contract keeps the phone more or less on the same carrier anyways.
Imagine cars being locked to a specific insurance or gas company.

==Contract Lengths and Confusion==
Most only hate contracts because of the cancellation fees. The carriers can be more transparent by separating the monthly service fee and subsidized handset fee.

Instead of always having a set contract length, just have a set rate of handset discount per month. If the customer wants a subsidized iPhone5 at $0, then let them be on a 7yr contract. If they cancel, they pay the remainder of the handset discount.
This is very similar to Wind's tab system, but with an option to have a free phone (on a very long contract).

==BYOD==
Related to contracts and unlocking. It's the same price if I get their phone or use my own. Why is there a discrepancy?

==Airtime and LD==
Why is there a need for double dipping? Blatant money grabbing again since the cost of calling Toronto to Ottawa is the same as Toronto to Vancouver.

==Use of the word 'unlimited'==
Unlimited means exactly that. False advertising if they promote the plan or addon, and then put limits on it in the fine print.

==Incoming Messages and CallID==
Incoming messages should be free since we have no control. Calling to get credits is simply preying on the people who dont know how it works, and a complete waste of people's time for those that do call in. The new entrants and other countries have incoming free WORLDWIDE so it's obviously a collusion between the major carriers.
Same for Call ID. The carrier already has the information of who's calling, but blocks the name so they can grab more money. $7/month is collusion between the major carriers.

==Overcharges==
Impose credits for the customer if the carrier incorrectly overcharges. Yes, it is up to the consumer to ensure the bill is correct, but most of the horror stories are because there's an error on the carrier's end. The customer would end up spending hours each day for weeks calling in to get it resolved. That's a lot of productivity lost to society.

==Extra Fees==
Remove SAF, Govt Reg Fee, and other made up fees. Effective immediately and not just only on new customers and renewals. This shouldnt require any explanation from Canadians.

==Contract Changes==
Send letters to the consumer of any changes to their contracts and give them three choices. Updating online the obscured T&C just doesnt cut it.
Since it's a contract and the carriers decided to change it, the customer gets 3 choices within 90days. Customer silence assumes consent as per current policies. Customer options:
- revert back to old contract with no penalties for both sides
- break free of contract with no penalties
- silence assumes acceptance of new T&C

==Outrageous Fees Due to Low Population Density==
The companies argument is low population density, which is acceptable up to a point. The problem is they dont provide service to 100% of Canada (eg islands in Northern provinces/territories). Most Canadians live in the cities so they only provide service in the cities and major roads (note: MAJOR, they ignore minor) between those cities. Stop listening to their argument of low population density.

3 year terms are unacceptable

To access rates and new devices that a competitive worldwide, Canadians are forced into 3 year contracts. This is unacceptable when the worldwide standard is 2 years. Thus, the code should limit contracts to 2 years in Canada.

only used cars sales have more consumer complaints, these wireless thieves have to be reigned in like vagrant children that are too stupid and crooked to do it on their own...and that is sad!

I want to firstly say, I am very glad to see the CRTC taking actions against the telecom/wireless industry - it has been long overdue. I hope to see more issues be opened to consumers like this one. My concerns are as follows:

1. Phone Locking - The general sense from people from the discussion and I believe from canadians in general, is the phone locking just isn't right. A carrier decides to subsidize a phone for a customer for an x-year contract, if the customer chooses to break the contract, their penalty should not be that the hardware they purchased is no longer useful for them as a conscious consumer, but that they should repay the subsidy, giving them freedom to use the device however they please because they effectively bought it outright. I think the terms in the draft dictate that the service provider is still able to charge a fee for unlocking, but I think this is also unfair. It's just an added step that they are using to recoup costs of losing customers to adjacent networks. Even as I personally called my carrier to unlock my phone, costing $70, the operator openly admitted that I could go see an independent dealer or a merchant to get my phone unlocked for a much lower cost, and that the fee was purely an administrative policy.

2. Length Of Contract - I personally choose to stay away from contracts and tend to embrace newer types of agreements(without naming names) that don't have such a bad reputation. But I think the public looks at something like a 3-year contract, then looks at the prominent phone manufacturers and thinks to themselves, 'In 3 years, the phone I buy will be obsolete and potentially not supported by the manufacturer'. This is a great tool for providers, because they know phone turn-around is usually <1 year, hence the idea of phone upgrading - you've all heard it, 'You are now available for an upgrade, please sign another 3 year contract...', and the cycle continues.

3. Customer Service/Experience - In general, I would lump all of these extras concerning transparency of billing, fees, plans etc, to an increased expectation for customer service. Every single canadian can tell you of a story about how this or that phone carrier royally screwed them over with bad customer service, overcharging, or just a messed up agreement. I think what the draft has is a good start to solving this issue.

Thanks

Additionally all incoming calls should be free. Companies are double billing for incoming and outgoing calls. This is an international standard.

1. Contract over 24 month should be illegal. 18 months would be better. Many countries outside of Canada only allow contracts up to 18 months. Some governments don't even last 18 months it is ridiculous for someone to be tied into an 3 year contract.
2. Contract cancellation fees should not be more than paying off the phone if a cash discount is received and there should be no or little fee if you own the phone entirely.
3. Phones should all be sold unlocked. Locking people to networks does not give the network intensive to provide good service if all the customers are stuck with them.

Thank you for you time.

I actually think this is reasonable decent.

I like and think cancellation fees for contracts should ONLY be the remainder of the subsidy, and nothing else. right now I'd love to cancel my Bell contract, but they want 420$ to cancel it, and I have 11 months left, the subsidy on my phone was 500$... I should only have to pay about 1/3 the subsidy...

I agree unlimited must be unlimited, with no exceptions

on thing I think that needs to be changed is that phones should not be allowed to be locked in the first place. Why should I pay a pile of money for a phone and not get to choose the carrier? The model of certain phones are restricted to on carrier or another is crazy. Make them all unlocked. period.

I'd love to ditch my current carrier, but my phone is locked, and I don't want to buy a new phone. make the locking of phones illegal, That will free costumers from the grip of the big 3.

From a trapped and angry consumer.

No more penalties for ending a contract. I should only pay for the remainder of the phone I purchased.
And, I need more reasonable rates to the USA when I'm travelling for data, text and talk.......Bell has ridicules rates for such things!!!!....Come CRTC, help me out here.......

Please ban 3 year contracts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite simply, ban 3 year contracts.

The big issue that is conspicuous by it's absence is the fact that we pay for X-minutes per month but the service providers are allowed to steal a large portion of these "paid for" minutes by rounding up the charge to the next full minute! If you make a call that is 1 minute and 1 second in duration we are charged for 2 minutes! It is no wonder that we are exceeding our monthly allowed usage and incurring higher bills when the providers are stealing a large portion of the time we have paid for with impunity. By the second billing will prevent most cellular customers from exceeding their monthly contract allowances. Safeway is not allowed to round up the weight of your steak to the next nearest pound so how do the service providers get away with outright THEFT! We paid for a certain number of minutes but never get to use all of them! Enforce by the second billing and give Candians their moneys' worth.

I agree with this comment along with a couple of others who relate it to the fact that some provinces prohibit the expiry of gift cards.
The problem I see arising is that carriers will modify the prepaid service of paying only for the minutes you use by adding a minimum standby charge, which will effectively eat away at any prepaid balances whether you use your device or not. These minimum charges would have to be eliminated or kept to an absolute minimum.

The best change to the current regulations would be to limit the term of the contracts from 3 years to 2. Many of the other suggested changes will help, but changing the length of the term will show us that the CRTC is serious about making changes that would be beneficial to 100% of wireless customers.

"Economic incentive" should be defined as the subsidized amount of the phone at the actual amount of subsidy that the company pays to subsidize a particular phone, not calculated at retail rates. Without a definition phone companies will include items beyond actual costs as subsidies - such as excess profits. Companies should only be recovering true costs, plus and interest rate component for 10 months or so it takes the company to recover the subsidy, if the CRTC is doing its job properly.
D3.3 Economic incentive should be applied pro-rata to the first 10 months of the contract, not 48 months. This reflects the fact that the true cost to the phone company is much less than the retail price. A company's break even is at ~10 months. To permit this to stand as it is to permit a profit on the actual subsidy well in excess of 400% in a 48 month period specific. In doing so the CRTC fails in its mandate. This is why consumers are enraged and companies and 3 yr plans and disappointed in the CRTC. If the CRTC can't see its way to being fair to consumers, it should at least decrease the 48 months in this clause to 24 months. The smaller, no plan Canadian entrants and the entire US industry manage on 2 yrs or less, so why does the CRTC persist in protecting the companies and not consumers?
D3.4. The contract should automatically renew at the price LESS the amount previously included as the economic subsidy for the phone. In other words we need to unbundle the phone cost from the service cost and better control the service costs. It is unfair that the services are overpriced so as to allow a subsidy on phone purchase that then becomes extra profits in D3.3. To allow companies to continue to price a service at a rate to cover a subsidy is wrong The CRTC is failing in its mandate to protect consumers and to fairly price services in relation to true costs.
D4.3 The CRTC should not permit companies to advertise "Unlimited" plans unless they are truly unlimited. To permit this is to enable misrepresentation.
Other: notices and written contracts. The CRTC should mandate that companies send contracts by such means that their customers receive contracts or notices of changes within 15 days and have at least 21 days to review the changes. Many of us have received contracts 2 days before 30 day review period expiries. Assuming a national Canada Post delivery time of 4 days, this would mean that some companies may be backdating letters. As companies use mail permits, a customer cannot verify the date that it was mailed by a postage cancellation stamp. Communication compliance of companies needs to be audited.

Thank you very much for actually caring about what Canadian consumers want.

-Contract lengths should be limited to 2 years max, to be equal with other countries.
-The telecom company should be required to fully service the phone for as long as they hold you to a contract for it (England has minimum 2 year warranties on all electronics, not to mention it only makes sense that you can't be held to a contract beyond the amount of time the device is working)
-Prepaid minutes should clearly NEVER expire. Just like gift cards, they should be treated like money, which doesn't expire.
-Data caps are ridiculous. Extra data has been shown in studies to cost the companies virtually nothing which means this is simply gouging customers.
-Roaming charges right now are ridiculous. This NEEDS to be solved. Canada-wide calling should be a free or at least low cost mandatory option
-Calls made while in the US should be made reasonable.
-Phones should not be locked to a particular provider. When I buy a device it should be up to me which provider I bloody well use it with. This is just common sense. It'd be like if I could only gas up my car at Ford approved gas stations.

Regarding D3.3
CALCULATION OF EARLY TERMINATION FEES
Definitely option #1. Option 2 is too convoluted whereas #1 just makes sense.

Thanks again

I would suggest a dis entanglement of the data and talk minutes.
Bundled packages make it impossible to buy the services you want or need.
You would never accept having to purchase yogurt just to get a liter of milk!!

It's important that contracts and/or plans have MINIMUM expected data speeds.

Otherwise, even if you negotiate a good plan/contract, and later the carrier decides you got too good a deal, they simply relegate those plans to a much slower APN , than the customer willing to pay more money. Already they give different plans, different APN's , giving them the advantage of "squeezing out"/slowing down the customers they want to force into more carrier profitable plans.

Caller ID and incoming text fees.

With incoming calls and incoming text not being free, consumers are in a bind as to why these services are also being charged to the consumer. Caller ID is almost always a separate option and has been increasing in price for the last 10 years, while it is always free with Prepaid wireless. For post paid subscribers, consumers are ripped off, and being charged an unreasonable fee ($8 a month just for Caller ID). Without Caller ID, Consumers have no option but to answer calls, thereby being charged with incoming calls. Consumers will either waste their minutes or pay for the minutes to answer unsolicited calls because they are not being informed who is calling. CALLER ID should be mandatory and included in ALL wireless phone services whether free or at least at a reasonable cost. Paying $8 a month for Caller ID when you get 1 call a month is unreasonable!

Same with incoming text charges, since SMS is unblockable, unsolicited text is being charged to the consumer, and with the advent of online technologies linking to cellphones (for user verifications) and spam resulting to posting mobile phone numbers online, consumers are vulnerable to being bombarded with unwanted text/sms, and are practically being BLACKMAILED by wireless providers to pay for SMS services even if users do not want to use it.

With out getting in to nity grity pls remove three years contract and ETF should not be more than the discount what phone company has given me at the sign up.

I hope it turn out good

I would like to know why my daughter is able to have a so called 'student' account, with unlimited everything, except outgoing calls for $30.00 a month and my plan, which is very limited is $70.00 a month. I can't even get a data plan for less than $70.00, which would put my bill over $100.00. Doesn't make sense to me.

Kudos on putting further mandates in place, however, I think you could do more. THIRD PARTY BILLING IN SMALL PRINT, should be addressed. Do you have any idea how much money the cell phone companies are making off of innocent customers. They got me for $700.00, and I had no recourse.

The single pervasive issue Canadians communicated to the CRTC was three year contracts. Even the media picked up on this fact. Yet no action has been taken. My feeling is that the backroom lobbyists carried more influence in this process.

I think you should raise the amount to $100. 00 dollars before they can shut of your cell phone or 2 months. We pay our bill every month, not by the date they set, as it doesn't always fall in our pay period, but it always gets paid and yet they turn off our phones. They should also be made to reduce the bill down for the amount of time you don't have access to your phone. And what happens if you don't have a contract. I don't want one, even through i renewed for 1 yr, i didn't have one prior to that . The only reason i had to do it was my husband was getting a new phone and i don't think that was fair.
What rules are going to be there to protect the consumer who doesn't have a contract?

After posting to your website, I read the draft. My instincts were right. I want to know how many cell phone industry lobbyist, the CRTC has listened. The whole draft document has feeling of leaning towards cell companies'; ensuring their profit. I wonder how much money was spent by lobbyist. CRTC put the consumer first. Don't listen to their snow job. No wonder its cold outside.

Cell phones company plans are not provided with full and accurate information. For instance i was told by call center reps, store clerks, that I can change my phone without any trouble. Time to change the phone I was told it is a regional plan not a national plan, so I could not change the area code. I had to drop my plan and it cost me more money the new plan. I tell cell phone companies need deep regulation and honesty checks like security companies carry out on department store employees. CRTC must realize that if they don't step up to the plate and do something then they have lost their usefulness. Than leaves legislation as the last resort. I tell you cell phones cost less in third world countries than in Canada. Furthermore cell phones become obsolete and stop working in second year and that allows cell phone companies to lock us the consumer into another 3 year plan. Do something CRTC, this is a never ending cycle with cell companies.

Cell phones are replacing house phones, home internet connection, and soon wallets. Cell phones are a necessity not a luxury, just like your water bill. They are becoming another utility company. The cell phones companies work as an oligopoly, with same plans prices. Laps top prices have fallen. But cell phones and plans cost more than a laptop. The simple reason is competition. The way to fix this is to abolish 3 year plans, make sure all cell phones sold are unlocked. This way anyone dissatisfied can choose another carrier. Proprietary computer systems ensure profits for companies. Companies such rogers, bell, and teleus have come up with proprietary marketing plans by forcing three year contracts, and locking cell phones rendering them useless for any other carrier. Consumers are at the mercy of cell phone companies. I pay for three cell phones but use none of them because I pay too much already. Its bigger than my food bill. Now chew on that. Stop Cell phone companies from treating consumers as their personal atm's.

Come on, CRTC, NO 3 YEAR CONTRACTS!!! I don't think Canadians can speak more loudly on this one! Have you looked at the responses on this forum? Canadians clearly want a maximum contract term of two years, like most of the rest of the world. Remember, you represent us, NOT the wireless companies, so why are you tip-toeing around this issue? I suspect corporate interests have a very loud voice on this particular issue (they must have, to drown out all the voices in this discussion)!

The 3year Contracts are ridiculous. Well not only that the services are not at all happy the canadian wireless companies. These Wireless Companies are robing the people. I recently finish off contract and i want to unlock my phone. but they are charging $50 for unlocking this is so ridiculous. Why we should pay because when you finish off your contract. thats completely your phone. this is the major issues with these wireless companies. The Plans are not comfortable to the people because what ever we are paying its not really worth it. if you see on other carriers like (wind & Mobilicity) these companies are the best in plans and the coverages are good at some cities like toronto.
my concerns are please try to reduce the plans and other services has to be comfortable to the people. Please this is my request.

1. I agree cancellation fees are ridiculous. If I get subsidized by Telus on price of phone and want to cancel early, then I should only be responsible to pay the remaining cost of phone nothing more.

2. I should have the option to get unlimited data if I want to use more data than be limited and have it taken away from each month. Then be charged ridiculous overages for data the next month.

3. Contracts should not exceed 2 year commitment, as the hardware does not last as long as contract length. I would be willing to pay more up front for phone but not be locked in for 3 yrs.

4. Cost for travelling to the USA with the phone is insane. Either make cost more reasonable for USA travel or allow phones to be unlocked without affecting warranty, so that USA sim cards can be used.

Thanks to the Government for helping get these greedy phone companies under control.

No More 3-Year Contracts!

I know many have said the same thing, but the more people who speak, the harder it will be to ignore. Two years maximum! Just like the rest of the world.

Also, if I've fully paid off the subsidy on my phone, it should be unlocked for free. NOT $50 or $100. I paid for it so it shouldn't be locked anymore.

Comments to specific sections of the proposed code follow:

SECTION A3 - OPTION 1 preferred. All wireless services should receive the same "protections" under the code, and more importantly should be required to be treated similarly by the carriers. If anything, "Pre-paid" should have further specific protection terms related to the economic liabilities created by "pre-payment" for services not yet rendered.

SECTION A4 - A statement should be included in this section to specify "no provincial legislation should (may?) have the effect of reducing the consumer rights provided by this code". This would have the intent on preventing provincial legislatures from being manipulated by the wireless industry to soften the code through superseding provincial legislation. Though the CRTC has no authority to dictate provincial consumer protection, wording of this (or stronger) nature would leave any province in an "uncomfortable/publicly untenable" position should they decide to legislate against any aspect of the code.

SECTION B1 - OPTION 2 preferred. Though prompt implementation is preferred, it's likely the industry would drag it's feet until the 6 month deadline anyway. none the less, immediate implementation is in the consumers best interest. Items for immediate implementation would include: Entire code section A, C, D, F. (not D5.1, D5.2 but no more than 6 months)

SECTION B2 - OPTION 1 preferred, as most favorable to consumers, However OPTION 3 would allow already abused consumers to receive some relief from the disadvantage the industry has foisted upon them, without excessively disadvantaging the industry. sections to apply to "existing" contracts should be: Entire code section A, C, D, E, F (not: D1.5, D2.1, D3.2, D3.3, D9)

SECTION C1 - Having the CCTS report annually severely impairs the timeliness and thus value of the information to consumers. Carriers have multitudes of sales cycles each year, adapting them often, even more frequently than on a monthly basis. If the CCTS reports only annually, the consumer is effectively blind to information they may find critical to their ongoing decisions relating to their purchase/use of services. Further it slows the improvement cycle of the carriers, thus delaying the value of the process and it's results to the intended improvement of the consumer environment. Instead, i propose that the CCTS report, and update, in real time (or as quickly as practical with consideration to process, but in general within 24 hours or 1-2 business days) on their (a) website, at least the following information: the existence of a complaint and it's substance, the expected length of the required investigation (i.e. the date a decision will be delivered), the substance of the response by the carrier(s), and the result of the investigation. Some obfuscation of personal identifying information would be required to protect the identity of the complainant, but as much information that other consumers could use to inform their interactions with the carriers should be provided. An "overview" or simple summary should be provided on the website to display the "score" for each carrier (Complaints, found valid, dismissed), year-to-date, plus totals for the past 3 years. The quicker illumination of issues will ensure the consumer is always best informed and will also help the carriers self improve.

SECTION D1.2 f. - Carriers should also be obligated to provide a "cash price" for the device as provided. "Cash price" means the amount a consumer could pay at the outset to fully purchase and own the device outright. Such a requirement would allow consumers more choice and help remove the confusion created by the carriers about the true cost of devices, subsidies etc.

SECTION D1.3 - OPTION 2 preferred. Many provinces have legislation that it is illegal for pre-paid "gift cards" to expire. Wireless pre-paid balances should be no different. The fees are paid by the consumer for services, the carrier must be obligated to provide those services without time limits, or penalties (including non-use fees, service fees, or any other fee that decreases the balance without the consumer actually using the service).

SECTION D2 - OPTION 1 preferred.

SECTION D3.1 - OPTION 1 preferred. Carriers could easily provide a means on their website or via call center (though these example should not be codified into the code as consumers may choose other means) to ensure they get prompt notice. There is no reason to delay the effect of a consumers desire to cancel.

SECTION D3.3 - The wording of option 2 could imply that the cancellation fee to be paid would equal the amount the consumer has already paid for the service to date. i.e. monthly fee x number of months of service. Charged as a penalty (since the customer would have already paid the monthly fee each month). This sounds excessively punitive towards the consumer, and would disadvantage consumers the longer they are in a contract (since the penalty increases with each additional month). If the wording were clarified that "the total of the monthly(recurring) fees already paid by the consumer are deducted from the total determined by the formula". If this change were made, then option 2 would be preferred. OTHERWISE option 1 would be preferred if the "economic incentive calculation" language ((Economic Incentive) x (Number of Contract Months Remaining/Total Months in the Contract)) appearing in option 2 was included in option 1. The reasoning behind adding this math is that the carriers could "front load" the monthly subsidy amount to recover their subsidy earlier (say 6 months), then the customer would have to pay a large fee even though they might have already fully paid the subsidy in the earlier months.

SECTION D3.4 - OPTION 1 preferred. Simpler and has very similar effect to alternate option.

SECTION D4.1 - Ensuring consumers can make accurate comparisons to alternative products requires "high similarity" or identically featured products. Advertized prices must be clear in what they include and don't include. To that end, this section needs further clarifying language. The last sentence should be rewritten "The advertised price must indicate AND SPECIFY THOSE FEES whether it includes sales tax, government-mandated fees AND ANY OTHER FEES.

SECTION D4.3 - Similar in reasoning to the suggested change of section D4.1, the consumer is easily misled by details hidden in the "terms of service", as such greater up front clarity should be required with "unlimited" plans. Suggest the first sentence be rewritten "Service providers that offer “unlimited” plans must explain at the time of sale and SPECIFY EXPLICITLY in the personalized information summary WHAT THE LIMITS ARE to the “unlimited” plan and whether the service provider retains the discretion to move the consumer to a “limited” plan if these usage limits are exceeded." This change would require explicit numeric limits (zero or none is a limit) clearly appear in the "information summary", providing clarity to the consumer.

SECTION D5.1 - As a consumer, managing ones costs is very important. Devices don't have well integrated meters for usage that a consumer can rely on, nor that are accepted by the carriers as "accurate for billing purposes" The consumer is therefore reliant on the carrier for the information necessary to inform their usage and this financial obligation. Given this sections advice that the service provider will provide message alerts, which the consumer can opt out of, it's important to ensure that the consumer has high granularity of control in choosing which of that information they wish to receive. To that end, the second bullet should have the words "The first" replaced with "Each" to read: "EACH time a consumer begins using a service or feature that is not included in their wireless service plan, outlining the costs of continued usage." Similarly, the third bullet should have the word "When" replaced with "Each time" to read: "EACH TIME hardware connects to..." Finally, these tools described by the code, because of their intimate connection to a consumers ability to understand and manage their economic obligations, are really "functions" not "services". The word "Services" in time could be confused by carriers to imply something they could eventually charge a fee for, and although currently precluded by the text of the fourth bullet, their enticement to think that way could better be squelched by replacing the word "services" with the word "function".

SECTION D5.2 - The code has made efforts to ensure that consumers will be able to monitor and control their liabilities for wireless services. This entire code is based on that fact. Access to the information held by the carrier, in a timely, convenient, direct and non-discriminatory manner is critical to achieving this goal, and the success of this code. The experience of consumers would indicate that the mechanisms provided by the carriers to achieve this insight of ones service cost vary widely between carriers and even between customers with the same carrier. In fact, one carrier I know provides very different functionality to their Pre-paid vs post paid customers, even though each customer is using the same network services and customer service interface. Further, that carrier specifically excludes certain classes of customers from using certain tools AND had modified other tools impairing their functionality for the class. An ungracious observer might conclude that the carrier is discriminating between the two groups of customers for financial gain. Asking the carrier directly would surely result in an explanation related to "technology issues" that prevent equal treatment of all customers. This situation surely cries out to be addressed in the code, as fairness to consumers is it's founding purpose. To that end, additional text should be added to section D5.2 to address: 1) equality and non discriminatory access to equivalent tools for all customers of an individual carrier 2) Expediency and convenience for the customer. (i.e. a radio button on the customers web page to select an option is preferred to 25 minutes on hold with the carriers call center between the hours of 7am and 8pm m-f). To that end, a new heading "Tool Access and Efficiency" should be added and the following text appear below it: "The service provider will provide functionally identical, effective and efficient tools to all customers equally in an entirely non-discriminatory manner. All tools and features, their access and use should be optimized to ensure the users experience is fast and intuitive, and should everywhere possible implement self-service capabilities (via web, app etc.)". This last sentence included to address some Service Providers design philosophy of designing tools which make executing changes so arduous, consumers fail in their use, or quit out of frustration.

SECTION D5.2 - As in D5.1 above, change the word "services" to "functions".

SECTION D7.1 - OPTION 2 preferred.

SECTION D7.1 - Unlocked devices include devices purchased by consumers from other than the service provider. Such devices, in most all cases are devices technically/functionally identical to same model devices sold by Service Providers. Despite the fact that Service Providers subsidize many devices though contracts, they do profit on the up-front sale of "non-contract" devices. Consumers can purchase devices, often identical functionally or actually to devices sold by Service Providers through the secondary market. In recent times the move is towards universal devices, whereby the hardware is compatible with all (i.e. previously incompatible) networks. Some manufacturers provide these otherwise identical devices with slightly (immaterial) different software configurations to enable Service providers continued profits from their direct device sales. This leaves consumers at a disadvantage, since small configuration differences can allow a Service Provider to effectively deny use of that device on their network. It would be in the consumers interest to include another paragraph to address this disadvantage. Proposed wording as follows: "Service providers must not discriminate in any way towards unlocked devices, not in eligibility for enrollment on their network, nor in network services/facilities available to that device in comparison to similar or identical devices which they already have in their network."

SECTION D8.1 - This section does not specify any relief a consumer might offer in the case of lost or stolen device. It would be in both the consumer and service providers interest for the service to continue if, for example, the consumer would provide a replacement device to take the place of the lost/stolen one. The following additional wording might be considered for appending to the existing paragraph. "Unless the customer promptly provides an alternative device, which the services will continue upon, under the terms of the agreement."

SECTION D10.1 - OPTION 1 - preferred

Please name the other countries that have 3 year contracts as the norm? As well, for our comparison, please let us know which have 3 year contracts with little or no other choice aside from purchasing the phone outright and then, with no reduction in monthly service fees?

Also, please name the other countries where unlocking your phone is illegal? ...aside from the expiry of an exemption recently in the US that will almost certainly be extended or made permanent (the right to unlock I mean). The truth is, outside of North America, LOCKING of phones by carriers is what's illegal.

A very unfair practice is prepaid phone cards having the unused balance expire if you don't keep adding a minimum of $10 each month. I know people who have accumulated huge balances of $300 or more dollars and they have to keep paying the monthly minimum or else they lose all that accumulated balance. At the rate they use their prepaid cell phones they will never use the balance up and will keep accumulating a huge amount or worse if they miss a payment, all that money will be lost (kept by the phone company). It is akin to stealing money from people, as no service was provided for the money that was forfeited if a payment was missed. There should be a maximum dollar amount (ie: $100) that can accumulate in prepaid accounts and once that limit is reached no further monthly payments should have to be made until the balance gets to $10 again. And the unused balance should never expire if the customer is late with a payment.

Coverage maps are displayed on the providers website but they are misrepresentation!! I was told I had full LTE coverage in Brampton (population 500,000+) and when I got my phone, No Service. It's extremely unfair for cell phone companies to hold you hostage because as long as you have one bar it is deemed that you have service.

What can you do with one bar? I get no phone calls, it takes me 20 tries to send a text message and I have 6 gigs of data that I pay $30 a month for and can't use.

I am utterly disappointed with CRTC's draft of the Code of Wireless Conduct. It appears that the CRTC is willing to adopt those characteristics in the code that the hated and greedy Big 3 Canadian telecoms want (Bell, Rogers, Telus). The draft code appears to have been prepared by Bernard Lord's Office of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunicaton's Alliance (CWTA). By doing so, the CRTC is once again destroying its credibility with Canadians and willing to be a lapdog of the CWTA.

(1) Real competition in Canada's wireless telecom sector cannot be generated and sustained until the CRTC helps the new entrants (Wind, Mobilicity, etc.) gain new customers and expand their network. Expanding new entrants network requires physical infrastructure, time, and money. It is a chicken-and-egg syndrome. Unless the new entrants expand their network to cover the major population centers, they will not gain new customers. This is where CRTC can help foster competition by putting a cap on maximum roaming fees per month for voice plan and data plan separately. Customers would be willing to sign-up with new entrants if they are convinced of the costs of a stable roaming rate per month for voice and/or data and knowing that they will not end up in dead zones. Roaming rates should be capped by the CRTC to a maximum of $12 per month for data use and $12 per month for voice plan. This is just an arbitrary number I have picked but it should be affordable for most Canadians. This is the normal in Western Europe. I am surprised that the regulator is willing to allow the telecoms to continue ripping-off Canadians thru' egregiously excessive roaming rates.

This one single action by the CRTC (capping roaming rates for data and voice separately per month) will send a strong signal to Canada of the pro-consumer stance of the regulator. Thanks and hopefully you will implement this suggestion which a majority of Canadians would love to have.

_______________________________________________________________________________

(2) Do not allow pay-per-use minutes to expire at the end of every 30 days / 60 days / 180 days etc.. CRTC should mandate that all credits for pay-per-use minutes shall continue to remain unexpired until they are exhausted.

_________________________________________________________________________________

(3) Hardware device purchased out-right by the customer or out of contract term should be unlocked by carrier for free without any fees.

___________________________________________________________________________________

(4) Adopt the best features of the Quebec Wireless Code of Conduct into the CRTC's Code of Conduct.

Telecoms should not be allowed to use the highway-robbery model as their business model, for legally or illegally gouging Canadians.

1. I agree cancellation fees are ridiculous. If I get subsidized by Telus on price of phone and want to cancel early, then I should only be responsible to pay the remaining cost of phone nothing more.

2. I should have the option to get unlimited data if I want to use more data than be limited and have it taken away from each month. Then be charged ridiculous overages for data the next month.

3. Contracts should not exceed 2 year commitment, as the hardware does not last as long as contract length. I would be willing to pay more up front for phone but not be locked in for 3 yrs.

4. Cost for travelling to the USA with the phone is insane. Either make cost more reasonable for USA travel or allow phones to be unlocked without affecting warranty, so that USA sim cards can be used.

Thanks to the Government for helping get these greedy phone companies under control.

3 years is too long!

By far the biggest issue with cellphone contracts is that 3 years is way to long to have a contract. the phones only have a 1 year warranty and in 2 years no one even knows the model exists let alone probably isn't even in production anymore. These companies are squeezing the money out of us by forcing us to pay cancellation fees on contracts because they are too long.

For prepaid (pay as you go) service that is funded through automatic top-ups charged to a credit card, there should be a notice generated and a short (one week?) grace period applied when the credit card expires to give a subscriber a chance to get the new credit card registered.

I had a prepaid cell that I rarely used and was providing 10.00 monthly top-ups charged to a credit card. Although I had a balance of more than 70.00 I tried to make a call in November 2012 and was told I had a zero balance. The service provider had confiscated my balance. When I queried their action they told me my credit card had expired. However, when I checked on line they had my new credit card on file as the primary card. According to them, there was a four day window between the expiration of the old card and the application of the new card. I have no way to disprove this contention. They then told me that they would restore the misappropriated funds if I would pay an additional 70.00 into the account. I refused to submit to this commercial extortion and informed the service provider that I would take my business elsewhere.

There should be some protection for the consumer against this type of misappropriation.

Contracts to a maximum of one year.

No locks if you are a monthly user. Free to unlock your phone once your contract has expired.

The unlimited clause makes no sense. How can you advertise something as unlimited, if there are definitely limits? Call it something else.

No roaming charges. Fido never used to charge for roaming, before it was taken over by Rogers.

As for the person who commented that countries are making unlocking phones illegal and that this therefore prevents theft and slow down organized crimes, that is untrue. They are only preventing individuals, not carriers from unlocking phones. Also, the IMEI databases that are being set up by carriers for stolen phones are what result in reduced theft as they render the phone unusable no matter what carrier one is on. If having locked phones prevented theft and slow down organized crimes then Apple wouldn't sell unlocked phones, but they do.

And as for the carriers who claim that unlocked phones would allow people to switch carriers, that is true, but who wants to then pay two different carriers for the same service? Remember, under the proposed rules you can only have your phone unlocked if you are under contract and thereby required to keep paying the carrier until the contract is ended or pay a hefty termination fee to cover the subsidy you received.

I only want my phone unlocked so I can use foreign SIM cards in my phone and not pay the usurious roaming fees. I've been doing this using software provided on the internet for free but not all phones are unlockable (not the current iPhone 5 I have right now anyway)

As for the 3-year contracts that a lot on here are complaining about, one thing people have to realize is that if the CRTC were to impose 2 year contract, unless they are going to control pricing too (which is not recommended as we are in a capitalist economy) something have to give. The subsidies on phones will go down and the subsidized price of the phone will go up or the monthly price for the plan will go up. The carrier still has to recoup the money they are shelling out to the manufacturer that is not covered by the price for the phone under the contract.

For example, for all models of the iPhone 5, Fido provides a $520 subsidy that they must recoup over the term of the contract or they lose money on each phone sold (ok, not really because there is a bit of profit built into the retail price of the phone but why should they sell it at a retail price that has no profit?). Currently the iPhone 5 is only available on a 3-year contract. That's 520/36=$14.44/mos that the carrier has built into the monthly cost of the plan. Going to a 2-year contract means the carrier must now recoup this money over 2 years or $520/24=$21.67, which is $7.23/mos more. So, under 2 year contracts expect the price of the contract for an iPhone 5 to go up by that amount.

However, even if the monthly price of a contract with a phone under subsidy goes up, I would prefer a 2-year contract because that's about when cell phones seem to become obsolete, the battery doesn't hold its charge or other things go wrong with it.

1-I have worked in this feild for 15 years and sold the 3 year contracts. I don't agree with the big 3 companies if we sign a 3 year contract we sould have a 3 year warranty on the phone also, as it is part of the contract we signed.
2-Unlocking your phone should be a right as the company will not take back the phone after 15 mins or 30 days.
3-No long distance charges in canada we live in canada and are free to live and choose which part of canada we live in so why are we roaming in our own country.
4-The big 3 companys should find better companys who can supply them with cheaper phones $100-$150
Please we need a change this system (big3) is milking us dry.

Clause 7.1 requiring a carrier to unlock a cellphone after 1 month for the cost specified in the contract is a great one. However, the fee should be reasonable. Currently the charges are $35 -Telus/Koodo (3 mos into the contract), $50 - Rogers/Fido (only after the entire contract is over) or $75 Bell/Virgin (only after the entire contract is over)

A reasonable fee would be zero because 1) all it involves is entering the IMEI # into a database which costs the carrier nothing and which is less time than most customer support calls; 2) the carrier will recoup the entire cost of the subsidized phone plus monthly revenues for the cell phone service itself so why should they charge me even more?; and 3) The price of a phone from the manufacturer at full retail unlocked is the same price as the price of the phone full retail from the carrier and locked. If the cost is not zero then it should be something more reasonable like $10, which should cover the 30 seconds it takes to enter the IMEI # into the database.

Also, I see nothing regarding discounts from bringing my own mobile phone on a plan. All carriers, except for Bell/Virgin charge the same price for their service on a particular plan whether you bring your own phone acquire one susidized under contract. So, that forces you to go into a contract given you aren't going to get any benefit from bringing your own phone (and thereby, under the current situation, forces you into a locked phone from the carrier). Bell/Virgin give you a measly 10% off for bringing your own phone. Take a look at Fido's $55, $65 and $80 plans. I asked to get a discount because I was going to use my own phone on these plans and they told me that the price was going to be the same. That is hardly fair when if they don't give me a subsidized phone they'll save all lot of money because they don't have to subsidize the phone. For example, for all models of the iPhone their subsidy is $520+HST = $587.60. Over a 36 months contract that is $16.32/month they are saving. Sure I could go on a month-to-month with them instead of a contract but still I do not get a discount off the monthly price even though they don't have to provide me with a phone. Not far at all!

-3 years contract should be banned
-Caller ID and voice mail should be mandatory free
-Get rid of 30 days of service fee when you port your number to another carrier
-Roaming charges should be eliminated

No Expiry on Prepaid Cards
The government legislated an end to expiry dates on gift cards, yet the cell companies still use, and abuse expiry dates. My son gave me his old cellphone from a paid off Bell contract, it was not unlocked so I had to go with Bell but didn't want a monthly plan as I only use the phone in emergencies.
I bought a 25.00/30 day card on November 1, and the morning of November 30 tried to use my cellphone and was informed there was a zero balance on it.
Legislation banning expiry dates on gift cards should immediately be extended to any prepaid card for any service.
The vendor is NOT taking any risk as the card represents a $$ value, if their prices go up then the card pays for LESS service.

Paying for the price of the phone is the carrier explanation. The reality is that the monthly fees the are the same for the same plan no matter whether you are on 3 year, 2 year, or month to month. The inducement for the 3 year contract is so that they can charge you various fees and they have that extra year of time to string you into a new contract once your hardware is outdated.

1. Roaming charges should be eliminated. The rates are outrageous.

2. Contracts that hold one financially hostage for 36 long, long months.

3. Phones that are sold locked, forcing the user to pay extra for unlocking fees.

4. Disinterested and often difficult customer service departments at most major carriers. I realize that this is not a CRTC issue, but I just needed to state the obvious.

1. Roaming charges should be eliminated. The rates are outrageous.

2. Contracts that hold one financially hostage for 36 long, long months.

3. Phones that are sold locked, forcing the user to pay extra for unlocking fees.

4. Disinterested and often difficult customer service departments at most major carriers. I realize that this is not a CRTC issue, but I just needed to state the obvious.

This doesn't go far enough to create the changes needed to make Canada's wireless system fair. I have made the decision for myself and my family to NOT use any wireless service under these current conditions. There is no competition between service providers and all the 'rules' still uphold the benefits of the service providers and not the customers. I have used various providers over the last 12 years and made the decision last March to stop my contract and refuse to use cell phone service providers. I am not paying any Canadian service provider my hard earned cash each month to give me hassles, treat me poorly and over charge me on services.

Many people here have brought common complaints to this forum but I do not think the CRTC is going far enough to make positive changes to Canadian wireless services.

Cell phone companies list many of these features already but the real issue is that they are rarely accountable to their own agreements. Adding more rules doesn't make them accountable. When it comes down to it they are just going to tell you to either do what they say or take them to court.

I don't need these hassles in my life. I still prefer the freedom and bliss of keeping my money and doing without this supposed convenience. I still have my iphone and my HTC that function well with wifi service so it isn't a total loss. I can find free wifi in many places and tell my contacts to email me. I tell everyone that I no longer take part in the Canadian wireless industry because all the service providers are simply insulting to work with.

I do not think that this draft does anything to fix anything within this system and that all the providers will continue to spout off the things they offer then cover it up later with over charges and lies and excuses why that or this offer is no longer valid.

As an example, Rogers had me in their three year contract which I completely fulfilled. Two weeks before the end of my contract, I noticed that the contract had been renewed for another three years according to my online account information. I was shocked but figured calling them would clear it up as I no longer want the service with Rogers. I even have the paper bills that show the end of the contract and the original paperwork. When I phoned them and told them to fix the error they said that there was nothing I could do and that my account shows that my contract is for another three years. They actually told me that I would have to prove that I didn't have another three year contract with them. That's obviously impossible so I asked them to prove that I did because I had not signed anything to continue any sort of contract with them. They then took it to the "Well, take us to court and see what happens" level. Three years and a completely fulfilled contract, always paid on time and that's how I was treated at the end of it.

I have also used Bell and Telus and they are no better, the services are overpriced and under provided in all cases and there isn't any package that really provides what I actually want so I am done with all of them.

Take the power back people. Stop paying for this kick in the crotch service. No tolerance equals real change. This draft offers no real change.

A good. Some general feedback:

- Protectionist laws preventing foreign investment and real competition have sheltered the big 3 for many years, making terrible service and predatory contract policies economically sustainable where they would not be in Europe or elsewhere. The has directly resulted in some of the highest prices, longest contracts and worst service in the western world. As the government has protected them (to the detriment of Canadians), they have every right to determine some of their business practices.

- 3 year contracts have not been addressed, which is very unfortunate. 3 year contracts in telecom are ancient history in nations with modern, thriving wireless markets. They foster lack of innovation and contract abuse. It's laughable to folks beyond our borders that actually have to deal with them.

- Locking should be entirely banned. There is no sensible justification for it. The contract binds the person to the provider for a specified time, locking the phone does not ensure or add to that obligation. The only thing it accomplishes, is charging extortionate roaming fees. Very glad to hear a 30 day period is all that is required. What's really needed though, is a cap on how much the carriers can charge for the unlock. Otherwise you will wind up with Rogers charging hundreds of dollars to 'unlock' your phone after 30 days.

- It's great that notices of usage will be required. What would be even better is if the carriers are bound to the timing of those notices. WHEN you get the notice should be WHEN you have hit that percentage of usage. There should be no tolerance for extra charges that occur beyond the time the notice is received, regardless of any claimed 'delay' in the notification system.

- Advertising: Great stuff, they actually have to post the real prices. I would encourage to go one better - force them to post the ACTUAL wireless speeds of their network in advertising as well, not the 'up to' speeds. If the network averages 3mpbs, you don't advertise 'up to 42 mbps', you advertise 3. Failing to meet the advertised speeds should result in immediate option to terminate contract, no penalty. This type of false advertising is widely practiced and should be curtailed severely.

Know one should have to pay anymore than 5 dollars for a gig ! It costs a wireless company less then a 2 cents to make a gig !

I am 100% supportive of the draft code but I want it to be even more progressive!

Warranties and water damage.

This is a very common issue with manufacturers and carriers who offer extended warranties. A carrier or manufacturer who sells these warranties can refuse any repairs to a device if its moisture sensors are triggered, even without any evidence that the moisture has caused the failure. In many cases, these sensors can be triggered by normal usage or by flaws in the manufacturers design.

While it is not unreasonable to refuse to repair damage caused by abuse or unreasonable circumstances, the seller of the warranty should have to disclose in very clear terms that it is their policy to refuse repairs if these sensors are triggered, and they should have to disclose in reasonable detail the amount environmental exposure which will trigger these sensors.

(I always see sales people telling people their warranties are safe as long as they do not immerse the device, not always true!)

Im a PR and when i arrived to canada 4 years ago, i was really surprise of all the speculations that the telecomunications and cellphone providers are doing to the canadian people.

1 the cellphones SHOULD NOT BE LOCKED because its your cellphone. You have the right to decide if you want a cellphone with one provider or with another provider. Its ridiculous that i see people with a phone provider for a 5 years and they cant go with another cellpone provider because their phones are locked, that its and huge abuse from the cellphone provider service. Its like If you buy a tv then you tv its locked to a tv services provider for 3 years... its something truly ridiculous.

2, the cellphone provider service should notify when you contract services its close to ending, so in that way you can decide if you want to continue with the same company or if you wanna change to another company.

3 you have to decide if you want a 3 year contract or not. That should be you option. Here in canada mostly the cellphone provider dont let the people make a choice about that. If you want a smartphone then you have to go for a 3 years contract. That violate all the rights, because its a discrimination. 3 year contract its TO MUCH. The government should act and prohibited that the contract should be not more than a year and with a 60 days notice of renovation by letter and by phone. If not answer from the customer, the provider should suspend the service until the customer ask for the reinstalation of the service. All monthly payment the customer are making for over 3 year, pay the cost of the phones twice. So its another abuse and another ridiculous speculation.

4, another fact its the phone calls in canada are paid by the caller and by the calling, in the prepaid cases. That its incredible. why the companies are charging twice for the calls? i guess everybody its talking about the predefinite services but nobody says nothing about this. Calls should be paid for the person whos calling. Because its based on the principle of neccesity. Whos calling has to pay. If the person whos trying to call, do not have any plan post or prepaid activated, then a message should be send it to a person whos receiving the call and with the respective notification that the call will be charged.

There is no 1 year or 2 year contract for the carriers...only a 3 year contract.

In the US, it's the opposite. There are 1 year and 2 year contracts and no 3 year contracts.

FORCED!

What do you agree with about the provision?
I totally agree with the provision in general. In particular, the non-expiry of funds added to a prepaid balance.

What concerns you about the provision?
At the moment, it seems like there are many loopholes that wireless providers will take advantage of to continue ripping off Canadians.

How would you address your concerns?
Here are my suggestions, having worked for a wireless provider many years ago myself, I know just how sneaky they are. BTW, there is this whole internal "trouble ticket" system they have going for "System/billing issues". For example, you can have Trouble Ticket #135064 for a known issue of users being charged Long distance in the Hamilton area when they are supposed to be local. There are literally thousands of these "known issues" that are oh so very specific, seemingly intentional. It is totally up to the consumer to find out about these charges and contact the company to dispute them, even if they are "known". After 90 days, if unfortunately you just found out about their mistake, they will not refund you because you went over a supposed 90 day delay to dispute charges. My first suggestion would be to investigate these "known" billing problems. Where they come from and how they are dealt with.

In regards to cancellation fees, wireless providers should be concerned about the reasons their customers want to switch providers in the first place. If a phone was subsidized, the consumer should pay off the subsidy amount in order to bring the phone to a different provider, that's all. when someone wants to change providers, there is a reason behind it. No one is to blame other than the provider of services.

On another note, Activation & Programming fees. How can a company get away with charging you a fee to become their customer for the next 2 or 3 years? How can they get away with charging 20$ to program a device so that it can be used (a process that literally takes 30 seconds)?

In regards to lost & stolen devices, a consumer should be allowed once in the length of the contract, a grace period of up to 3 months of suspended monthly charges to allow the consumer to purchase a replacement device in order to continue the contract. The length of time borrowed could then be added to the end of the original contract.

Finally, since most wireless provider employees are actually hired by contractors, I feel it is easier for them to get away with shady business practices. Incentives, bonuses and goals are difficult to attain and employee turnover is very high. Threats to their jobs are often received by employers, it's no wonder requests over the phone are not fulfilled (removal of services, cancellations, etc). I remember when I used to work for one of the providers, the amount of accounts you would end up cancelling in a month was compiled. If you cancelled upwards of 15 accounts/month, you would be warned. At your third warning, you are fired. Would you forget to cancel accounts if you knew you were rarely monitored? Also, if a consumer called to cancel a bundle they had added with you within the last 6 months, you would suffer a "clawback" in your sales report which means they basically reduce your current sales for the month. Knowing you get clawback every month, would you add services to someone's account without them agreeing knowing you'll most likely never hear about it again? Maybe you wouldn't, but I know many many colleagues of mine who did just to keep up.

!!!!!!!!NO MORE 3 YEAR TERMS!!!!!!!!, we want terms 1 year or less. Called ID, voice mail, call forwarding should be included at no extra costs. Cap cancellation fees!!!! And give more spectrum to lower tier companies.

I read that it only cost mobile companies less that 2 cents to produce 1 gig , so they.are charging customers 10dollars a gig . So its safe to say they are charging 500 times more for a gig . That's like building a house for100,000 and then selling it for 50 million . Please remind the wireless companies they are not Vancouver condos ! Also unsolicited text messages need to stop ,I'm not paying 20 cents a message for messages I didn't ask for , I really think the wireless companies are in agreement with this text spam that they get a cut of .

Email Each CRTC Commissioner re Stopping 3 Yr Contracts!

Please write directly to each CRCT Commissioner (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/about/commissioners.htm) to stop 3 year contracts, which were IGNORED in the Report:

jean-pierre.blais@crtc.gc.ca CEO
Tom.Pentefountas@crtc.gc.ca Vice Chair
timothy.denton@crtc.gc.ca - Alberta
Louise.Poirier@crtc.gc.ca - Ontario

It is a shame that during this telco code of conduct the office of "Vice Chair - Telecommunications" is vacant. Shame! Who will be the advocate on the CRTC to ensure this most important issue - eliminating 3 year contracts - is actually implement!

3 year agreements are quite lucrative to the cell phone companies, but mostly only because of high cancellation fees. You have a great example, and I was in a similar situation. 2 years into a 3 year agreement and I want a new phone. I have 2 choices:

1) I can resign for another 3 years and get a new phone at the promotional or discounted rate, maybe even waiving my early upgrade fee. In this case the promotional rate for a new iphone 5 is $179.

Or

2) I break my contract. Pay $500 and then pay the $179 with the new carrier.

It is an obvious choice for most people.

This can only be fixed by either banning 3 year agreements, or limiting cancellation fees at the ACTUAL subsidy value.

I have not seen actual vs. inflated subsidy values being addressed by the CRTC yet but when they say a phone has a value of $500 and that is the Economic Inducement - Where is that $500 value coming from? They pay a lot less wholesale then $500 so the value of the Economic Inducement is inflated - resulting in an increased cancellation penalty.

Unlocking fee: there should be no unlocking fees for devices purchased outright

Rationale: devices purchased outright should be unencumbered; allowing devices to be locked is an unreasonable imposition on the consumer

Pre-paid cards: amend code to allow pre-paid cards not to have expiry period for use.

Rationale: should be consistent with regulations regarding gift cards which do not expire.

D3.4
AUTOMATIC CONTRACT RENEWAL
There should absolutely be something in there for people that owns their phones outright.
Should not be allowed to charge the same $ for the same plan for customers that has already fulfilled their obligations/purchased their phone outright as for people that has not.

After reviewing the Draft Code, I have the following comments (sorry for the length):

D1.1 I agree. As simple as possible

D1.2 Parts e.and f. should be listed separately with wording that implies when the device costs are paid off that the total amount of the monthly bill will be reduced accordingly. There should be no wording regarding a "locked" device as they should be disallowed. People who like to travel should not be forced to pay outrageous out of country rates if they want to travel with their phone. Most countries in the world where I have travelled have the option of purchasing a sim card and paying local rates, which in my experience are significantly less then paying Canadian service provider rates.

D2.1 Option 1 is perferred - plain, simple and easy. Why complicate the contract with the wording in Option 2?

D3.1 If I am interpreting the options correctly, I believe the wording should be Option 1: provided. Depending on how the notification is done, option 2 could be abused. For example if a customer snail mails their notice, the service provider can arbitrarily delay the "receipt" of the notification. Using Option 1 it would be the postmark. If the consumer personally visits a service providers store, then the options should provide the identical result.

D3.3 I prefer Option 1 for 2 reasons: it is plain and simple, and the termination fee only pertains to the device subsidy remaining.

D3.4 Option 1 is the preferred choice for me. The fixed term contract reverts to month-to-month ensures the consumer receives uninterrupted service. There should never be an automatic extension for any term over 1 month without the customers specific written/signed consent.

D5.1 The notification of additional fees relating to costs of features not included in their plan needs to be tied in with D5.2 - The ability to restrict features upon request. Access to extra features should be automatically blocked from the beginning. Every contract should have a checkbox where the customer can voluntarily remove this feature. e.g. cable companies have been prevented from adding features to your plan and then require you to contact them to disable the feature. The same should hold true for wireless service providers.

D7.1 The sale of locked phones should be abolished. I know service providers will argue that this helps them enforce contractual committments from their customers, but there are other legal means available, the same as any other business in Canada. Locked phones limit the customers options when they want to travel. If a customer wants to change carriers, they should still be required to meet the terms of cancellation as per D3.3

-----
The Personalized Information Summary should reinforce that the consumers monthly cost will reduce by the amount of the device subisidy (loan) when the total subsidy (loan) has been paid.

My comments regarding 3 year contracts: I think service providers should be required to offer at least Month-to-Month, 1 year, 2 year and 3 year contracts, then the consumer can make a choice. I think many people will rethink their opposition to 3 year contracts when they realize how much the device costs are each month for a 1 year term.

The term "subsidy" should be clarified. In essence it is not a subsidy. The service provider is providing financing for the device you have. It is no different than when you purchase a car. Sometimes you make a downpayment, sometimes you don't. You take possession of the vehicle and then you make monthly payments until the remaining balance is paid off. If you want to upgrade to a newer model, you have to satisfy the terms of the original purchase i.e. pay off the loan or refinance. The only difference with the wireless industry to date is that you have never been told how much of your monthly payment goes toward the payment for the device and how much is for the actual service (voice, data, etc). The fact that everyone who subscribes to a given plan pays the same price tells me that everyone has been paying the same for their device, regardless of whether you have an Iphone or a very basic smart phone. If I am happy with using the lesser phone, then my total monthly cost for device and service should be less than my friend who decided to acquire the Iphone. If I want to reduce my monthly cost to a minimum, then I will have to pay full price for the device up front.

Bringing your own phone...

I'd like to know this:

If I sign a contract, my plan is $50 a month.

If I bring my own phone, my plan is still $50 a month.

If a subsidy is being paid for the phone on a contract, why am I paying the same monthly rate if I bring my own phone?

Is it so difficult to come at par with the rest of the developed world??

Nowhere in the developed or even developing world do you see THREE YEAR contracts... Even with the two year contracts in USA, UK, Germany the big service providers let you upgrade by 18 months to a new device. Why is it that we Canadians have to bear the brunt of the Companies making the most out of us. Yes we are getting subsidized handsets but don't the companies already make enough with the call rates they charge us. A regular call is $0.45 a minute. Phew.... did I get that correctly... So we are bound to use a three year old handset till it wears out well (or buy a new contract after prepaying the remainder of the old one). The handset companies offer only 1 year warranty on phone and 6 months on the battery (which you usually end up buying off ebay or amazon by two years usualy cause till then the manufacturer has forgotten the model even existed).

It was surprising how over the years the plans grew from 12 to 24 to 36 month plans. How the new plan suddenly comes up (automatically) at the expiry of the old one is appaling. Don't they need to inform us that new terms are on. Yes they send an email to an account that they have made for us. You know we sent you the new contract on zxcv123456789@bell.ca or zxcv123456789@telus.ca or zxcv123456789@rogers.ca. I think you've heard that one before and if you ask for a fresh paper contract - "We can only email it to you at that registered email address and no other personal email". It would take $20 to have the paper contract sent to you - Heard that one! Come on you can make things clear for us - be helpful, not willful. We all didn't go to Law School or Accounts School. To be able to figure out what the bill comprises of is like a science fiction movie.. Make it simple for heavens sake. Canada's population is growing old, isn't that why we allow so many immigrants in the first place. So can you make it easy on the elderly to not have to use algebraic equations to calculate the bills.

The big three here are the only ones that have networks worth speaking about. So they make the plans don't they! The call rates are truly crazy. At an average household we are paying the phone company 10% of the monthly income. Yes that's correct 10%. Home phone + Cell phone = big bills. All calling card companies are charging 1-3 cents/minute of call at max 5 cents a call if you use freephone numbers to connect. Yet our big three charge us upwards of 45 cents a minute to call my neighbor next door. That's like 10-30 times of the actual cost. Do you even fathom the margins involved. Yet we are powerless to do much cause its only the big three who have networks that don't disappear the moment you move indoors. There are lesser networks which are cheaper but even there the out of minutes calls are $0.35 a min. They do offer more minutes but your phone works only if you stand out the door in the freezing cold. Please don't squeeze our pockets out. The big three are monopolizing the airwaves. Every plan looks like a copy of the other. You could forget you are looking at Rogers plans while browsing Bell or even Telus' website.

Cancellation is another big drama. If I need to switch providers the boundation of my contract is killing. Please charge us the cost of the phone you are subsidizing. But don't clobber us with the Might of Olympus. The world over the customer is omnipotent. But here he only gets $@#&wed. Who wants the hassels of switching from one great service provider to a Lesser God - it is only when extremely necessary that most users have to unwillingly cancel contracts. No one makes contracts just to cancel them. But it would be easier paying of the mortgage than the phone contract...

Spare us the how's and the whys.
My daily prayer....
Our SERVICE PROVIDER, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done, in Canada as it is in heaven. Give us this day our NETWORK and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who don't call us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For Thine is the AIRWAVE, the power, and the glory, forever and ever.

AMEN

I agree completely with all of your points.

All of these issues would go away if we separated the Hardware from the service. I buy my car and pay for it where I want and I buy my gas and pay for it where I want. Or I can switch ISP to whoever I want with my existing computer, etc. No other model really artificially locks your property into a specific company for service!

People talk about unlocking phones when in reality they should NOT have been locked to begin with. I should be able to buy my phone from any store i want and use it on any compatible network I want freely. How I pay for my phone - if it is cash or visa or financed through Rogers or Bell should not make a difference.

In turn, the service charge I pay should only cover the services I am getting. Not artificially inflated a variable amount to cover the hardware. People want different phones that have different values. The net effect is that someone is paying more for the exact same service then another person simply because the value of their chosen handset was lower.

please ban 3 year contracts that is the most annoying aggravating problem!

Why is the CRTC ignoring consumers number 1 request? Ban 3 year contracts!

Received text messages: Totally agree that incoming text messages should be FREE. Difficult to control incoming SPAM messages and the cost of this unwanted text messages could drive consumer into troubles.

D1.2 - Somewhere in there it needs to be written, that when a device is purchased up front, that the cost of the ongoing plan shall be no more than the subsidized monthly plan rate, less the cost of the phone divided by the plan duration. There is currently no discount to the purchaser, for paying up front. Currently, any phone purchased up front, is paid for twice, once up front, then again because monthly plans are all the same price as the subsidized plans. Bell, Rogers, and Telus are all doing this.

Ideal solution is i buy the phone - unlocked. I buy a gigabyte of data, 1000 anytime minutes, 1000 long distance minutes, 2500 text messages, what ever the metric... I buy as much or as little of each as i please. Once i have consumed them, i buy more. No time limit on when i use them. I can top up at any time i choose, via credit card via my phone, or PC. The carrier is obligated to provide trigger notification limits of my choosing, of when to be notified to buy more. Bell's pay as you go trigger limit is too low, causing a phone outage if i am not paying attention. I want a smart phone, but all the players want to lock me in. I want not part of that. Its simple, you treat me nice, i will be with you for ever.

I agree. How is it legal that a company can lock a phone that I bought and paid for so that I cannot use it with another company? In effect, they own they phone that I bought! This is ridiculous and clearly designed for no other purpose than to obstruct consumers from shopping around the competition for better prices. The cell phone rates in Canada are already ridiculously high compared to other countries. Set a 2 year limit on contracts and unlock the phones!

Caller ID and voice mail: should be mandatory services but with no cost or very minimal cost less than $2 total for both services.

As most others have commented already, something needs to be done about these three year contracts. Either reduce it to something more reasonable and realistic, or mandate that once you have paid off your subsidy, the monthly plan price should be reduced accordingly to how much you were paying off monthly.

djeaglesham commented that "Would anyone think that a gas station should give you a car just because you purchase all your gas from them" well, if you are paying the normal price for gas, then no, you wouldn’t expect a free car, however when the cost is increased according to how much was subsidized, then yes you can expect something free.

As for locking phones, what is the point of this? Considering that if you break your contract with any of the major carriers you have t repay the subsidy provided how is it logical for the phone to still be locked to that carrier?

As most others have commented already, something needs to be done about these three year contracts. Either reduce it to something more reasonable and realistic, or mandate that once you have paid off your subsidy, the monthly plan price should be reduced accordingly to how much you were paying off monthly.

djeaglesham commented that "Would anyone think that a gas station should give you a car just because you purchase all your gas from them" well, if you are paying the normal price for gas, then no, you wouldn’t expect a free car, however when the cost is increased according to how much was subsidized, then yes you can expect something free.

As for locking phones, what is the point of this? Considering that if you break your contract with any of the major carriers you have t repay the subsidy provided how is it logical for the phone to still be locked to that carrier?

Long Distance Charges:
I completely agree that long distance charges are completed out-of-date. There are companies provide long distance for 1-2 cents where as Rogers or Bell for same country charge more than 10 times. Completely not acceptable. Big improvement require in this area.

I've read the draft and see 2 missing opportunities (which haven't been commented on):

- While there is talk about placing a maximum fee for usage above plan limitations so as not to incur uncontrolled costs (which is very good), I believe that fees for things that a customer does not have control over should not exist by default either (or should be disabled until the customer expressly states that he/she wants it). Example: data usage from a phone that roams automatically and is doing updates to the phone (i.e. not user controlled) - unless the customer takes a plan which covers roaming (which would demonstrate that he/she wants it enabled) by default a customer choosing a service should not have roaming turned on, it should be done only after the customer requests it. Usage which is not controlled by the customer such as incoming texts should also be free. There is a need for provisions that protect a customer from fees caused by scenarios that a customer has no control over...

- For contracts, or agreements, or changes to an account; whether it's done over the phone, or in a store; the service provider should be obligated to send a letter via mail (or email) that outlines the new agreement taken or the changes made, including every detail of the change/agreement in the letter. This notice should provide a customer with a grace period of 15 days (if by mail- but if by email, maybe 10 days) to rescind the agreement/change and be brought back to a point in time before the agreement/change took place. There should be an additional obligation for service providers to retain a copy of these notices for the tenure of the contract term or a minimum of 1 year if there is no contract.
It happens too often that a company misinforms a customer, when making changes or at a point of sale, and having a written notice sent to a customer for the changes/updates made would eliminate any confusion over extra charges, etc... There should be no room for error if service providers were to send and keep a written copy of all changes and agreements made towards an account to a customer's account.

On a final note, I also believe that 3 year contracts are too lengthy.

Dear CRTC,

I have a problem with the cancelation fee with cell phone companies. When I cancel my cell phone I have to pay at least $ 500.00 to cancel my contract with the company. I find it to be Ridicules and obsessive. Canadian goverment need to get it together and crack down on these companies.

I agree with what acdnboy88 has to say with minor changes.
n summary:
1) Unlocking should be free and legal as long as phone has been paid in full.
2) Caller ID and voice mail should be mandatory for phone packages and not provided as optional services but WITH VERY MINIMAL COST (Not $ 6 or $8 per feature). It should be less than $2.
3) Number blocking should be provided as part of any service at no additional cost.

Breaking/Canceling a contract and unlocking of the phone without charges, when someone is in a "special case" like:
- Your employer (or army) sends you abroad where the provider is not actif.
- You have an illness that makes you stay in the hospital or in bed (physical handicap).
- Prison
- Bankruptcy
etc...
When you have no choice than you shouldn't pay....

Get rid of 30 days of service fee when porting a number.
This has been a big issue with many customers and there is even several websites that explain how to make a complaint to CCTS to not pay for the 30 days of service you didn't use.
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/merged-do-not-pay-rogers-fidos-30-days-se...

Wish I had time to read through the whole thing, but here's my two cents:

- Unlocking a phone should be legal, and be something that the provider of the phone must make available, with a minimal associated fee, so long as the phone has been paid in full.

- A fixed price and maximum processing time should be set on moving a phone number to another provider, with a fine against the losing provider should they not handle the request in a timely fashion.

- Auto-renewal of service should be disallowed, unless the auto-renewal of service has been requested specifically. Auto-renewal of the service contract should not be a mandatory requirement for obtaining service.

- Caller ID and voice mail should be mandatory for phone packages and not provided as optional services.

- Number blocking should be provided as part of any service at no additional cost.

- All fees should be detailed on monthly bills, and broken down by type. Detailed billing for calls, data usage, texts, including times and dates, should be available to customers at no cost for the previous three months of service.

Regards,

The CRTC should ban 3 year contracts or force providers to provide a reasonable and proportional subsidy for 2 years and 1 year contract. This would help customer to keep up to date with technology. In todays world, a phone is obsolete in 1 year and a half. The phones themselves are made to last 2 years and are supported by the manufacturer two years. example : my samsung galaxy S3 came with a 2 year 50 gb of dropbox subscription. Not 3 years only 2. why? because it was the norm everywhere else on the planet. This would help save money to canadian customer and greatly improve competition in this broken market.

Also, I believe that providers should be required to provided some sort of warranty for the phone for the length of the contract. If the phone breaks after 1 year and 1 month, it is not fine for the customer to have to pay full price (or almost full price) to get another phone. In todays world, rarely do phones last 3 years.

Also, providers should be forced to provided you with a loaner phone or a break from payment when your phone is in repair. You should not have to pay for a service you are not getting when something out of your control happens. The carriers should be forced to support the phone for the length of the contract. So if the phone breaks after the manufacturer`s warranty expired, they should repair it for you at a reasonable cost or provide you with a fair subsidy on a new phone (and contract) or terminate the contract for you at a reasonable charge.

I hope that this will help improve the wireless industry in our beloved country.

This looks like a puppet code written by the phone companies, not an oversight agency. How about some actual rules to bring down the inflating costs.

Here is a list of examples:
- No hidden fees when signing up for a plan. Taxes, 911 fees and everything else included in that number you wish you seen on your bill.

-Standard 911 caller info and location waiver so police can locate you in an emergency or pocket dial.

-End the three year contract or at least make them offer lower 1 and 2 years with a proportional fee for the actual cost of the equipment at their buying rate not the consumer rate.

-Clear rules on a talk zones and long distance charges.

-Ability to use the data you pay for with your other devices without getting threatened by the provider.

-Force the big three to offer the discount prices that they hide under their own discount providers. As a lot of people are weary of smaller companies or stuck in the habit of dealing with the main players. As such they get stuck with paying for higher cost of service for minimal sewrvices rendered. For example look at the base plans on rogers, bell, telus. Then look at Fido, Virgin, ect... The numbers just don't add up.

-The ability to bring your own phone to all companies without paying inflated fees for a one minute set up.

-End the incoming and outgoing style call billing. This is 2013 not 1992 it shouldn't cost more to send a call than to receive one.

-CRTC gives a annual recommendations per province on the most progressive and cost lowering company. Not just based on network capabilities but overall service.

I Hope someone reads this and gets at least one good idea out of it.

Canada needs to get with the times and with the world.. [they = major carrier x or y]

- When a phone contact / subsidy is complete, they are allowed to keep the phone locked or charge for an unlock? Why? The user held up their end of the bargain. The phone is theirs to do as they please. Keeping it locked or charging is a SCAM to recycle it back onto the same network.

- They rather forgive large bills when a stink is made on a local television station but they can't modify their portal to allow users to set hard limits for local and roaming maximums or shut them off? Why? Fixing this would solve 50% of the problems.

- They can meticulously monitor and charge but not adjust their portal so users can black or white list calls or text messages? Why? Fixing this would solve the other 50% of the problems.

Finally, the CRTC should be ashamed for allowing the monopolization of the spectrum and denying real competition.

It is about time we put some controls in this sector with the big telecoms, in my travels I am amazed how expensive our costs are compared to other countries. In some cases more than 60% percent more for the same services. And trying to deal with them to reduce their charges, to be more competitive is almost a job in itself.

My feeling is this code doesn't go far enough?

Unrealistic retail costs on cell phones, 3 year contracts, are my big beefs. Roaming minutes and data south of the border, almost highway robbery. It is cheaper for me to have two phones, one cheap one for Canada, and one for my business trips to the US. I am currently transiting to Voip ( Skype) where possible as the cost of cell usage is getting crazy.

And the big question, when are the telecom companies going to figure out that we are not stupid.

I am glad to see Wind, Mobility come into the picture ( Kudo ( Telus) Fido( Rogers) are a joke different name same company) My feeling is we need to open the doors to even more competition, The big three have had it too much control for too long! I feel we need more options.

I would like to comment on the following sections and which option I feel is most appropriate and beneficial to the consumer:

Section a3: Option 1. All wireless plans should be covered by the wireless code regardless of whether they are pre- or post-paid.
Section b1: Option2. Some of the wireless code should be implemented immediately, and the rest during and up to 6 months of the date.
Section b2: Option 1, the wireless code should apply to new AND existing contracts.
Section d2.1: Option 2, as long as there is an option not to agree with the amendments and cancel without penalty, it would suffice ot have written notification permitting the changes to be considered and accepted or refused.
Section d3.3: I propose another option, Option 3: no termination fees if the consumer gives written notice of the termination of the contract 3 months in advance of the date of cancellation (like a lease cancellation), or the consumer can terminate the contract immediately with payment of 3 months of the fixed service fee (ie if the price is $60/month, can give 3 months notice or pay $180 to cancel contract immediately.) OR the consumer will pay the balance of the wireless device they obtained at rebate, with no additional charges, whatever is the lesser amount.

Section d3.4: Option 1, all contracts regardless of length, should be able to be renewed on a month to month basis under existing service conditions.

Section d5.1: Very important! Mandatory alert of exceeding included usage!!

Section d7.1: Option 2, If the device is subsidized, the company will give unlocking instructions after 30 days. If not subsidized, the phone can and must be able to be unlocked at any time.

Section d10,1: Option 1, any disconnect should have sufficient notice. In addition, if services have been suspended due to non-payment, the service provider MUST NOT be allowed to continue to incur charges for usage during the period in which the services are not provided due to suspension.

Other than these specific points, I would also like to address the extremely restrictive nature of the 3 year contract as well.
My experiences with cell phone contracts were so horrible that I avoided having ANY contract for over 4 years. In each case where I had a contract, the company was permitted to make changes to the amount of my plan, the services provided, and the total charges I was responsible for with NO ability on my part to refuse. However any change that I wished to make to my plan either caused me to automatically be subjected to a renewal of contract that obligated me to stay with the same company for ANOTHER 3 years, or to pay exorbitant fees, or other hassles. In addition, every time i have been under a contract, the level of service I receive has deteriorated to almost non-existant. Companies know that if you have to pay $300+ to cancel, chance are that you will just stick around and accept bad service. I have been without a contract for the last year and a half, and like magic every time my service was unsatisfactory I was able to call the company, who would in fact do their best to fix my problem. When I was under contract, I received only terrible service and was told blatantly that if I didn't like it, I should cancel.
We need to abolish these fixed-term contracts. If you want out, I say there should be an absolute minimum fee for that, or no fee at all. If a company is not giving you what you wanted, they shouldn't be protected from losing a customer. NO OTHER service works this way.

We should limit the contract length to 2 years. More is only used to lock the consumer as many phones are not used for more than 3 years and the consumer has to renew so get a new phone.

No hidden fees at all. No 911 fees and other fees.

No more changing of contract by Rogers/Bell without written consent. If Rogers wants to change something the consumer has to sign it to agree. No more changing without direct approval like on page 10 at the bill!

If provider does not provide service it should not get paid for the whole day. This includes outages. It also should be credited to the consumer if he cannot make a phone call because the provider did no invest into infrastructure and the towers are full (happens to me all the time!). Most of my calls are directed to the mailbox without ringing!

Reasonable charges for extra services. It is not reasonable to charge 40 cent per minute for long distance while a relative from Europe can call the same number for 2 cent per minute. that is 20 times the amount!
It is not reasonable to charge $50 for 500MB if the costs are much lower. That is price gouging. Instead of reducing the demand by the consumer provider should expand their networks. This can be done by increase the number of cell phone towers. No more frequencies are needed!

No more bundling. It is not fair for small provider. Bundling makes it punitive to cancel the cell phone contract as all other services get more expensive. This should be banned.

The consumer should see how much of the monthly bill is used to pay for the phone. If the phone is paid off, the monthly bill should be reduced by the same amount.

If the consumer has his own phone the monthly bill should be much lower.

No cancellation fees if the contract is up.

No automatic extensions of the contract. Provider can make an offer but consumer has to sign it. IF the contract is up it should be transformed to month to month contract like in rental.

If provider overcharges the consumer, the consumer should be credited a refund for all months those charges were done and an extra bonus ($50) to ensure that provider do no longer overcharge and hope the consumer does not catch it. This should also reduce the hundreds of options nobody understands.

Consumers should automatically have a maximum bill like 200% of monthly regular bill to avoid charges of $1000s.

If provider does not provide services in the new location the consumer moved to permanently the contract should be voided. This means that there has to be reception in the living room and in the bed room. Service on the roof top and up the next hill does not count.

The provider should not be allowed to change the content to booked packages like "minutes", "text" without written consent by consumer.

The provider should not contact the consumer after he informed the provider once that he does not like that. No more promotional offers if the consumer does not like it.

No "free" offers which automatically transform to monthly charges after some time. If the promotional offer expires the services is to be disabled. Unlike now when the consumer has to cancel it in time to avoid charges.

After the contract is fulfilled, the SIM lock must be removed without charges as the consumer paid for the phone with his monthly bills. This will promote competition.

If the phone breaks during the contract, the provider has to repair it. Alternative the contracts ends without fees.

No blocking of services in internet. The user has to pay for every MB so there is no reason to block VOIP/SKYPE/VIDEO.

No underbidding of opponents in some locations. Currently Bell/Rogers offer to customers in areas with competition much better prices than in areas without. Example is Chatr. If Rogers want to have lower prices they have to offer them to all. No more discrimination.

CRTC stands for Commercial Ripoff To Canadians.
It seems to me that CRTC is simply putting a bit of spin on what wireless companies are already doing. What bothers me is what CRTC is leaving out but what wireless companies are presently giving to Canadians. The list is too long to ignore, and knowing the past of CRTC, I cannot but be cynical. If CRTC were truly interested in doing something then it would begin by opening up the wireless market. Why not CRTC? Please don't start with the Canadian content nonsense. That went out with the internet or have you not heard of that wonderful invention? No, CRTC is only interested in protecting the monopoly of couple of its main players. We are few countries in the world paying a small fortune for wireless. Third world countries use wireless for less and it is not just a matter of saving money. It is also a matter of commercial advances but CRTC is too blind. As an economy we could be conducting all kinds of business, including banking, via wireless if it were not for CRTC and its buddies. Thanks CRTC for slowing down progress. But, we should not fault you because your political overlords tell you what to do, after all.
I am sorry but this is nothing but a sham. I will be judged a cynic, that I am. I repeat, I will be interested in participating in this forum if CRTC opens up the market to competition. Until then, you know that you are #*$&*#&# Canadians in another way.

Here what the draft code should include:
1- complete ban on 3 year contract
2- all phones should be sold unlocked, "reasonable terms." is a subject of various interpretations
3- extend the warranty on the phone for the life of the contract
4- eliminate 911 access fee and any other "reinvented" fees by wireless carriers
5- open up the wireless market for a true competition and not subsidiaries of major wireless carriers disguised as competition

My concern is the unrealistic application of fees for data usage both in cellphones and internet. The number of gigabytes allowed and the fee structure for same. If you are charged for data usage then why are we subjected to paid commercials that are streamed to us when we have no choice but to watch them. If you are clickingon news items you have to watch all those commercials firstand how many times will sanity allow one to watch the same commercial over and over again. This is not what i want to pay for but have no choice. In googles defence there is at least a "skip commercial" after usually 5 seconds but still I assume the whole video has already streamed into your counter.

Also the three year thing is absurd. Electronics are more then obsolete over that time period.

Caller ID and voice mail should be mandatory services

I have been battling Rogers for over a month for exceeding my 6GB data package by 2.5GB. Essentially they want 500$+ tx even if I was never alerted that I had exceeded my package. The worst thing is that my phone was accidentally downloading games over night while I was sleeping and would have been unable to resolve the issue until I wake. There should be measures in place to protect the consumer from excessive billing. Perhaps the feature that is occurring the overage gets automatically disabled.

500$ overage is equivalent to the average person's rent and is unacceptable.

there is no reason for not allowing people to have their mobiles unlocked free of charge. This is just about corporate greed. Join the rest of the world.
Term contracts are fine but if people just want a mobile and pay by as they go, this should be an option.
Both items are all about freedom of choice vs. corporate greed.
As far as penalties or fees, if you sign up for a term then pay the agreed upon fee to be released from that term. CRTC should have some controls on the amount of fees though.
Every user though should have the right to switch carriers at any time with no need to pay phone unlocking fees.

The CRTC reform suggests to that the 3 year agreement would be uniquely to subsidize your phone. If you already have a phone, prefer to use a cheap phone or pay 800$ for you iPhone upfront, you are free to do so and will have no 3 year obligation. I think its fair.

As for the rest of your post, I totally agree. Phones shouldn't be locked. Some people travel and need to use other carriers.

A good start. As others have commented three year contracts have not been addressed. Three years in cell technology is a long time. Wireless companies have been ripping off Canadians for long enough, slowing down our economy, technology and innovation. Last time I looked the major providers offered products, services, and prices so similar I swear they are price fixing. I know cell phones used to be once considered a luxury but now it's a necessity for any technological modern society just like land line telephones. Essentially CRTC we need to force the providers to, God forbid, actually compete and earn their money, instead of just racketeering Canadians by locking them into contracts, locking the hardware so if even when the contract is over you're still screwed, locking you financially with punishing fees. Come on CRTC Canada is a joke in the international community, we pay the highest cell phone bills (google this to confirm for yourself). How can we expect to be a top player in the world? No wonder why we keep on losing our doctors, tech, etc. to the US and elsewhere.

Bills should be split to show hardware charges. For example, if a phone is bought on subsidy, the bill should show the following details:

1. Plan charges
2. Airtime charges
3. Hardware subsidy payments
4. Other fees
5. Tax

All bills have a section which says "Other fees". There should be more transparency in this, and a detail list of "ALL" fees should be part of the bill.

There should not be any roaming charges when you are travelling within the province. Third world countries have this featute. As long as the phone is connected to primary carrier network there is no reason for phone companies to charge extra. Majority of the phone companies in states alow this and you could be anywhere in States to make or recieve phone call without incurring additional charges.

Considering what Canadians have been saying, the CRTC is ignoring the fact that a three-year contract is a dated commercial practice and needs to be eliminated. Cell phone companies should only be allowed to offer devices on a two-year term maximum. Offering more transparency and clarity among terms and conditions for a cell phone contract is hardly any consolation to the fact that we are still being ripped off.

Dear CRTC, there are 3 basic things that you need to look at in your new Wireless code.

i. 3 year contracts
ii. Long distance within Canada (within the province, to start with)
iii. Fee-service disparity.

i. 3 year contracts.
The 3 year contracts are a huge money grab. I do agree partly that the phones are heavily subsidised by the wireless providers, and hence, according to them, 3 years sounds fair. But its not. 3 years, in Telecom, is a very long time.

ii. Long distance charges
Calling from Mississauga to Caledon is long distance? Does this even remotely make any sense to you, as the regulator? Calling from Mississauga to Niagara Falls is also long distance? Are we still living in the 1900s? Wireless operators should treat the entire country as a single calling entity, if not, atleast start by abolishing long distance charges within the province.

iii. Fee-Service disparity
For example, Rogers provides a measly 200 minutes for $40. Again, as a regulator, and a common person, does this make sense? This is clearly robbery, and the CRTC has got to stop this. If we are paying $40 per month, then the operators better give us unlimited calling, and not restrict to 200 (incoming and outgoing). Why cannot the operators start by making incoming calls unlimited, and increase the available minutes.

CRTC still not listening!!!

- rid three year contracts, they are soo crippling, considering the hardware manufacturer sells the device with a lifespan of one & half years - two max. Also considering the manufacturer upgrades each model annually meaning the phone continues to be inferior and I would be many years behind by the time I'm up for a free renewal.

- force telecomm's to send contract or correspondance through email. This is the only contract in the world thats one-sided (in favour of Telecomm). Consumer has no recourse for mis-management, overcharges or lack of service. If a consumer doesn't oblige by contract, they are subject to credit score deductions, late payment charges, and deactivation of phone (then a reactivation fee). Yet when the Telecomm's overcharge they keep your money provide you w a rebate which may or may not actually hit your bill depending on the cust rep thats inputting information. Consumer has no recourse to hold these giants to their contract.

- eliminate verbal contracts, Teleco's never deliver then customer is already passed 7/14day period and have to fight for what was "verbalised" to them by one of the many sales channels the companies strategically employ.

- ALLOW FOR MORE EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION WITH TELECOMS. Its funny how its soo challenging to "communicate" with a communications company. Never talk to same customer rep, cannot get any service in retail stores reps are only for acquisition and feature add-ons. Would be nice to have in person customer service reps in all CORPORATE stores for team GREEN, BLUE & RED. force retail outlets to handle service issues and not simply be acquisition based. The largest issue is the lack of two way communication.

-

There are so many great comments on here.

In just perusing a few, I wholeheartedly agree with vkavanagh, JW2013 and Jameel: How can we continue to allow 3-year contract to be the norm? They are completely unreasonable. Why is the CRCT continuing to allow such blatant false advertising - like the use of unlimited - at the expense of the consumer? How can incoming calls and text be billed? The user has no say in who calls them and when.

Get rid of the 3 year contract
All carriers must unlock any phone on demand for free for any phone that been paid for in full.

get rid of the 3 years contact

Canadians want transparency. This draft starts to address the issue of hidden fees, surprises and the frustration that Canadians feel with regard to wireless services in Canada. What would be progressive would be some guidance regrading how subsidized phones are accounted for by the carriers. Currently carriers bundle the phone in with a plan or a contract period. In the case of the iphone (by far one of the most popular devices) that's on a 3 year contract. Fair enough the carriers need to recoup the cost of the device over the period of the contract, but rather then bundling it into the plans that customers are forced into, why not strip out the hardware cost as a separate line item. If on a minimum spend of $50 before taxes will cover approximately $14.50 of a hardware cost, why can't this simply be a separate line item. This would allow those customers that brought there own device (or bought a device outright) to obtain that same ($50) plan for $35.50. Currently there doesn't seem to be any incentive to own your own device with the pricing models that exist. Also by stripping out the hardware cost a customer could for example commit to a $25 plan for services and yet pay say $22 monthly towards hardware cost (that brings the total to $47) and have the hardware componet fully paid for in 2 yrs rather then 3.

(1)
Hardware and service charges should be shown separately to allow for a reduction in monthly bills when the subsidy for the phone is paid off.
Rogers charges the same amount even if you have completed the contract or have purchased your phone at full retail.
(2)
Some form of credit should be available for effectively not being able to use the service when out of the country due to excessive roaming charges.
Either the phone needs to be unlocked to allow for 3rd party sim or a vacation credit available.
(3)
Data plans need to allow for carryover of the unused portion of the monthly allowance.
Rogers will bill if you exceed the limit at any time even though you may not have used more over the entire term of the contract.
(4)
Phones should automatically be unlocked at no charge at the end of the contract.
Large numbers of phone are currently being thrown away as they are useless when locked.
(5)
Prepaid minutes should not expire.
It is not legal for gift cards to do this, it should be the same for phone cards.
(6)
If you make a small change in your contract it should not add a extension to that contract.
Rogers has done this and then charged huge amounts to end the extended contract.

Original comment from which this was copied: http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/781#comment-781

Like that post and comment on it. Don't plagiarize it.

I support this. These are reasonable demands.

Three year contracts are a pain, and it needs to be abundantly clear how much it costs to cancel one early. Phones provided by a carrier should be by default unlocked. Any wireless devices of any kind - rocket hubs, etc. - should be able to be unlocked, even if a root password would need to be given by the carrier. Long distance charges should be a thing of the very distant past.

I am only interested in rules regarding PRE-PAID services. A pre-paid customer since 2005, I have accumulated a large balance with Bell Canada Pre-Paid from the "top ups" forced by expiration dates. This is because I am only an emergency / travel user of the cell phone and text instead of calling when possible.

Terms and conditions for this type of service are important to seniors like myself, whose use may be limited but for whom emergency access can be critical. I comment on sections A3 and D1.3 and on two issues related to current expiration date practices. Finally, as a general matter applicable to all services, I suggest the carriers commit to creating and funding an independent national wireless service ombudsman to assess complaints.

A3: I would suggest the way to deal with applicability is not to specify where the Code applies to Pre-Paid to but to state that the Code applies to Pre-Paid except where specifically and expressly excluded in a Code provision or a Code provision expressly and specifically limits itself to other services.

D1.3 Option 2 ("The service provider may not apply an expiry date to credits purchased for the use of pre-paid service.") This is attractive at first glance, on the model of Ontario law regarding store gift cards. But I am concerned that adopting it would lead carriers to apply a monthly "connection fee" or "system fee" or some such new invention to run down the value of the prepayment over time, effectively the same as what the expiration date does. If the intent is to have Pre-Paid service purchases be like gift cards the carriers should not be able to substitute other charges for expiration. I suspect this will not please carriers, so I turn to current expiration date practices.

My own experience with Bell has raised two problems:

1. Full year term option. It took Bell years to finally adopt a full year prepayment option. Prior to that, I was forced to "top up" the balance ahead of a two month expiration date in order to retain what I had paid in. If I failed to hit the deadline I lost all the accumulated balance. This happened twice for losses totaling several hundred dollars. Carriers ought to commit to continue to offer a term of not less than a full year as most of them currently do. I am not confident that when the spotlight is off Bell, it will not revert to its former two month prepayment term.

Automatic renewal to save and add to accumulated balance. I have two automatic "top up" options currently with Bell: the "express" that charges my credit card at a time I choose, and an "automatic" top up that adds more money when the accumulated balance falls to a low level. What I cannot do automatically, is pre-set my top up to automatically pay BEFORE the account expires and all my accumulated balance is lost. I have to remember the day before expiration and manually top up, or lose hundreds of dollars. (I believe Bell may be offering a new monthly pre-paid option that may accumulate balance, but it is not bound by any law or Code to continue offering it. I don't know the specifics of that service.) I suggest carriers commit to provide an automatic periodic pre-payment option that SAVES and ADDS TO the accumulated balance.

Proposal for an Ombudsman

I suggest the carriers commit to create and fund a national ombudsman office for complaints arising from the carrier's own customer service / dispute resolution processes, with a mandate to intercede, investigate and annually report on carrier performance in complaint resolution, including recourse to the public media to advance its mission. I am indebted to Toronto Star's Ellen Roseman for a simple call she made to Bell several years ago, that immediately goosed resolution of a customer service "misunderstanding", so can attest to the power of sunlight on the murky workings of corporate policies and telephone runarounds.

I thank the Commission for this process and its kind attention to the above.

3 Year term seems to be a hot topic. Just to clarify the Canadian Carriers are not the only carriers in the world with this length of contract. If Canadians where willing to pay market value for Smartphones as the the rest of the world do for Cell phones then Carriers could remove the contract terms. As for the unlocking of the phones. The rest of the world including the US are making unlocking phones illegal during contract terms to prevent theft and to slow down the organized crimes.

I'm not sure most people understand the concept of the 3 year contract. Essentially what it does is extend the number of months that you pay for the phone. The same thing has occurred in the automotive industry with 60 month loans.
If you want a $500 phone, someone has to pay for it. The options are you, the carrier, or someone else has to subsidize it. With the 3 year contract, you should be paying about $14 per month to pay for the phone. If you want a 1 year contract, then you will have to pay $42 per month for your phone. How many people want to pay an extra $28 per month just to have a 1 year contract. The other alternative is that you lay down the $500 up front.
The major problem I see is that once you have reached the end of the contract, your monthly rate for service never goes down. Using the above example, you accept a 3 year contract from your carrier and agree to a $40 per month rate plan. Essentially you are paying $14 for the phone and $26 for service - total $40 each month. When you reach the end of the 3 year contract, what you pay should decrease to $26 since your phone is now paid off. Alternatively, if you have your own phone, or purchase one outright at the beginning, you should only be paying $26 for the same level of service as the person on the 3 year contract.
Would anyone think that a gas station should give you a car just because you purchase all your gas from them?

Totally agree. ALL INCOMING SMS messages should be mandatorily be free.

CRTC's introductory video nicely demonstrates that people use their cell phones for more than just making basic calls. People use it for getting touch with their family, friends and people at work; they check e-mails, find and locate places/addresses, read books/watch shows/videos and so on. To be able to use and enjoy all these functions/benefits people pay large monthly charges and fees to get a phone that will help them do all these functions above. And most often the way to get a phone/device that provide these functions forces people into three year contracts.

However, like any other phone/device that is currently out there, they become obsolete within a year, at most two years (but certainly NOT three years)--made cheaply, and most often, the battery dies, screen cracks, buttons fall off or stop working, etc. So, it is helpful that CRTC recognizes the importance of cell phones in people's lives and attempts to address problems; however, the draft code does not include anything about the contract length, which it is one of the main issue for the people.

Surely draft code attempts to eliminate some problems, but omitting and not mentioning the problem of "contract length" does not serve the purpose of the draft. CRTC asked what Canadians think of this draft code, and people here are saying (loud and clear): Enough is enough, the draft code must eliminate three year contracts or create another form of protection so that people do not have pay more (on top of large monthly charges/fees/additional warranties) to have a decent/functioning device. People should be able to sign up for a (1) year, (2) years and if they want three years contract with their devices. The CRTC must include a language so that companies must provide these options for Canadian people.

The three-year contract issue still need to be addressed.

Did they not have an option to purchase the phone out right?? I believe they did, hence you were not forced into a contract. We see this time and time again, new product people rush to purchase based on "want" not "need" then only to have price fall later. Have we not learned from this?? It is not CRTC's job to monitor this, it is the consumer.

Thanks for endorsing my post but you didn't need to copy it in full and claim it as yours.

Overall, a reasonable start in the fight to get wireless service providers to toe the line and to generally fall in line with the way providers in other parts of the world operate. Canada seems to be alone in the way the CRTC and other regulators allow the providers so much freedom. A lot of the "fluff" could be eliminated up front if the term was limited to a max of 2 years, or better still, one year. I think most consumers would be happy signing a one year contract, or a 2-year deal if some of the more onerous conditions (particularly those that relate to unlocking the device so that consumers can shop around for better deals) were removed. So, a word to the CRTC - look into eliminating 3-year contracts altogether and allowing 2-year terms max, with a possibility for one-year terms.

Phone locks should not be allowed period. Consumers should be able to pay for the use of other networks or purchase a sim card as they wish.

With reference to Section D7.1, Unlocking Phones:

I "own" a Rogers RocketHub Ericsson W35, which at the time was called a Fixed Wireless Terminal (FWT). It provides me with residential voice telephone as well as an Internet connection via the Rogers cellular network. Rogers, Bell and other companies provide various devices with similar functionality from companies like Netcomm, Netgear, etc.

These FWT devices are a little more complex, and slightly different than a regular cell phone. In the case of the W35, it runs a variant of the Linux operating system.

To "Unlock" such a device, one needs access to the root password for the O/S in order to be able to change some basic setup and parameters in the device to allow its use on the cell networks of other providers.

In the case of Rogers, they have in the past been extremely reluctant to "unlock" these devices at the end of one's contract with them. To unlock the device they would need to provide the owner of the device with root access to allow the required reconfiguration of the device.

I suggest that you include a requirement that these FWT devices be unlocked as well as regular cell phones. They connect to the cell network in order to provide their functions. They are sold by the Wireless organizations of these companies, just like cell phones. The contracts and terms and conditions of use are entirely similar to those for cell phones.

I suggest you need to regulate these devices explicitly in your document. I further propose that you define more explicitly what is meant by the term "Unlocking" so that these devices are also explicitly covered as they are in every way shape and form "cell phones" except they are not intended for mobile use.

These devices are essential to many homes in Canada, which are outside the reach of either DSL or cable-type internet infrastructure. They are the only way in which many Canadians can obtain Internet connections at any reasonable speed, outside of satellite, which of course, has its own limitations, as well as being expensive.

Thank you for the opportunity to supply this comment.

KT

I agree, if the phone fails to hold up to the term, through no fault of the owner(consumer), then the future charges for the device should be waived. Warranties should last 3 years minimum, regardless of the contract term.
If older phones can work for decades (Nokia), then surely it isn't asking too much for the Carriers and Manufacturers to make them to last 3 years.

This is the most comprehensive list of regulations that carriers must comply with so far, that I have seen. However, I would like to add, that carriers must have a system for support through means of telephone in which the waiting time must be below 15 minutes. This would stop carriers from continuously redirecting the line to other representatives which in turn would incur additional waiting time. Furthermore, there should be a system for recording telephone conversations with agents in which customers may use as grounds for modifying or changing a current plan or contract without any discrepancies

Long Distance Charges are out of date. By about 100 years.
Since carriers no longer have to pay attendants to sit at switchboards and manually connect calls to different switch boards, and the infrastructure is complete coast to coast, nation to nation, with VoiP & digital communications filling in any void, long distance charges should be abolished. Considering small companies can still make a profit off charging 2 cents a minute, carrier long distance rates are already extreamely overpriced.

Your NOT LISTING CRTC!!
We do NOT want 3 year contracts! How many people have to repeat themselves before you listen. I thought you were here to protect the people of Canada not big business. There is a problem when people pay more for their family cell phones than their mortgage payment. Someone please explain to me why phones are locked in the first place? Locking phones is like locking TV's to cable companys, it doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty sure I woke up in Canada today and not China or North Korea. Why are way paying even more money to the big telcoms to have our phones unlocked, when they locked them in the first place. Canada needs to look at Europe and Japan to see how cell phones should be sold and operated. I for one am sick of paying enormous amounts of money for a service that is thousands of dollars cheaper in other countries. For the good people of Canada, keep calling the big 3 telcoms and tell them how you feel. Keep commenting to the CRTC, at some point they have to listen.

I am shocked that the CRTC refused to address the 3-year contract issue that is the concern of the majority of cell-phone holding Canadians. This is despite the fact that most of the online comments that I read were directly related to that topic. That's like asking a Dr. to look at your hurting head and he points out every other body part but the one you were most worried.

I too was forced into a 3 year contract. I have 10 months left on my iphone, and have been very good to it. While my iphone looks in perfect shape, the round button is barely working at this stage. There are 2 options for me: upgrade early and be forced to stay with my provider, or wait until the contract is over and go to another provider. According to the new CRTC guidelines, I could leave my contract now (with 10 months of 36 months left) and pay a whopping $500 to cover the cost of the subsidized phone. Even though after 2 years even Apple considers this phone obsolete and only worth about $150 refurbished (if purchased directly from them). Or I could stay with my provider.

If I stayed with my provider, I could get a 3 year plan and I can 'buy' my phone for $199, go to a 2 year plan and pay $650, OR I can go on no plan and pay $699 outright. How does $199 for 3 year term jump to $650 for a 2 year? I would have no problem with a two year term, but that is an unreasonable jump for the cost. So we end up stuck in a 3 year contract - well over the 2 year technological life expectancy of new smart and super phones.

Why are Canadians not entitled to better rates and terms versus the rest of the world? I would like explained why it is ok for us and why the CRTC thinks it is ok. What makes it more expensive? If it's valid that we should have the highest rates and longest plans, I would just like to know our unique situation that makes it so. We could say it is the investment in towers...but only 1 company (bell) has invested in towers completely across the country - and they are recouping their costs (and making money) by charging other companies (telus, etc..) to use them rather than put up their own.

There was nothing in there about 911 Access Fee's.
I believe it is a right for all Canadians to have access to 911 services. Therefore to charge for 911 access should be illegal.

Furthermore, carriers should be REQUIRED to provide access to E911 services, including GPS tracking (when connected to 911 or through warrant only), SMS to 911, and Amber Alert distribution. And if possible, Emergency Management Ontario is trying to develop a system in which they can issue Alerts to citizens through cell phones, carriers should be required to support this as well.

Section D7.1 Unlocking phones: It's my opinion that although this is a baby step in the right direction, it does not begin to go far enough. Canadians shoud realize that "locked phones" are strictly a Canadian & US phenomena in the world. Unlocked phones are the norm through Europe, the rest of the America's as well as Asia. Unlocked phones level the consumer playing field, you choose your handset, then you shop for a carrier. Later you may be unssatified with the carrier you chose, thier not competitivve anymore, you move locals or you TRAVEL for business or pleasure, you simply switch carriers. Our televisions & stereos are not "locked" to a particular service provider ie, sat dish or cable (sounds ridiculous doesn't it?) why should our phones be? It stifles competition, opens the gaping maw of horrendous ROAMING charges to unsuspecting travellers who either forget or can't manage the often obscurred settings to turn off data roaming. Locked phones are more like a rental contract arrangment than a purchase.
With difficulty, I purchased a smartphone outright 3 years ago. I've changed Canadian carriers twice to suit my needs, and used the phone abroad in 5 countries now travelling, switching SIM cards and using very inexpensive pre-paid plans in each. This is NORMAL for people around the globe except Canada and the US, where you have to get your phone "unlocked" first, voiding the warranty, and feeling like your breaking the law or something. The expensive, now almost indespensible daily used tool is MY property, not the phone companies!
I urge the CRTC to act now before we slip further behind the global norm. We pride ourselves in being technologically aheaad of the curve as a nation, why should we be so far behind in regulations of that same technology?

On a secondary but related point, the Federal Goverment scolds us daily in the media for borrowing too much, and "living beyond our means". The purchase of a smartphone is the often the very first significant purchase by our youth today, and the concept of credit, use of payment plans and the concept of "lets consume goods first and pay later..." is not only the industry norm, its ENFORCED by federal legislation! Is consumer dept levels, particularly of young people REALLY a priority of the Federal Government? Then show us!

I've never had a phone last me three years yet. But I am forced to sign three year contracts. Then when my phone no longer works I have to buy it out only to sign another three year deal, it's a vicious circle. We have some of the highest rates in the world and one of the few countries still with three year contracts. I assume that all the carries will do on two year deals is jack up the price on a subsidized phone, so in the end the consumer will still lose......again!

If providers are allowed to mandate a 3 year term, then the warranty for any phone they provide MUST last the entire period. I am so tired of having a phone die 13 months into a contract and having no option but to purchase a new one from Rogers or pay huge penalties to leave.

If providers are allowed to mandate a 3 year term, then the warranty for any phone they provide MUST last the entire period. I am so tired of having a phone die 13 months into a contract and having no option but to purchase a new one from Rogers or pay huge penalties to leave.

I honestly think that charges for text messages and incoming calls should not be part of a your bill. Its the most annoying thing I can think about. Other than that, I agree with the draft code. Implement it now.

SECTION D7.1- PHONE UNLOCKING

I suggest putting in a cap for the maximum fee a provider can charge the consumer for the unlocking fee. Since no fee is specified in the draft code, a provider could technically charge the consumer $200.00 for an unlocking fee after 30 days of selling the subsidized phone. The effect of this would then be the consumer would be unwilling / unable to unlock his phone due to the actions of the provider.

I would suggest capping it at somewhere in the $20.00-50.00 range.

In Section D4.3, "unlimited plans"
It should be revised to state that unlimited plans HAVE NO LIMITS.
As anyone can tell you, limiting anything is not unlimited. So if the carriers plans have limits, they should not be allowed to call it the "unlimited" plan. It would be false advertising, which if I read the proposal properly, is the spirit of the document.

There needs to be protection for the consumer from roaming charges incurred near the US border. In many places the US signal is stronger than Canadian carriers signals WITHIN Canada. Carriers should automatically credit any roaming fees incurred due to this issue

I agree that unlocking must have certain conditions, but once a phone is paid for in full carriers MUST unlock free-of-charge.

I am upset there was no section or sub-section on data charges, specifically for data overages. There must be a limit to what the carriers can charge for data (as Canadians pay more for internet than most of the world) and how much they can charge for overages.

Most Carriers state there overages in their plans, but leave out alot of fine print. I was once charged $8/MB by Telus when I had an "unlimited" data plan. The issue then was that the unlimited plan didn't include tethering to another device.

WHich brings up another point, why should it matter if the data is for the handset or a tethered laptop or tablet. Data is data, going through the same channels and networks regardless what device it ends up on.

3-Year Contracts. Locked Phones. Incoming Texts. Long Distance Calls within Canada.

These are all issues that need to be addressed further in this document.

1) There needs to be language that addresses contract length. Citizens deserve the right to have a shorter contract length, especially in order to protect themselves against outdated technology and poor customer service. While I am sure that you cannot outlaw the 3-year contract, I do think that there needs to be language to force wireless companies to include competitive 1 and 2-year contracts. Customers will pay a premium for a device subsidized on a shorter contract, but that should be their choice.

2) There is no need to have to wait until the end of the contract to unlock a cellular telephone. The contract itself is what protects the wireless company by ensuring that they recover the 'subsidy' they offered for the device itself. Whether the phone is unlocked or not, the customer still pays the monthly fee, or the remaining subsidy if they choose to leave the contract early. Unlocked phones allow Canadians to no be gouged by their wireless company when they are overseas.

3) You cannot allow citizens to be charged for something that they don't want. Once cannot chose which texts messages are received, like we can phone calls, so they shouldn't be charged for them. Consider the case of SPAM or harassing texts. To be charged for those is adding insult to injury. The UK has long since not charged for incoming texts.

4) The world is a Global Village. Despite our vast country, we exist in only a small subsection of that Village. It is 2013 and many Canadians travel extensively within our country for work and play. They should have to pay long distance now that coast to coast travel is the norm rather than the exception is was in decades past. Follow the lead of the USA and the UK, where all calls within the country are considered identical from a billing perspective.

These are issues that need to be addressed in the final draft in order for the CRTC to outline the will of the people. Thanks for letting us comment, and for listening to them as you revise our document.

1. Unlimited should mean unlimited, no cap on data and no cap on minutes. If there's a cap the word 'unlimited' should prohibited in the advertising.

2. Contracts should prohibit carriers from raising any fees associated with your phone including, data, voice, administration and billing, for the life of the contract.

3. If you purchase your phone outright, the unlock code should be included at the time of sale at no additional charge.

4. At the completion or cancellation of your contract the unlock code should be provided to the user at no additional charge.

5. Contract cancellation fees should be calculated based on the orginal cost of the phone, divided by the number of months in the contract. For example a $360 phone would leave the consumer with a concellation fee of $10 per month that remains on the contract.

CRTC must consider reducing 3 year contracts that is one of the most important handcuffs of wireless providers.
Elimination of extreme high penalties
There should be no locking and or no charges for unlocking.
Customer should be able to track charges on line.
If the provider changes terms negatively in any way customer has to be notified and no cancel fees .
Roaming fees should be eliminated
"unlimited " has to be clearer as well as taxes and fees spelled out.
CRTC should provide a comparison sight that conforms to their rules and standards of comparison.

In my view the three year contract should be eliminated. Why is it I can install a land line, internet or a satellite TV in my home from Bell and cancel anytime I like but I have to enter a three year contract for a cell phone. Bell will provide the receivers and/or wireless modem for a reasonable price(free of charge in many cases) but they insist on a three year cell phone contract to offset the so called subsidy built into the price of the phone. The cell phones they provide for the most part last about 18 months and then you must either replace the battery or purchase a new phone. God forbid you damage your phone. You are then faced with the choice of paying for a service you cant use or paying full price for a replacement phone. I'm unfortunate enough to be living in an area where Bell is the only cell provider and I am tired of being held captive.

The 3 year contract is ridiculous. There should be a maximum of 2 years. Your phone should be unlocked without charge when you have repaid the subsidy.

Here are my choices for the options:

D2.1 - option 1 - if they choose to change the existing contract, the consumer has the right to cancel.

D3.1 - option 1 - cancellation on the date provided.

D3.3 - Option 1 - the consumer is only required to pay for services used and the amount of the subsidy that remains

D3.4 - option 1 - the contact automatically renew on a month to month basis

D4.3 - unlimited means unlimited, plain and simple

D10.1 - disconnection - option 1 - consumers must be notified properly

I want the CRTC to limit wireless contract lengths to ONE YEAR maximum and most importantly to require a customer signature on a document if that customer chooses the option of a contract or alternatively to extend an existing contract by a further ONE YEAR. I got a cell phone for my children from Rogers and at the end of the three year contract I phoned four times and each time instructed them to NOT renew the contract at it's expiration. After the contract expired when they continued to charge me for service that was not being used because I believed the contract had been terminated I telephoned again. Over and over I phoned and told them the phone was not being used. The result of my multiple requests was that Rogers continued to bill me ignoring my wishes and when I stopped paying them because they were not honouring my wishes, Rogers added an entire THREE more years to my bill totaling over $550.00. For that money I received nothing, no benefit whatsoever. CRTC please do not allow these people to conduct business this way. It is reprehensible. Please hear me and limit the duration of cell phone contracts to one year and do not allow cell phone service providers to continue to provide service beyond that contract without WRITTEN AUTHORITY from the customer. Thank you for allow us input on these matters.

I didn't see any mention of the "Billing System" used with the various Telecoms. As an instrument used to charge customers, the systems need to be monitored on a random/unannounced basis by the regulatory agency to determine accuracy and detect systemic gauging. Just how shop scales and gas pumps are tested through Measurement Canada <http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/Home>, similar programs should be in place to keep our wireless providers accountable and honest to their customers. Especially concerning contracts, overcharges cannot be protested against when a customer is under contractual obligation.

Contracts & Subsidies. Make the subsidy clear. Contracts should only exist in exchange for a hardware subsidy and ended once that subsidy is paid in full.

1. Providers must list the real cost of the phone and the subsidized price in advertisements and in store.
2. Providers must maintain a running count month to month of the remaining subsidy on the bill, deducting each month an amount 1/36th (for 3 year terms) of the total subsidy.
3. Cancellation charges shall be no more than the total outstanding subsidy.

In Unlocking Phones, there should be a CRTC specified maximum a service provider can charge a customer for unlocking during the contract period. Since the service providers subsidy can be recovered through the cancellation fee, the unlocking charge should be very low ($10 or less).

Finally, the 3 year contract should be banned! They are not offered in other countries such as the U.S, and phones now become outdated within 1.5 years. Canadian service providers simply want to lock customers in longer to keep gouging them at uncompetitive rates within the contract period.

Please get rid of the egregious three year contracts.

Under no circumstances should consumers have to lock in to three contracts to get the latest phones, when in the US and other countries two year contracts are the standard. If industry is not competitive enough to demand such reform, the government should legislate that three year contracts are exploitation of a captive consumer. Lastly, limited ECF to no more then $10 a month.

Ban 3 year contracts .
Reduce amounts that can be charged for texts.

A few things missing:

Contracts:

- Contracts should be tied solely to the subsidy that the consumer receives at the time of activation. The contract should not be affected by rate plan modifications, unsubsidized phone purchases, consumer-owned phone activations, or any other changes that do not affect that specific subsidy on that specific account. Too many consumers have their contracts erroneously renewed or extended by carriers when simple account changes are made.

Subsidies:

- Subsidies should be proportional to the length of contract. If a phone can receive a $600 subsidy on a 3-year term it should also be able to receive a $400 subsidy on a 2-year contract and a $200 subsidy on a 1-year contract.

- All devices of the same type shall be eligible to receive equal subsidies. If a $600 device of one type is eligible for a $600 subsidy on a 3-year contract or a $400 subsidy on a 2-year contract, then a $400 device of the same type should be eligible for a $400 subsidy on a 2-year contract. The subsidy should be the same for all devices of the same type regardless of unsubsidized device price.

- Subsidies should be divided into two equal parts: Voice subsidy and Data subsidy. Consumers should be able to activate any phone without a data plan so long as they are willing to pay an amount equal to the Data subsidy at the time of sale. Carriers may choose to opt-in to an additional Promotional subsidy.

- If a consumer opts not to receive a subsidy, that consumer should be eligible for a discounted monthly rate as there is no subsidy to repay.

Rate plans and features:

- Features should not expire. If a consumer pays for 100 minutes of airtime in a month but only uses 50 then the other 50 should carry forward. Money does not expire, as recent regulations regarding prepaid credit cards have proven, and neither should features. Unused airtime, texts, and data usage that have already been paid for should carry forward indefinitely.

- Features that incur no additional cost to the carrier, such as Caller ID (a feature that must, to a certain extent, be enabled for mobile networks to function) and "long distance calling", are to be provided to the consumer at no additional cost.

- Features and rate plans are not to discriminate based on device type. If a device is capable of using a service or feature then that feature or service will be made available to it at no additional charge. It is up to the network to determine the device type and offer the correct feature for that device to use. For example, the network should be able to automatically adjust the data required for a device based on whether it is a BlackBerry or non-BlackBerry smartphone or tablet, or any other specialized device type.

- Only one pay-per-use rate shall exist per feature without discrimination based on rate plan or plan type. For example, if the pay-per-use overage rate on a data plan is $10 per GB then all pay-per-use data rates shall be $10 per GB, even outside of a data plan. The cost to the carrier for these features does not change based on the rate plan or plan type, and so it should not change for the consumer based on those same factors.

Warranties:

- Warranties are to be offered by the manufacturer for the length of the contract. Any manufacturer selling devices within Canada on contracts shall be responsible to warranty the device for the length of the contract. Carriers may elect to handle any warranty repairs on behalf of the manufacturer but are under no obligation to do so.

Loss and theft:

- Carriers are to make available during all hours methods by which the consumer may notify the carrier of loss or theft.

- Carriers are to disable all services that are not essential to locating the device upon notification from the consumer of loss or theft if requested by the consumer.

- Carriers are to provide both online and offline tools for locating a lost or stolen device. These tools are under no requirement to be immediately available, but must be made available within 24 hours from the time of notification of loss or theft.

Coverage:

- Carriers must make available a method by which consumers can notify the carrier of areas of limited, poor, or no coverage.

- Carriers must notify consumers of any modification to network or coverage areas. Any changes in coverage area that result in a lack of coverage in a consumer's home area will make available to the consumer the option to cancel the contract without cost or penalty.

- In areas where only a single carrier has coverage or in rural areas where one carrier has noticeably better coverage than competing carriers, that carrier is to make its network available to all compatible devices and to offer fair and non-discriminatory roaming agreements to competing carriers.

Calling region and phone numbers:

- Carriers are not to charge "long-distance" charges for calls made within their own network or country. These charges are the remnants of an old system that has long since been superseded by superior technology, and consumers should no longer have to pay for a system that no longer exist.

- Carriers are not to artificially limit the availability of phone numbers to consumers. Additionally, when a consumer's service is being activated the consumer shall be offered the option to choose his or her phone number.

- Carriers are not to artificially limit the portability of a consumer's phone number from carrier to carrier or from region to region.

Hardware and Software:

- No carrier or carrier representative is to remove a device from its original packaging until the device is sold and is only to do so with the express consent of the device's owner.

- Carriers are not to modify the hardware or software of a device prior to, during, or after a sale if such a modification limits the default functionality of the device.

- Carriers are not to artificially limit the availability of software updates for a device if a manufacturer has made such an update available. Carriers are also not to update or modify the software, features, or settings on a device unless such an update or modification is essential to that device's continued functionality on the carrier's network, so long as any such update does not limit the default functionality of that device.

Support:

- Carriers must make available methods of service or support without limitations during all days of the week (except where prohibited by law). For example, there should be no reason that a consumer cannot pay a bill, cancel their service, or get technical support on a weekend.

D8. Loss or theft of wireless devices

There appear to be several items that appear to be missing.

1) A provision that the service provider, on request by the cell phone owner, assist in the relocation of a lost or stolen cell phone. A cell phone may in fact just be missing. Providers should be able to provide a service that helps track a cell phone which may be lost of stolen. This only saves frustration of trying to replace cell phones and more so the data on them and is great for both consumer and provider.

2) A provision that the service provider maintain a complete list of all cell phones sold through them, and a list of reported stolen phones so that consumers can identify stolen phones through an easy to use meathod, prior to purchasing them illegally by accident because no such system currently exists.

One of the most important issues here is cancelling a contract. The fees are outrageous. The cell provider has WAY too much control when a customer wants to get out of a contract, even for a very legitimate reason. I understand that there may need to be penalty for cancelling a contract early for no reason, but regardless the penalty is WAY too high.
It is also true that even when there is very legitimate reason to cancel (meaning that the cell provider has not lived up to their end of the contract) the customer still has no recourse to get out without paying exorbitant fees.

A hurricane of comments now and before your draft say No 3-Year Contracts. You don't need more comments about that. You need to take action. What action? Listen to the hurricane of shouting at you from 33 million Canadians: NO 3-YEAR CONTRACTS! Got it? Good. Just do it.

The most important thing was the 3 year contracts and there's nothing mentioned about them.

Plus they should be extremely clear that the consumer should be able to cancel without penalties should the carrier change anything not just the contract terms. (ie Data fee increase)

I actually had a carrier change MMS fees. If I went over my 10 or 20 I had to pay the new increased fee should I go over or my solution was to remove my package and not use MMS. Do they think that I'll get a new phone with anther provide just to use MMS?

You are absolutely correct, the end of the 3 year contract was the most requested thing.

the new CRTC administration is already showing signs of regulatory capture. I wonder what jobs they were promised or money or whatever they do to be captured.

It seems pretty simple to me:
End long term (3 year) contracts; its crazy that my contract's life is longer than my device's life and unlocking your device should be allowed and realistically should be free (I am already tied to the carrier with my contact anyway.

Reasonable Data prices!!! For the love, 100 mb data plans in a package is useless now!

I saw this on someone else's and totally agree but the above are much more important.
Free incoming texts; I can choose to not receive a call but can ignore a text?

Denis Carmel, find another job, your horrible at this one. With that one statement you brought down the wrath of the public upon the CRTC.

The effects of a three year contract is the length of time being unreasonable. To deal with that effect without banning the use would be to change the laws of physics.

Contracts are fine, what Canada needs is more options such as a two or one year contracts. The main thing this draft does not talk to is stolen phones. A registry needs to be set up so if a phone is stolen the carriers will confiscate it and not provide service for that phone.

Think about it, an 800 phone split up over 12 months billed separately would be 66 dollars a month. 2 years would be 33 dollars a month.

If billed separately we would suddenly realize that we are being ripped off by the industry and the CRTC even with this new proposed draft.

I think the issue of two versus three year contracts must be decided. I think three year should be an option, but so should two years - e.g. Rogers can't do what they did before and force you to have a 3 year contract for a phone, but you have a choice to if you want.

The unlocking one is a huge issue. It is prohibitively expensive to use a cell phone in Asia...it is easier to buy a phone over there and use it with loaded minutes. I should be able to have one phone and use it as I wish.

I think the contract cancellation terms should be no more than the amount of a subsidy per month. I am trapped in a contract where, until this month, cancellation of my current contract (of 2.5 years) would be $400 because I fall under old (and no longer applicable terms) and because though my contract is 2.5 years old, the length is consider 1.5 years because it is started from the date of my original contract (since I renewed early).

There should be fairer pricing on data overages and better indicators of what they mean, especially for roaming. I went incurred $100 in data charges for using $25MB in the US, without realising that my use of maps and the internet...after buying a US roaming data plan.

*the

Please ban 3 year contracts with immediate effect. Do not allow the carriers any wriggle room.

What about the people who bought the phone outright and need to pay for the unlock code.They should give the code at no cost.And also If the phone have problems and need to be replace,does the person need to pay then unlock code again ? 3yr contract should end !!

I will help you write a new draft.

1. Subsidies will be billed independently of the service. Contracts for subsidies and contracts for service are not to be combined.
2. No locks on hardware allowed.

No locks resolves international prices and subsidy contracts being separate from service contracts resolves all the billing difficulties. These two rules would render the entire document drafted moot.

Two main issues:

1) Three year contracts are extremely outdated considering the rate of technological advancements in devices these days. If our southern telcos are able to offer their customers with 2-year contracts, AND STILL MAKE MONEY, I don't see why we Canadians can't be offered the "the big three".

2) Abolish long distance charges within Canada. Again, the US telcos have had this for years. You can have a New York phone number, be physically located in San Francisco, and be making a call to Chicago. No long distance charges! Why can't we have the same? The only Canadian provider that offers this is Koodo (Telus). The network is already in place, data is already being transmitted, why gouge the customer?

While it may seem to the CRTC that this is a good 'first draft' I find it to be terrible and caving into the big operators. Canadians pay more than any other country such as Europeans, Americans for cell/data 'wireless' use. How hard do we have to YELL at the CRTC, Rogers, Telus, Bell, whomever that we DO NOT WANT CONTRACTS!! Period. We do not want to buy phones from the carriers!! Period. If I want an iPhone let me buy an UNLOCKED iPhone from Apple (which I did) rather than get a 'discounted iPhone' (which I pay for in over bloated cell/data/'special features' fees) that I'm stuck with for 3 years while the phone becomes obsolete. Contracts are a way of forcing us to stay with a carrier at great penalty when many life circumstances happen, not the least of which, is that the airtime/data fees by, for example, Rogers become aggressively UNcompetitive with other carriers. It's a form of indenture, of tying us to a carrier that has poor customer service, roaming charges that are ABSURD, a choice of phones that are limited, etc. I will NEVER have a contract with any carrier again. Further Rogers representatives when I upgraded LIED to me that due to my MEDICAL need to upgrade that my contract dates would stay the same. One year later Rogers supervisors are telling me that they don't do that, that whomever told me that couldn't have done so, that my memory is wrong, etc. I was MISLEAD and when the new phone arrive it came with 5 pages of tiny fine print that locked me into an expensive further 3 years. So I've read the draft, you are sugar coating the reality that consumers have had enough. All we want is airtime/data provided to the device(s) of OUR CHOOSING and the time frame of OUR CHOOSING. If I need to cancel a contract for a parent who has died I do NOT want to be told that the 'estate' has to pay an early termination fee. PLEASE LISTEN CRTC. Consumers do not want 'contacts'. Consumers do not want 'branded' phones/devices. We've had enough. The 'draft' is not good enough. END CONTRACTS. END BLOATED TERMINATION fees that cost hundreds of dollars. END OUTRAGEOUS ROAMING CHARGES. Let consumers buy the unlocked phone of THEIR CHOICE. Get the carriers out of the phone/device business altogether. It is an unacceptable conflict of interest on a par with allowing banks to sell a mortgage and the insurance on the mortgage and charge customers for depositing (lending the bank) money. It's an outrage. We are not cash cows. So there is my comment. Take it further. End contracts, end 'branded' phones. Anything less than that is just more of the same.

Ownership of the phone is in the hands of the consumer, and must be. A subsidy becomes the new responsibility. If you get a store card for best buy do they want their electronics back if you don't pay? No, they want the money and will seek the money from you in court. The consumer electronics after 90 days is completely useless to them.

NO LOCKS, NO 3 YEAR CONTRACTS, NO CANCELATION FEES

If the subsidy does not pay for the phone by the time the service is canceled then the person should be charged for the unpaid subsidy amount exactly. There is no need to be any more wordy than that.

Phone locks should also be made illegal as it is in Europe, so that people can put in a sim card for the local area they are traveling to. That would end roaming fees.

Sounds like regulatory capture again, how can the CRTC hear so many say the 3 year contract is bordering on the criminal and then propose that that they don't want to limit Canadians choice to sign a three year contract?

For instance I was forced to sign a three year contract to get an Iphone. FORCED! Rogers gave me no other choice when they were the only provider of the phone.

FORCED!

I am surprised that there was no direct mention of 3 year contracts! Contracts should be capped at 2 years max. Also, penalties for early cancellation should not exceed $10/month.

I liked the part about being notified of reaching usage limits, and how you can request that your usage rates can be capped at level requested by the user.

Canadians do not choose to use 3 year contracts, they choose to get a phone at the lowest possible price. These companies make 1 and 2 years completely undesirable and overpriced. Talk about missing the boat CRTC. I am trying to contain my emotion because the CRTC seems to believe a 3 year contract is a desired choice of consumers. I can only respond with this:

ob·tuse
/əbˈt(y)o͞os/
Adjective

Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
Difficult to understand.

Synonyms
dull - blunt - dense - slow-witted

Option 2 of contract termination is poorly written and is completely illegible.

Section D4.3
Unlimited should mean unlimited. If it is not unlimited, it should not be advertised as such.

End three (3) year contracts.

Three year contracts are ridiculous. They're holding us hostage when the US gets the same phone, same price, for a two-year contract.

If the mobile carriers are so damned put out by having us as customers that they need to gridlock us for three years, then maybe they need new enterprise.

End three-year terms. Put a cap at two years.

I thought we were FANS of free market enterprise? Are we not? The stranglehold that Canadian companies have on us is oh-so-not socialist. C'mon, government. Wake up and smell the public good, not the lobbyists's buttcrack.

1) End long term (3 year) contracts; its criminal that my contract's life is longer than my device's life
2) Free incoming texts; I can choose to not receive a call but can ignore a text?
3) Reasonable Talk & Data priced plans; Canada has one of the highest, if not the highest, rates.
4) Unlocking your device should be allowed (outside subsidies/contracts)
5) A review of prices for add-ons (call display, roaming, etc) needs to be addressed
6) Wish we had roll over minutes as well.

Very disappointed. When CRTC first ask for us Canadians' opinions, the three major issues are 1)3-years contract 2)locked phone 3) lack of competition/price-fixing.

1) In this draft, the elephant in the room is ignored. The WHOLE WORLD has 2 years contract, why does Canada has 3. EU even banned any contract above 2 years, they still have a cheaper subsidized phone and cheaper plan for a 2 years contract. Take the iphone 5 16gb as an example, in Canada we pay $179 for a 3 years contract while in the uk a 2 years contract can buy the same phone for 29 pounds ($45.78) on a TWO years contract. Compare the US and Canada, the iphone5 16gb is 199 for 2 years contract in the US and $179 for 3 years contract in Canada, I don't see I need an extra year to cover the $20 difference. Subsidized phone is not necessary a bad concept, but 3 years is too much. Please don't not think that because we have less people in Canada than us therefore our plan is more expensive, Finland has less population per land and still have better rate plans and 2 years contract. It is so outdated and disgusting that Canadians still have to be limited to 3 years contract to have the similar subsidized cost (of around $179-199 for the iphone5 16gb).

2) This draft talks about the unlocking guideline, but I think unlocking should not incur a fee as it does not cost anything(and certainly not cost$50 as in rogers). More importantly, locking should not exist in the first place. The concept of lock phone is hostage. Subsidized phone means contract. Contract is legal binding therefore the customers either have to pay for the entire contract length (which should be 2 years as it is for the entire world, except for Canada) or pay for the subsidized benefit. There is no reasonable justification to lock a phone. Even though customers who travel abroad may purchase local sim card, they are still bind to pay for the monthly service in the contract. Locking a phone is holding customer hostage. You don't buy a car and say they can only get service/maintenance in their dealership until car loan is paid. When I pay for a phone, outright or subsidized, it should NOT be locked. I purchase it therefore I have ownership over it, as far as the carriers' concern is I pay my monthly service with them, locking is just their hope to charge us ridiculous roaming fees. Buying outright should not be locked for obvious reason. Buying with a subsidized cost means I have to pay for the monthly service for a set amount of time (2years as it is around the world!!!!), I still have to pay that amount even with or without a locked phone. Therefore, locking is simply a unjustifiable. Please note that locking is banned in most countries around the world, such as in Europe and Asia.

3) I see nothing in the draft that address about opening competition or regulations against price fixing. Our protectionist policy is good to protect Canadian interest, but when these companies turn against the Canadian customers by monopolizing the sector and price fix with each other, it causes only harm to Canada.

Overall speaking, the draft addressed the minor concerns for most Canadians who submitted our opinions. The elephants in the room as mentioned above, are completely ignored in this draft. We live in a modern first world country and respected by many nations around the world, but why does we have a telecom service that is WORSE than poorer third world countries???? Europe banned locking of phones and stated the maximum contract length be 2 years, yet in Canada we champion with our unlocking fees and 3 years subsidies? How pathetic.

Limited is the new Unlimited?

I know this is just a draft code, so I'll forgive you. But this is ridiculous. If it says Unlimited, it should be just that. UNLIMITED. You're effectively allowing carriers to engage in false advertising and malpractice.

Contracts should be fair and balanced. For example, they spell out what happens if a consumer is late on their bill payment in terms of late fees and interest rates. This needs also apply for the carrier. If they are late in providing credits to a consumer, these same terms should apply to them. Also extends to additional fees such as "paper billing fees". If the online billing system is unavailable at the time I wish to look at my bill, they should be crediting me to fee as they have failed to provide me with access to my bill and may have caused my bill to be paid late.

On the positive side, the forcing of carriers to unlock unsubsidized devices is a move in the right direction.

In many countries, phones have to be unlocked as locking cell phones is considered illegal. In other countries, unless you have received a subsidy, the device must be unlocked on demand by the customer purchasing the device without incurring additional fees to unlock the device.

I would also go as far having this wireless code mandating that telecom companies MUST advertise the subsidized and unsubsidized price with the same font next to each other when displaying at stores, online and any advertisement. This is done to educate the public that they have a choice to choose between signing a contract and not signing a contract. It also educates the consumer that prices are low for a reason (being locked to a long term contract). This is to break the mentality that devices like a high-end smartphone cost less than $200.

The wireless code should also state that not only should contracts be limited to 2 years, but MUST allow consumers choose how long their contracts are if they choose to sign one. Contracts should only be 12, 18 or 24 months long and the subsidy must be in proportion to the contract length. It shouldn't be something like for a $700 device the subsidy for 12 months be $100 off, 18 months be $300 off and then 24 months be $600 off. Any "tabs" (like those offered by Fido, Virgin, Koodo, WIND) should clear after 24 months of service.

Contracts should also NEVER renew unless the consumer received a discount on the monthly rate or subsidy on their device. Once the subsidy on the device has been paid off or the consumer chose to buy the device outright and chooses to leave, the wireless code must force telecoms to not charge any cancellation fees and only charge for the remaining service before the billing date.

This is not an unreasonable suggestion. A lot of countries today forbid phone locking. It's the case of Australia and Hong Kong. This does not prevent users from buying their phone from their service provider.

Also, this would be a very good sustainable development measure. People would keep their phones and go for the best service deal, or sell them to others.

First of all I think this is a good start...

I agree with most of the people that have already commented on here. (1) When we purchase the phone in full, it must immediately be unlocked, with no charges applied!!!I find this charge for unlocking a phone I already own, CRIMINAL!!! It's like buy a car with a lock on it and have to pay the dealer an extra charge to unlock it! I travel quite a bit and find the charges are ridiculous. This should also applied when the phone has gone though the contract in full. (2) The contract period should not be more then 2 yrs!!! and the amount applied from the portion of your phone bill to the purchase of the phone should spelled out in plan engish and the balance owing, on a month to month basis.

Three year contracts are an issue - especially as the carriers automatically extend the three year period when making changes to the contracts (without highlighting that fact to the customer).

Locked phones are an issue - it allows the carriers to get away with uncompetitive practices.

(1) I am very disappointed that the CRTC has not addressed the issue of capping the roaming charges at all when it comes to roaming from a new entrant's network (e.g. from Windmobile) to an incumbent's network (to Bell). In all Western European countries, roaming charges are capped at a certain upper level every month, so the customer has a lot of comfort knowing he/she is not going to get gouged for being on a competitor's network. Capping the maximum roaming charges for both voice and data will also allow new entrants (e.g. Wind, Mobilicity, Public Mobile, etc.) to capture new market share while they are in the process of expanding their own networks. I recommend that the maximum roaming charge be capped at $15 per month for data roaming and $15 per month for voice roaming.

(2) CRTC should legally force the existing incumbents i.e. Bell, Rogers, and Telus to share their cellular towers and other physical infrastructure with new entrants i.e. Wind, Public Mobile, etc. If required, CRTC should develop clear rules to force incumbents on this issue.

(3) If the contract terms are changed by the carrier while the contract is still active, the carrier shall seek explicit acceptance in writing from the consumer to the changes. Consumer should be allowed to cancell the contract without any fear of penaties of any kind if they are unwilling to accept the changes.

(4) Unused Pay-per-use minutes should not automatically disappear after a certain period. If my gift card from Walmart has no expiration date, why do pay-per-use minutes disappear after 30/60/180 days? This is a blatant ripoff.

(5) Carriers should not charge any outgoing airtime minutes if the call goes into voice-mail. The cost of a voice-mail has been estimated to be $0.0002 per minute, yet carriers charge $0.25/minute.

(6) Free phone unlocking at the end of contract term at customer's request should be available.

(7) Price for the voice and data plan should drop once the contract term is over and the device is no longer being subsidized by the carrier.

Bottom line, the draft wireless code of conduct will be woefully inadequate if the issue of maximum capped roaming charges for both voice and data is not dealth with. If capping roaming charges is not introduced, the existing oligarchies i.e. Bell, Rogers, and Telus will continue to use their size and network coverage to maintain their market dominance and crush the new entrants like Wind.

Where is the provision directly dealing with three year contracts? Only in Canada would we attempt to deal with them indirectly and claim to have done sufficient work. Three year contracts are outdated and ridiculous modes of preventing consumer choice. They prevent competition between carriers and are absolutely detrimental to the average consumer. Fix this.

Though SMS is an entirely different protocol than the data services that allow one to access the internet, your point is still valid. Never thought of it like that but you make a good point.

I disagree that the phone is 100% your property when a provider paid for a significant portion of the price and you have not yet paid that subsidy back.

Let's be reasonable. We won't be taken seriously if we don't request fair terms.

A contract should be no more than an obligation to pay back the subsidy. If you buy the phone at full price, there should be no contract. A locked phone is a reasonable expectation that you use the phone on the provider's network that paid for a portion of your phone until you pay it back.

Once you'd paid the subsidy back in full, you now own the phone 100% and the lock should be lifted automatically or made clear to the customer on how to do it either on the bill or in a text message or both.

The main issue at the heart of every Canadian's frustration with the current major wireless providers is that they have monopolized the industry and are gouging consumers. There is no other way to put it, as it is the cold and harsh truth whether the CRTC or any one of the major wireless carriers would like to accept it. The fact that most data plans start at around $50 while providing under 200MB of data simply makes no sense. I'm not sure what year the big carriers think this is, but this simply isn't enough and shackles the usefulness of modern smartphones. Additionally, carriers are free to charge ridiculous amounts for the most basic functionality such as caller's identification. Carriers are literally charging for a minuscule string of additional data appearing on your phone when a call appears. If anything, this perfectly puts into perspective how out of touch with reality the major carriers are. If they honestly think consumers are to believe that the data behind 10 numerical digits impacts the carrier's network enough to warrant a hefty fee, they are delusional.

I know this has been repeated many times but it bears repeating until it is added to the code: Contracts should not exceed 2 years. Current 3 year contracts are simply too long, and by the fact that Canada is the only developed nation in mind that still allows them underscores the urgency about this being rectified.

Lastly, I recognize why carriers would like to have the phones they sell on contract to be locked, but please allow for consumers to get the phones that they own unlocked once the contract has ended, free of charge. Consumers should not have to pay to alleviate a lock placed by the carriers in the first place, especially since the consumer never really wanted the lock to begin with.

So to conclude: Lower prices(along with larger data allowances), shorter contracts and easier access to unlocking devices. It's really all common sense (though I'm not sure how easily graspable of a concept that is for the major wireless carriers)

... a grossly unreasonable markup.

The contract term should not exceed 24 months in any case. Consumers pay off even car finance in 48 or 60 months and still enjoy the car for another five years without any major problems. Three years contracts are simply preposterous in this age of evolving technology on a daily basis.

No phone should be locked by the service provider at any time, whether on long term contract or not. In term contracts if any subscriber changes service provider, there is a contract to get the balance of the unpaid bill or the unexpired 'economic benefit' from the subscriber. Again, the term 'economic benefit' is not clear. When calculating the economic benefit at least 20% depreciation of the device's market retail price at the date of purchase should be taken into account. For example, if the term contract is 24 months and the device's retail price is $600.00 at the time of purchase and the subscriber wishes to cancel the contract at the end of 12 months the maximum penalty for early termination should not exceed $240.00 (600x0.8x12/24)

Unused minutes and data should be allowed to roll over, till the time a consumer stick with a service provider.

End the practice of arbitrary data overage fees.

If 6GB costs $30, additional GB's should not be charged in MB -- deliberately put in place to confuse the customer and hide the real price, horribly marked up. An additional GB should be exactly 1/6th of $30: $5 per GB. It should be listed as such: in GB, not MB.

Re: #3
How does locking a phone protect the carriers investment? It does not in any way, shape or form. The contract does that. A locked phone doesn't keep you in contract. It doesn't mean you won't buy another phone to use elsewhere. It does mean you can't choose to use your current phone, that is 100% your property, on other carriers while still remaining under contract. How does that protect their investment? Simple, it doesn't. At all.

I agree with the rest of your comment except $5 doesn't really benefit anyone, carrier or customer...

This is a great starting point, but it's not enough. There are only three major companies, with price fixing. Their profits are through the roof and it's due to the outrageous charges.
Even if they all comply with the terms of the code of conduct, it doesn't change what we pay for the services.
I don't understand why these companies need to be Canadian owned, when all they are doing is ripping off all the Canadians. If CRTC cares for the Canadian consumers then allow any as much competition as possible.
This is ridicules, and something more than this Code of Conduct is needed. Also, what is the penalty for not follow "The Code", since this is not even law?

Text Message price markup.

End the unfair practice of charging data services as something they are not. A text message is a maximum of 160 characters. That's a total of 140bytes. A single 1MB of data can transmit 7490 text messages. If we're paying $30 for 5GB (or 38,348,800 text messages), we should be paying $0.00000078 per text message, not 15¢.

With providers charging on average 15¢ per text message, they're charging

Unlocking for a reasonable fee at the end of term should not even be required if locking itself was prohibited. Please give some thought to why phones should be locked at all. It is not because you received a discount on the phone. The carrier received a contract from you in exchange for the discount. A lock is simply a way to additionally prevent you from using your own property.

Please people, before you ask for reasonable terms for an unlock, think about why you should even need it unlocked. You wouldn't but for the intentional defect the carrier applied to the phone before the sold it to you, thereby restricting you from using it as you wish and trapping you into roaming fees for using your property out of the country.

Simply put, allowing a carrier to lock a phone and then allowing them to charge a fee to unlock it is nothing short of a racket. They create a problem, a locked phone, and then charge you (a) when you use it with the shortcomings of the lock by charging you obscene roaming fees and then (b) charging you to fix the defect by unlocking it. That is a racket, clear and simple. How is that even legal?

Incoming calls/messages should not be charged to the recipient. A provider who is servicing both the sender and recipient is double dipping. Place the burden on the sender, the recipient does not pay for incoming calls or messages.

Contracts & Subsidies. Make the subsidy clear. Contracts should only exist in exchange for a hardware subsidy and ended once that subsidy is paid in full.

1. Providers must list the real cost of the phone and the subsidized price in advertisements and in store.
2. Providers must maintain a running count month to month of the remaining subsidy on the bill, deducting each month an amount 1/36th (for 3 year terms) of the total subsidy.
3. Since phone locking exists to protect the provider's investment, once the subsidy has been paid, the customer owns the phone and unlocking should either be automatic or instructions sent on the next bill on how to unlock.
4. Cancellation charges shall be no more than the total outstanding subsidy.
5. Enable competing providers to buy out the customer's outstanding subsidy, at which point the customer continues to amortize that subsidy with the new provider. There is no reason why any customer should be held hostage and forced to stay with a provider they're unhappy with while there are competing providers happy to pay for their business by taking over the contract.

Phone Companies should have to do their due diligence to ensure that al contract holders have a phone that will hold up to their contact terms. Most phones are not worth or don't hold up to the amount of time on the contract. Upgrades to the phones seem to slow the phones down. I have had problems with my iPhone since I've upgraded the software. I get the run around from both Apple and Bell in regards to the phone. Plus if I have the phone plugged in and charging. I get little shocks from it while talking on the phone. I'm stuck in the contract for another 1.3 years. I will be like many Canadians, Have to do a early upgrade or cancel the contract just to get more phone service. I still believe if you have a plan with 200 minutes, 6 gigs of data, and other great features for $65 a month. Instead of paying huge overage charges. like $50 a Gig over or $0.45 a minute for the extra phone calls. You should have the option to pay another $65 and start the plan over. or as soon as your plan is up and extra fees are about to kick in, ask the client what they would rather do. Start a new monthly rate or go on pay per use extra charges.

Unlock fee's and 3 year contracts should be eliminated.

The 3-year contracts should be eliminated. There should be no charge to unlock a phone. A charge for this makes no sense. Once an unlock method is in place, the wireless carriers will start ordering phones from the manufacturers already unlocked.

Excellent document. Finally!
I have read it and have the following comments:
I support option 1 with regard to termination fees;
I support option 1 re Automatic contract renewal;
I support option 2 re D7.1.
I have no negative comments regarding the rest of the Draft Code.
I have no problem with 3 year contract if there is a fair escape clause as proposed.
Good work. Keep it up.

The proposed code looks like an improvement to me, but it really should go further. I am most concerned about two points:

1. Device subsidies:

The monthly device subsidy in a contract should be itemized separately. Most importantly, this fee should NOT apply to month-to-month customers who have already completed a contract. If I pay $X monthly for a cell phone contract with a device subsidy and hold the contract past its end date without choosing to sign up for another term, why do I still have to pay the same rate I did when I was paying the device subsidy? This usurious practice should be forbidden. Once I'm done paying off my device, I shouldn't have to pay the subsidy no matter how long I stay with the carrier. So, if I pay $100 a month while paying the subsidy, the subsidy is $20 a month, and my device cost $300, then I should be free of the subsidy after 15 months and my rate should drop to $80 per month.

2. Early termination fees:

Option 2 in section D.3.3 of the proposed code is too complicated. Rather than talking about "economic incentives", which can mean anything, the CRTC should go with Option 1. Option 1 gives a simple, intuitive formula for calculating device subsidies. It would force carriers to tell us how much we're actually paying for our devices and prevent them from hiding the true costs in "economic incentives".

And let me echo the sentiments of just about everyone in Canada when I say that 3-year contracts need to go. We are desperately lagging behind the rest of the developed world in this arena. If the free market isn't giving us competitive contracts, it's reasonable to try regulating the market a little more.

Unlocked phones PLEASE.

Clearly, the people who are at the helm of CRC recognize that we North Americans are likely the last on Earth to be ripped off under the banner of locked phones. There are numerous comments in this context which clearly suggest how STUPID and HATED this concept is.

But when these same people go to work why can't they make a decision to remove this DINOSAUR concept from the Canadian wireless industry.

Thank you for getting this undergoing CRTC and let's hope something as COMMON SENSE as this can be done quickly.

UNLOCKING of Phones......

I can say THANK YOU to TELUS for allowing consumers to unlock their cell phones after 3 months.

BELL and ROGERS!!! Wait until contract is UP! After 3 years when you are willing to unlock the phone its not even worth unlocking anymore. Why Do we have to wait 3 years? We own the phone you have us under contract even if we cancel! We want to unlock to give us Freedom when we Travel and be able to use our phone where we go not be charged $10.00 per MB of data and $5.00 per minute.

3 Years MUST end!..

Name a country in this Planet that has a 3 Years Contract for their Cell phones?? Does it take 3 years to pay for the device?? Does the device actually last 3 years? average is 1-2 years you will need a new cell phone or battery for sure. So why are we locked in for 3 years for a device that wont last 3 years?

Porting and the contract!!!! We are actually signing a 37 months contract not 36 months if we plan to port out or move to another provider. Penalty of $100.00 to port our a day before the 36 months is up but we are still paying for a month of no service? whats that? So If i port day of or after the 36 months why do I have to pay for another month of no service but if I port a day early i pay a $100 penalty!

Come on CRTC, its 2013 already and we are getting tired of this fees that dont make sense!!!

I think contracts should have a 2 year limit along with the many other people but in the case this doesn't happen I think their should be mandatory phone unlocking for people who go along with the ridiculously long 3 year contract. I personally think a 3 year contract is a big thing to put your self in also in the case 3 year still exist regardless of the request I see mandatory phone unlocking is necessary at the end of the duration or such.

3 years contract MUST end now
and the expiration of any contract, a locked phone must be unlocked free of charge by the wireless provider.

The draft code looks like a great improvement over current rules. The three year contract should be eliminated. That is the only change that I would suggest still be made.

Why does the CRTC deem that contracts that allow the service provider to change the terms of service unilaterally are acceptable? If the service provider wishes to change the terms of service, then consumer should be allowed to get out of the contract. It should be that easy. This will go a long way to removing 3-year contracts, and bringing true competition to the marketplace.

It is imperative for the CRTC to address 4 CRITICAL issues from a consumer viewpoint:
1. End 3-year contracts for good. Technology changes at a rapid pace and phones are obsolete in a 3 year period. In fact, a contract is meaningless given my 2nd point below...
2. The cost of the phone subsidy and the cost of the wireless service need to be unbundled/separated and made transparent. The consumer can then choose whether to buy the phone outrigh or, get the wireless provider to subsidize it and/or what the cost will be to move to another carrier at any point they choose. If the consumer brings their own phone, they should be paying less for the wireless service since the carrier is no longer subsidizing the phone purchase.
3. Unlocking a phone that is yours at any time at a reasonable price (if not free) is a choice that the consumer should have right from the time they purchase the phone. This will enable them to use the phone overseas without being dinged with outrageous roaming charges.
4. Consumers should be able to port their existing phone number to another carrier without any limitations once they have given the required notice period of 30 days.
I think most of the comments i have read seem to be raising one or more of these critical issues that MUST be addressed in the draft code. Otherwise, the code is teethless and a waste of taxpayer dollars....

The wireless devices manufactured today are close to obsolete within a year and a half. Consumers should not have to agree to a 3 yr term. At the rate technology is advancing, 1 yr will be too long of a contract within 5-7 years. Time to set things up for the future and not the past!

Of the Options provided my preferences;
A3 - Option 1
B1 - Option 1
B2 - Option 1
D1.3 - Option 2
D2.1 - Option 2
D3.3 - Option 1
D3.4 - Option 1
D7.1 - Option 1 Further comments below;

More than 1 Billing error every year should result in a reasonable percentage decrease on the following years bill say 5%, compounding of course if it is systemic.

Any Change made to a contract of any fee, or service, or availability of services in regions disclosed prior to contract signing should annul the contract for free including any hardware subsidy remaining.

Locking of phones should be done for a reasonable fee say $50 prior to the end of the hardware being fully paid for, and after having paid in full for the Hardware for free automatically at the end of the subsidization period.

With respect to three year contracts; a contract should be based on a per - year basis, only the initial purchase price for the hardware should change depending on whether you elect for a 3 year, 2 year, or 1 year contract, the plans, and service rates should be the same regardless of the duration selected. However the up front cost to the consumer for the hardware would rise respectively for the shorter period and this should be transparent, a three year would be 1/3 the cost of a 1 year for example.

For family plans, or couples plans I do not understand why sharing a plan is not possible by simply adding a second line to the account and sharing the plan for a reasonable extra $30/month. It should not be instantly $110+ for couples plans, as this makes it cost prohibitive to be able to share a contract, it is cheaper for me and my spouse to keep separate accounts and have the exact same plan phone and service than to be on a couples plan even though we rarely use any more than 40% of our plans, this is counter intuitive!

1. In addition to the 50/80/100 percent usage notices, subscribers should be given option to have service automatically terminated for the balance of any month in which minutes are exceeded. It is this lack of control that forces many subscribers, especially parents, to opt for pay-as-you-go. These subscribers should not be penalized for wanting to place limits on their - and their child's - monthly phone bills.

2. When allotted minutes are exceeded, incremental minutes authorized by subscriber should be charged at a rate equal to, or less than, the effective lowest rate per minute available in the same month.

3. Yes, phones purchased outright must be unlocked or unlockable at time of purchase. No service provider should be able to discriminate against subscriber using unlocked phone - i.e. subscribers owning their own phones cannot be charged higher rates or fees than plans that include phones, after adjusting only for the cost of the phone itself. (This would still allow for the amortization of phones over a contract term, but would prevent service providers from using phones as a loss leader in a manner that discriminates against those who purchase their own phone outright.)

4. 'Unlimited' should mean unlimited; the CRTC should not allow the normal meaning of words such as 'unlimited' to be corrupted or exploited for marketing purposes simply by virtue of an obscure disclaimer at the time of purchase. However prominent such a disclaimer might be, it still constitutes 'bait and switch' and goes to the heart of truth in advertising.

5. The CRTC should insist on some means of authenticating coverage maps and ensuring that a standard measure of 'no-service/dropped calls' is available to the public.

6. Subscribers should be compensated (e.g. discounts) for the time spent fixing billing and other problems. Service providers know that many subscribers are often unaware of overcharges, or alternatively, choose not to spend hours on the phone every month trying to rectify them. (On pay-as-you-go plans, service providers routinely fail to renew subscriber pre-authorized options - e.g. favourite numbers - month-to-month such that the subscriber exceeds allotted minutes and service is improperly terminated. These errors are usually correctable, but it can require an investment of two hours or more on the telephone. This is unacceptable.)

7. Subscribers should be able to purchase minutes on a true pay-as-you-go basis - i.e. unused minutes should not expire arbitrarily at the end of a month. My parking card comes with no limit on when I can use my minutes; why should my phone minutes suddenly disappear if I don't use them immediately?

In regards to 3 year contracts, addressing the "effects" of three-year contracts as suggested in the comment below does not address the true problem which is the LENGTH of the contract. It is not unreasonable to expect a large corporation to adapt to a limit of 2 years, similar to other countries, including the United States. Canadians clearly do not want to be subjected to three year contracts. Technology is changing rapidly in today's world, phones simply do not last three years and become outdated quickly. Phone companies profit from this, people who wish to purchase a newer device are forced to pay fees due to the contract term & fees. It is time for the CRTC to address this issue and limit contract length to no more than 2 years.

"We felt it was more appropriate to deal with the effects of the three-year contracts such as transparency in billing and the cancellation fees rather than removing an option that many Canadians choose," Denis Carmel, a spokesman for the CRTC told the Canadian Press.

This absolutely sums it up. It's beyond ridiculous what we're forced to pay for this services and particularly when it's spotty at best! Sanctioned thievery.

I would like to know why even when giving ample notice to cancel my service, i am being charged for cancellation fees. This is on top of early contract cancellation. As per customer service rep from fido. this adds to what i pay for a full month. Activation/Cancellation fees are bogus charges, and need to be marked as such.

New code, same old anemic CRTC.

I have followed this process very closely, reading almost all of the online submissions during the initial call for feedback. Given the fact that the overwhelming number of comments decried three year contracts, I felt certain the CRTC would listen; why ask for public feedback on what is wrong with Canada's wireless industry if they were simply going to ignore it? I was wrong.

We are the only country in the world where three year contracts exist; the ONLY one. There is a reason for this, and why OFCOM (their CRTC) in the UK banned them; they (36 month contracts) are fundamentally contrary to competition and patently unfair to consumers.

In Canada, if you sign a one year contract, you can at most expect a $50 subsidy. Two years? $100 max. Three years? $500 or more! Is it not obvious that consumers' "choice" the wireless company PR machines talk about is nothing but an illusion? More and more, even these meagre one and two year contracts are becoming increasingly unavailable. Most common now is either full price outright (with no corresponding reduction in monthly fees) or be locked in for three years; well past the viability of any handsets.

This new code contains nothing that gives me hope anything will change in our wireless industry. It places no limits on contract terms; it tells providers to indicate how much of their monthly bill goes toward a phone subsidy, but if you buy your own phone outright at full price, does not force providers to give a corresponding discount on monthly fees; it waffles on unlocking handsets and leaves the cost up to wireless companies. Essentially, this codes tells wireless companies, you can still gouge and take advantage of Canadian consumers, you just have to put it in plain language.

If Rogers, Bell and TELUS got together to write the code themselves, they could hardly have come up with something more beneficial to themselves and ignorant of consumers' concerns than this worthless document. The CRTC says this is still a work in progress, let's hope the emphasis is on "progress" because none has been shown in this process so far.

Please END THREE YEAR Contracts.

This request must be one of the top three requested suggestions to the CRTC for change to the Wireless Code by Canadian citizens yet the CRTC has not even acknowledging they have heard us. Please out of common courtesy a simple response would be appreciated.

On the topic of phone UNLOCKING
Cell Phone Freedom Act Bill C-343 under the new session of parliament on November 3, 2011.

The Bill mandates that:

* consumers buying new cell phones in Canada must be informed of the existence of any SIM lock (also known as a network lock) on their phone before sale;

* wireless phone companies must unlock handsets upon request, without fee, when a consumer purchases a new phone outright (unsubsidized) without a contract;

* wireless phone companies must unlock handsets upon request, without fee, when a consumer comes to the end of their contract, or at any time thereafter.

1. Limit the duration of wireless contracts to a maximum of 2 years (24 months)
2. At the expiration of any contract, a locked phone must be unlocked free of charge by the wireless provider.
3. Unlocking a phone should not cost more than $15 CAD

1. Il faut limiter la durée d'un contrat d'une durée de maximum 2 années (24 mois)
2. Quand un contrat expire, une cellulaire qui est bloqué doit être débloqué gratuitement par la fournisseur.
3. Le débloquage d'une cellulaire ne doit pas couté plus de $15.

Draft - Not finalized !

Thanks for clearing-up this topic.

My comments:

1. Just what authority does the CRTC have in this matter? Can the CRTC actually compell commercial carriers to do something? Can the CRTC impose penalties on commercial carriers?

Hhmmm ... so, if the answers to (1) are positive, then here's what I'd like the CRTC to help with:

1. Contracts:
The basic contract should only be "month-to-month". I'd like more competition.
If a carrier wants a term contract, then limit it to one year - maximum - and based on the condition that it would receive a 10% discount compared to the monthly contract averaged to one year.

2. Proprietary device locks:
All devices should be free of locks - period. A customer should be able to have locks removed at no expense.

3. Charges for service:
Eliminate "roaming" charges. In-coming communications to a device should be free of charge.

And, I'd like fresh coffee - first thing in the morning !

Thanks for the opportunity of enabling my comments.
Regards

I have three issues with the draft code. One is that if a service provider is going to offer or advertise a service as 'unlimited' it can have NO caps. It should be unlimited use of voice or data or texts for each month. There can be no extra fees beyond its advertised flat monthly rate, period. The word "unlimited" means NO LIMITS! The second issue I have is the antiquated concept of roaming. There should be no provincial or national roaming charges. It should simply not exist within Canada in this day and age. It can only apply to usage outside of Canada. The third issue is long distance voice charges. They should only be applicable to calls made anywhere outside your province. Please make these changes to the code. Thank you.

MINIMIZE EXPIRING DISCOUNTS that don't match the updated contract term.

Another common practice that should be modified is the use of expiring discounts that do not align with a contract term.

For example, the phone company offers $60 per month + $10 for voicemail -$10 voicemail discount.
Say you sign this today for a 36 month contract. In 30 months you might renew your contract to get a new subsidized phone. The phone company often says the $10 discount will expire in 6 months (remainder of the original contract) which they may or may not be able to renew later.

This makes no sense as all discounts should be renewable to align with the updated contract term.
Why should someone expose themselves to unknown cost changes later? The alternative to decline the service (voicemail in my example) is often impractical as well.

CRTC Completely ingroned Consumer Voice (END 3 Year Contracts)
I am really disappointed by the fact that CRTC chose to ignore what most of the people asked for. Why are we even having this consultation when you are going to just ignore what most of us are asking for.
Wake up and end this consumer rip-off now. End 3 year contracts

I agree that 3 year contracts are excessive and this issue should be addressed however, I also believe that service providers are arrogant when they are allowed to provide 15 days to return phones when normal consumer rules dictate 30 days to return goods that people buy. This is highway robbery.

CRTC Completely ingroned Consumer Voice (END 3 Year Contracts)
I am really disappointed by the fact that CRTC chose to ignore what most of the people asked for. Why are we even having this consultation when you are going to just ignore what most of us are asking for.
Wake up and end this consumer rip-off now. End 3 year contracts.

Contract length is one of the main issues the CRTC needs to address. A consumer should have flexibility to choose carriers and not be locked in for 3 years. Canada should follow suit with other developed countries who do not impose ridiculous conditions. There needs to be more of an effort as a government agency to reduce the monopoly held by a few telecom companies (i.e. ownership of licensed spectrum). Companies love contracts especially when calculating profit margins in the next 2-3 year horizons, and attracting investors. By locking people in contracts the money is guaranteed but funneled to only certain businesses - going against the growth of a diverse competitive market.

Another issue to be addressed the locking of phones. A telecom company provides the service, while the smartphone is the medium in which the service can be accessed. The customer should be free to determine how to access this service and not be limited to a Rogers or Bell specific device. There needs to line drawn and regulation created to limit control in the wireless industry. Come on CRTC grow some!

This code does not go far enough.

Either there must be real competition in the marketplace, or 3-year contracts must be outlawed. The farcical assertion by the CRTC's Denis Carmel that these are "an option that many Canadians choose" is either a bald-faced lie or an example of willful self-delusion. I didn't choose a 3-year contract, I was essentially forced into it because providers make all other options economically unfeasible ($500 smartphone subsidy on 3-year contract, or $50 subsidy on 2-year contract, for example). If there was real competition, nobody would get away with such things. So give me relaxed foreign ownership restrictions, give me real competition, and then comment on the choices I do and do not make, because it would then become a reasonable assumption that I actually *have* choices beyond what colour my provider's website is. Otherwise, keep the thieves in line.

Prepaid minutes are a service that has been paid for. They are my property. They should never expire. European providers have worked under this system for a decade, and are somehow still in business. I don't call that much, and am constantly forced to pay for minutes I will never use, just in case I might need them.

Locking of phones HAS a legitimate purpose as the carrier can guarantee their services will work as they have tested that device and its software on their network. If you have ever tried to set up an unlocked device on a new network and are not very tech savvy (as most Canadians are not, really some dont even know how to find their settings) and run into trouble, it is really difficult to get support from carriers as the phone you are using is not theirs/does not have their software/their tech support has no clue how it functions.... Until Canadians stop needing to be "babied" with RE: to support from their carrier, locking the device DOES provide a good level of protection from unwanted roaming etc. that an unwary smartphone user could be suseptible to...if they dont know where their settings are, they probably don't know how to turn off data roaming... just my thought, locking serves a purpose.

The draft is good, here is my comments :

No more 3 Years contract
Better rate for people That bring their own device
Free unlock or very low cost (20$) after 30 days of service and the SAME for all providers, currently They all have different rules.

Have the CRTC completely disregarded the comments from Phase 1? Banning or taking action against 3-year contracts was indefinitely the most requested subject to be reviewed. In Phase 1, I stated that with 3 year contracts and the way today's phones are built and how quickly technology is evolving, there is a very slim chance for a consumer to be able to use a phone for 3 years.

A second issue is the locking of phones. When a consumer purchases a subsidized phone on a 3 year contract, they are locked in. Unless they choose to pay the cancellation fee, at which point the carrier would recuperate the price of the subsidized phone, they are essentially paying for the phone month to month. So why do these devices still come locked? There is already a failsafe in place for the carriers in terms of the ridiculously expensive cancellation fees. There is no need for the ability to unlock cellphones on reasonable terms, they should all come unlocked.

Lastly, I remembered that there were a number of requests in Phase 1 asking for Call Display (a basic service) to be included. It was not addressed in the draft. It is not a service that comes to any extra cost of the carrier and comes standard with the majority of plans in any other country that you can think of that has the equivalent infrastructure as Canada. I understand that the carriers still need to make money, but $7 a month is daylight robbery.

It is in plain sight that the CRTC is biased towards the major carriers. The head of the CRTC, Jean-Pierre Blais, claims that he wants to rebuild consumers' trust but how can that be possible if issues in plain sight are simply ignored? I highly advise the CRTC to take a second look at what consumers are really asking for.

Must deal with the following issues:

• Reduced contract terms from 3 years.

• Roaming Charges (both data and calling) - Bell charges $10 for an extra GB when in Canada but they charge $6/MB when roaming in the US - which is $6,000 per GB! This is insane as there is no way they are paying a US carrier that amount for the service. Every time someone has a crazy data bill the Canadian carriers reduce it to ~ 10%-20% of the original amount, so there is no way they are paying anywhere close to that rate.

• Cannot change contract terms during the contract for things like data rates which they regard as “ancillary” to the contract. Bell has changed my data rates twice in the last 18 months – if they are allowed to do this and I cancel, I should not have to pay a termination fee.

1) Ban 3-year contracts. The maximum contract length should be 2 years at most.

2) Ban all non-service charges such as the ridiculous "Gov't Regulatory Recovery Fee".

3a) Institute a maximum multiple for what carriers are allowed to charge based on their costs (i.e. if the maximum multiple is 10x and it costs a carrier $0.01 per MB for data, then the carrier cannot charge a retail customer more than $0.10 per MB for data).
3b) Require all carriers to report their carriage costs for voice/text messages/data annually to the CRTC. The CRTC could keep this information confidential for a set period of time (i.e. 5 years) but could use it internally to understand the state of Canada's wireless infrastructure and its costs, and to regulate accordingly.

4) Incoming text messages and any other incoming data that is not under the user's control should be free of charge.

5) Carriers should either be prohibited from locking phones at all or should be required to unlock phones for free once the contract term is over.

6) Require carriers to warn customers whenever they are approaching their plan limits (i.e. automated emails and/or text messages when reaching 80%, 90%, 95% plan usage)

7a) Require carriers to allow customers to disable certain services when roaming, particularly outside of the country (i.e. I should be able to disable data service or text messages when I'm outside Canada).
7b) Require carriers to cap roaming fees by default. A reasonable cap would be no more than the monthly plan fee (i.e. if my monthly plan costs $40/month then all roaming fees are capped at $40/month unless I specifically tell my carrier to exceed that cap; this way the worst case scenario for an "unexpected travel surprise" is limited to twice my budgeted monthly fee).
7c) Require carriers to disclose the minimum charge for roaming services, particularly outside of the country (i.e. saying that international data costs $0.03/KB is misleading if you don't also explain that the minimum international data "unit" is 20 KB which means that the real cost of any international data usage is at least $0.60 per transfer).

8) Require all carriers to use actual billing (i.e. to the second for voice calls, to the KB for data).

Section D4.1, Advertised prices, is a good start. However, it is not explicit enough. As is required of the airline industry, all advertised prices must be all-in — that is, inclusive of all taxes and fees, including government fees and bogus government-sounding "system access fees" and the like.

This also means the large print must show the full price — no showing one price, an asterisk, and a second price in small print elsewhere.

Please Contracts only for maximum year or two and looking for unlimited plans how states has !!

End the three year contract. This was asked for by many people in the comments yet was not writtian into the new wireless code. 3 years is too long for a wireless contract, it locks people into carriers and stifles competition.

It is outrageous for us Canadians to have to pay for :
1)Incoming txt messages (we have no control over them
2) caller ID
3) voice mail
4) long distance needs to be gone. Nation wide calling ( the states can call state to state no problem yet, once we get into new city were now in long distance?! )
5) ridiculously high prices for plans the states can offer for a third of the cost and at 2 years.

3 year contracts must be eliminated. Canada is basically the only country in the world to have them in place

1 gigabite of data should be the minimum

A clear understanding of exactly how and what we are being charged for such as paying for extra fees.

CRTC please bring Canada up to speed in the telecom market. right now we are in dead last, for a developed country being robbed of our money. Revise the code with what the majority of Canadians deserve.

Since there are only 3 major players in Canada and the all charge the same amount and all have 3 year contracts that should tell you that there is no competition just price fixing.

Like almost everyone else I would like to see the limiting of contract lengths to shorter than 3 years. Canada is about the only place in the world where this length of mobile contract is still legal.

One thing that needs to be added to the draft is that when you buy a phone with a contract it needs to be clearly stated what the subsidy is on a monthly basis of the contract, if any. Also if a contract is then extended this subsidized amount needs to be taken off the extended contract as it has already been paid for.

For example if a phone was $1000 but the carrier sold you it for $460 on a three year contract, they would be subsidizing $540 or $15/month. After the three year period is over if you extended the contract then you should be paying $15/ month less.

It is not clear what the term "Economic Incentive" means. There should be more specific definition what it includes and how it is being calulated.

I think it should be very simple, the upfront costs of the carrier such as device. There should be no economic incentive like "free in canada calling" velued at 10*36=360 for the term of contract because there are no immidiate costs to the carier at the time contract is signed.

It is not clear who this regulation applies to, is it to new customers or will the existing customers fall under this regulation?

Regulation does not introcude flexibility that consumers are asking. Contracts should be only related to device subsidy and not to the service. If consumer wants to pay off 600 phone over three years they can choose so, they should also have an option to pay upfront a portion and amortise remainder over 2 years.

I totally agree regarding the locking of phones. It does not matter whether the phone is subsidized or not, taking a subsidy means a contract tied to the phone--effectively ensuring the carriers recoup the money from the subsidy through the term of the contract. Locking the phone does nothing but limit consumer choice. If the terms of the contract are laid out with cancellation fees, leaving the contract results in consumers effectively paying the unsubsidized price of the phone. The draft Code differentiates between locking of a unsubsidized and subsidized phone. It should be proposed to take it one step further to not locking any phone at all...like many European and Asian countries.

It seems ridiculous that consumers have to pay an "unlocking fee" when a lock was put on by the carrier in the first place. Whether or not the phone is subsidized should not dictate the the fees to unlock the phone. All phones should be sold unlocked. Subsidies should be tied to the contract, not the phone.

Rogers, Bell and Telus = 1?

The main reason why the CRTC allowed new-comers to Canada was due to lack of competition in the telecommunication sector. which still exists today, without writing much to bore everyone, Please visit the websites of Rogers, Bell and Telus and compare price plans for your local city or town, which you will find that the price plans are 99 % IDENTICAL. whats the point in having a Bell or Rogers or a Telus if they just keep copying each others price plans without being creative and unique from a price plan point of view. but dont take my word for it. do the research for your self... Bell Rogers and Telus = same price plans and same 3 year terms... its like LIVING IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY - 1 size fits all (in the eyes of Bell Rogers and Telus)...

The warranty provided for the device should have to be for the length of the contract. There also need to be fines imposed for over billing...... I have never been under charged on a cell phone bill yet but I've been over charged numerous times. I should not have to watch my bill like a hawk to keep from being ripped off. Telus is a master at this practice. We also need an air way to report problems and you need to fine carriers. The. CRTC is a joke..... Fine carriers for breaking the rules or they will just keep doing it.

Unlocking a cellphone should totally be up to the user, and they must be free to unlock their phone at their whim, at any time.

Cellphone providers charge ETF's when people cancel their contracts. That should take care of recouping costs for the phones.

Canadians pay some of the highest charges for cell service, and Canadians get hosed when they use their phones abroad. Unlocking a phone is a great way to use your phone in another country without incurring high roaming charges.

Take me for example. I plan to do 100% of my business in Canada, but I would still like to have my cellphone unlocked, so that if I had an emergency and had to leave the country for any period of time, I could buy service elsewhere, and still keep my Canadian service.

If the CRTC goes ahead with rules about charging consumers to unlock their phones, and preventing users from doing it otherwise, we will be spelling the end of subsidized service, as more people will chose to buy their devices outright.

My next cellphone will certainly be bought outright, without contract.

By the way, I'm still highly skeptical of the CRTC's new consumer-centric mandate. This is the time for the CRTC to shine.

Unlocking a cellphone should totally be up to the user, and they must be free to unlock their phone at their whim, at any time.

Cellphone providers charge ETF's when people cancel their contracts. That should take care of recouping costs for the phones.

Canadians pay some of the highest charges for cell service, and Canadians get hosed when they use their phones abroad. Unlocking a phone is a great way to use your phone in another country without incurring high roaming charges.

Take me for example. I plan to do 100% of my business in Canada, but I would still like to have my cellphone unlocked, so that if I had an emergency and had to leave the country for any period of time, I could buy service elsewhere, and still keep my Canadian service.

If the CRTC goes ahead with rules about charging consumers to unlock their phones, and preventing users from doing it otherwise, we will be spelling the end of subsidized service, as more people will chose to buy their devices outright.

My next cellphone will certainly be bought outright, without contract.

By the way, I'm still highly skeptical of the CRTC's new consumer-centric mandate. This is the time for the CRTC to shine.

Respectfully, it is very disheartening to see nothing in the draft that most Canadians have great concerns about which is the 3 years contract.

With this draft, no one really believes that the CRTC would actually listen to thousands of consumer complaints about three year contracts and then to betray rich cartel of Cell Pone companies...

It seems the CRTC does not give a damn about consumers.....barely a mention in the draft proves it.

The CRTC's role to regulate and to represent the consumers and protect them equitably.

No mention of a major irritant for consumers (3 year contracts) shows your bias in wanting to protect the Cell Phone cartel's interests first.

DO NOT LET WIRELESS COMPANIES PUT A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF AIRTIME/DATA YOU CAN BUY. THEY DO NOT LET YOU HAVE UNLIMITED DATA EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO BUY IT.

No contracts of 2 or 3 years. Lower prices and better data prices.

I feel there is still much missing from the code, please add the following:

Prohibit Carrier Locked Hardware

Imagine purchasing a new car which had a device installed to prohibit the car from filling with gasoline at any other service station other than those owned by the car dealer. The car dealer will remove the device for you... for a fee.

Canadians wouldn't tolerate this, and we shouldn't tolerate such an arrangement for wireless services. Carriers sell devices (phones/tablets/etc.) which are locked to only function on their networks, and charge big fees to perform the relatively simple task of removing the lock that they had added in the first place.

I propose that the wireless code prohibit carriers from selling carrier locked devices. Consumers should be free to use their device with whatever carrier they wish.

If they travel, they would be able to purchase a limited plan from a local provider and use it on their device while away. It would allow consumers to use multiple accounts on their device to have larger reception coverage or take advantage of cheaper long distance with one carrier and cheaper data with another. It would make it easier for consumers to switch carriers, which would make the wireless marketplace much more competitive and benefit us all.

This simple inclusion in the wireless code could make the wireless marketplace drastically more competitive in a relatively short time.

Carrier Control of Devices (Tethering / Account Sharing)

Imagine you buy a new laptop to complement your desktop PC at home and want to use it on your terrestrial (wired) internet. You plug your laptop into your router next to your desktop PC but the internet doesn't work -- your internet service provider (ISP) says it will be an extra $5 per month to use your internet account on a second device.

Canadians wouldn't tolerate this with our traditional wired internet, and we shouldn't tolerate this with our wireless services. Carriers charge a monthly fee to access your wireless account from a second device (i.e. you have a data plan on your phone and you want to access it from your tablet too.) They also sometimes charge for or outright ban you from trying to share the connection directly (tethering).

I propose that the wireless code prohibit carriers from controlling what devices you access your account from. Should you purchase a new phone, tablet, or laptop with a built in data antenna, you should be able to insert your SIM card and use your wireless account without any blocking, interference, or extra charges from your carrier. Should you wish to access your account from multiple devices, an additional SIM card may be required which would understandably have a very small one-time fee, but an ongoing fee should be prohibited.

As wireless data services and multiple wireless devices (i.e. the growing tablet market) become more prevalent, it becomes increasingly important to enshrine this consumer protection into the wireless code.

Separating Service & Device Repayment in Billing

There will no doubt be many calls in this forum for changing/removing the standard 3-year contract. As long as carriers also sell their services on a monthly, contract-free basis and also their devices outright (and the wireless code should require them to do so), I don't see this as a big of a problem as many others likely do.

What I do see as a related problem is that billing for contracts doesn't clearly distinguish between the cost of services provided (minutes, data, etc.) and the cost of repayment for a device advanced to the customer (Paying back the cost of the phone I got for free when signing the contract). If these two charges were clearly separated on the bill, and the remaining money owed against an advanced device clearly linked to cancellation charges, consumers would be freer to switch carriers and be less confused about cancellation fees.

I propose that the wireless code require:

1) All wireless services offered on contract to also be offered on a contract free, month to month service.

2) All devices sold by carriers with contracts to also be sold outright.

3) Services and device repayment to be clearly separated on monthly billing, and directly linked to cancellation fees

Network Neutrality

To prevent anti-competitive behavior and ensure fair and equal internet access for all, the wireless code should require carriers to adhere to the principals of Network Neutrality (Net Neutrality) when providing data services.

This would mean each piece of data is treated equally by the carrier, regardless of source, destination, or content. This would keep carriers from giving preferential treatment to internet traffic accessing internet resources owned by them, and slowing down internet traffic to internet resources owned by competing companies.

As more and more internet usage moves to the mobile space, it is increasingly important that these principals be pursued for wireless services to ensure a free and open internet.

No Metered Billing (Usage Based Billing / UBB)

Open Media's recent "Stop the Meter" campaign showed that Canadians understand that metered or usage based billing is not a fair way to charge for internet access. It's not fair for traditional terrestrial wired internet, and it's not fair for wireless data plans.

I propose that the wireless code prohibit carriers from charging for data by usage (by the Mb/Gb, Metered Billing, Usage Based Billing)

That's just not how networks work, and Canadians know it. Carriers should be required to charge for internet access in a manner which more closely aligns with the cost of providing that service e.g. all-you-can-eat at different speeds, all-you-can-eat with peak-time based billing, etc.

As more and more internet usage moves to the mobile space, it is increasingly important that unfair usage based billing for wireless data is addressed.

End Three Year Contracts!

I'm not sure why you didn't include ending 3 year contracts in the draft. If companies in the USA are offering subsidized phones at the same price for 2 year agreements, then why are Canadians paying the same for 3 years! This has to stop. If you don't address it, the CRTC will retain it's image of having no teeth.

No more 3 YEAR contracts, everyone is calling for it, why does no one in the government ever listen, you say we are in a democracy but day, asking for our opinion is one thing but actually standing up and putting into place what the people really want is another. Stop the three year contracts, the most it should be is 2 years, look at Europe and the USA, the most they have is 2 years, if not one year contracts. It's bad enough we buy locked phones and get stuck to the carrier, but why should we pay the same contract prices and be stuck in for a year longer than the rest of the world.

What about lower rates for consumers who own their own phone? Right now, whether you own your phone and pay month-to-month or are in a fixed term contract (to offset a subsidy), you pay the same rates. There is no differentiation. Even if you finish the contract and own the phone, you still continue to pay for a subsidy that has been recovered months previously.

I hear talk about having reasonable fees to have a phone unlocked, but no mention of the fact that plans offered do not differentiate between consumers who are paying down a handset subsidy, and those who either have their own handset or have finished their contract.

In order to help consumers 'discover' prices, let's have service plans break out the following distinct elements;

1) Monthly service cost (no built in subsidy)
2) Monthly subsidy repayment (and length of contract, penalties, etc.)

After the contract is over, of course, the only payment will be for the monthly service cost, without the subsidy.

In addition to eliminating situations where 'subsidies' are recovered long after a contract is over, this will lead to more clarity for consumers regarding the true cost of monthly services.

Of course, carriers will wish to maintain the status quo as they do not want consumers to have a clear picture of prices and services. From the carriers standpoint, the more confusion created by different bundles and levels of service, the less competitive the market as consumers are following the bouncing ball of myriad combinations of services instead of being able to focus on prices and driving market efficiencies.

END THE 3 YEAR CONTRACT!

This is one of the MAJOR factors that the public is demanding. A 3 year contract is grossly unfair to the Canadian public and limits our choice as consumers. Since phones have new models every year and phones can be made exclusive to carriers it is only right and fair that consumers can take our business where we want when we want. End the 3 year contract.

There should be NO CHARGE for incoming messages, whether they are text, photo or otherwise. The owner of the phone has NO CHOICE in receiving the message and can be unfairly charged for the message. This amounts to a penalty for being spammed to the receiver.

Phones should be unlocked AT POINT OF PURCHASE. If I purchase a phone and leave Canada on vacation or business I should have the right to purchase a sim card or other ability to use a carrier separate from my home carrier. If I have purchased the phone it is MY PROPERTY and myust be unlocked AT PURCHASE.

As far as locks go, there is no legitimate reason for locks in the first place. Why focus on when they should be required to be unlocked? Better to focus prohibiting locks to begin with.

Well one thing that should change for example Fido has an app call my account they say it can only be accessed using my data not a wireless connection.I think that should also change.
At the very least if theres going to be a 3 year contract still the first 3 -6 months should be a grace/probation period to see if the consumer is going to be happy with the carrier.In the probation period the consumer can cancel without any charges.The phone will still hold value because I have purchased used phones from Bell for a reduced price.

A must in this code is limiting the duration of phone locking to the original contract length. For example, if I buy an iPhone at a discounted price because I agree to sign on to a 3-year contract, once my 3-year contract is up I have earned the right to have this phone unlocked at no charge. I can't think of a single justification for permitting the carriers to maintain a lock on my phone after I have properly satisfied the terms of my contract. Even worse, having to pay a fee to have my own device (that is 100% my property) unlocked is illogical. If there are costs incurred by the carriers to unlock phones then they should be transparent about this, but as far as I am aware there are no costs involved. I disagree somewhat with the other comments regarding restricting contract length. The consumer will always factor in all three of contract length, contract terms (price/features) and device discount when making a purchasing decision. Restricting contract length won't have the desired end result because carriers will just offer less of a discount on the device itself. Contract length, terms and device discount should be market driven. I believe one of the CRTC's key responsibilities is to ensure an appropriate level of competition amongst the carriers to allow improved products, features and pricing to emerge naturally rather then be mandated through restrictions and complicated industry rules.

Stop 3 Year Contracts!

As a former senior executive of a Telco, now working in another industry, I confirm that CRTC is toothless to prevent 3 year contracts and none of the telcos will allow this to occur.

Three year contracts are not permitted in the US, or in Europe. Without the 3 year contract, competition would develop, creating other benefits for Canadians.

I ask each of you opposed to the 3 year contract to contact each of the below CRTC commissioners and request that this issue be addressed (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/about/commissioners.htm):

Jean-Pierre Blais
Tom Pentefountas
Elizabeth A. Duncan
Timothy Denton
Peter Menzies
Suzanne Lamarre
Candice J. Molnar
Louise Poirier
Marc Patrone
John Traversy
Stephen B. Simpson

Limit contracts duration to a maximum of 2 years.

As a small populated country, canadians have paid the enormous amounts of money to telecommunications service providers to have access to subsidized equipments. Where all around the world, for the same equipment or service, customers only have to sign up for a 2 year term where here it's 3 .
If the CRTC is here to ''to serve the needs and interests of citizens, industries, interest groups and the government.'' well it's time to stop adjusting things that don't really matter to the population and start acting towards that do.

3 years. A giant rip off given to a monopolistic Government sponsored system. Shame on the CRTC for not protecting the citizens of this country.

Contract Length is the #1 issue, as per the comments here, to Canadians. It is absurd that 3 year contracts are allowed to exist in this day and age with the speed that technology is moving.

The three year contract is a blatant gouging by wireless providers to lock customers into a long term contract with a device that in many many cases will not see the full life of the 3 year contract. In doing so, they force their customers to upgrade or even get a new handset and then pay another fee for upgrading and again having to lock into a new contract.

Since there is no reasonable competition to stop this practice, and consumers are hard pressed to change this behavior in the telecom companies, it is up to the governing body to act and protect consumers from this.

1. Get rid of the 3 year contracts; 2 years should be the maximum. Follow the USA lead on this. The phones don't last 3 years as is universally known except by the CRTC and the Canadian carriers.
2. Voice & data rates in Canada are the highest in the world...rates must be brought in line with at least USA rates.
3. Carriers should not be able to add on charges such as paper bill fees or other charges once a contract is signed. I was mid-way through a 3 year contract with Telus and they started charging a $3.00 paper bill fee and I was told by Telus that's the way it is and they can change the terms of a signed contract at any time and to suck it up.
4. Independent Ombudsman office should be created to investigate and resolve disputes between carriers and customers.
5. Practice of locking cell phones should be banned.
6. Outrageous fees and roaming costs in the USA should be prohibited.
7. CRTC should make & implement substantive changes and heed the comments of Canadians in these surveys rather than simply pretend to be listening and then whitewash the whole affair.

Please scrap the THREE year contracts! Two years is already more than enough!

Hello,

I'd really like to see the following included in the Code

1. Three year terms reduced to a maximum of two year terms
2. A reduction in data and talk package prices so they are more in line with the rest of the world

Thank-you

The Commission must address the systemic issue in this country regarding 3 year service agreements. The carriers are strong holding consumers into signing 3 year agreements by not even offering a 2 or 1 year contracts, and if they do, the discount is minimal compared to the 3 year agreement ($50 compared to $400+. If you look on their websites, most of the phones don't even have an option for a 2 or 1 year contract. Carriers are abusing this industry and something must be done about it. Canada is one of, if not the only country in the world to have 3 year contracts as the only option, or as an option period. If the commission cannot address this issue, it needs to publicly state why it cannot.

I fail to see how we in a developed country still have mandatory 3-year contracts. The standard across most of the Western world is a 2-year term. I believe this is something the Canadian public wants to see changed very much. Also, our charges for data rates are among some of the highest in the world. This is also an issue considering the technology we are using for this service is the same as that used in other countries where data charges are substantially lower. I feel both of these issues need changing.

It's up to the CRTC to protect consumers and that's not happening unless 3-year contracts, high prices, and locked phones are eliminated.

1. North America is living in the stone ages in terms of wireless services charges. No other developed country in this world still have 3-year contracts for wireless outside of Canada and the US and on top of them, we are getting charged higher than almost anyone else in the world. Way to watch out for the consumers... here's a list of reasons why 3-year contracts are ridiculous:
- Most phones aren't good enough to use for 3 years. So you end up forking over a lot of money to buy your own phone or pay a huge early upgrade fee and guess what? You just renewed for 3 more years in the process.
- People's needs change, 2 years ago, 100mb might be fine, not anymore, but you are stuck on the same contract still.

2. There are lots of problem with prices, so let's split it up into two part. i) we pay way too much, ii) not everyone pays the same.
i) We have the highest wireless charges in the developed world. I get it they have lots of grounds to cover, but they also control most of the market. How about the CRTC govern the fees that can be charged based on what other countries are charging? There must be some kind of data available to CRTC as to the cost, and general profit margin wireless companies worldwide make.
ii) I have plans that are 20-30% cheaper than any advertised plan by negotiating with my wireless company. This shouldn't be necessary! How can they justify charging other customers that much more when clearly they are still profitable at the rate they are charging me. Furthermore, newer plans are getting more expensive, how can you tell me that with the advance in technology, my monthly cost will be higher than 3 years ago? Yet we don't have much choices since Robelus (Rogers, Bell, Telus) dominates the market and fixes prices with each other. Yeah...totally not suspicious...

3) Locked phones, seriously? Please don't let it become the US where it is actually illegal to unlock your device. It's YOUR device, you paid for it, you are not leasing it. Even if it is subsidized, you still bought it, how can I be restricted in the use of a device I bought? And this is not the manufacturer, it's the provider (again, Robules) because the same phones are sold worldwide without locks, except in North America where our wireless services are living in the stone ages. Devices should be sold UNLOCKED, not available to unlock thru providers, that just gives them ANOTHER ridiculous fee to charge us which is totally unreasonable. That's like buying a car but the car company "locks" you in to only fill up gas from one gas company only. Their subsidy is repaid thru the terms we signed with it. You can't have termed contracts and locked phone, it's one or neither, NOT BOTH. I got a new phone, I unlocked it myself because I have tech savvy, while those less fortunate are forced to pay $25-50 to third-parties to unlock it. Why do I need to pay extra to use something that I bought legally?
To make it worse, those that travel are faced with either a) RIDICULOUS roaming fees, or b) no cell phone while on vacation. Let me give you an example, Roger's recently announced they have a LTE roaming agreement with 3 Hong Kong for Roger's customer to roam while in Hong Kong. Guess what the rates are: "25MB for $100, and 75MB for $225". That's in CANADIAN dollars. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Do you know how much a person with an UNLOCKED phone pay in Hong Kong? You can get UNLIMITED 4G data with voice for $75 HONG KONG dollars for a MONTH (that's less than $10 CND), no contract, just buy get a pay-as-you-go sim card and put the plan on. So why did Roger's think it is okay to offer such stupidly overpriced plan? Because most phones are LOCKED, many don't know how or even that they can unlock it and the CRTC doesn't do anything about these clearly ridiculous pricing. Stop allowing the sale of locked phones and look out for consumers for once!

I am in agreement with many others who have posted in this article it is unjust to have us be forced into three year contracts by telecoms just so we can afford a phone. This is one of the major problems with the industry and needs to be repaired as soon as possible. Plans should be more well rounded with there prices and what they include for them data should be included in every plan starting from a minimum of 500mb.

I fail to understand allowing companies to compel three year contracts. There is no justification for this whatsoever. A range of options must be available.

end 3 year contracts. everyone is being ripped off. Also, bring down costs on data usage. minimum shiuld be 1gb

VERY Disappointed

The CRTC has completely ignored the main issue that Canadian consumers are upset about, CONTRACT LENGTH!!! The rest of the code is just fluff. 3 yr contracts are ridiculous. Canadians pay exactly the same price or more for a phone as consumers in the US do, but the American consumer gets the phone on a 2 yr contract with lower monthly costs and the Canadian consumer is locked in for 3 yrs with higher monthly costs. It's nothing more than robbery by the big 3 telecoms companies.

The fact that this "Draft Code" doesn't even address the two key issues, contract length and high monthly costs for service compared to the US market, is a COMPLETE FAILURE ON THE PART OF CRTC TO PROTECT CANADIAN CONSUMERS.

The whole "economic incentive " strategy seems unnecessarily confusing. Why not require the carriers to unbundle the wireless service from the purchase of the handset? Let the carriers offer monthly payment plans for the handset if they want (e.g. $200 down and $47 per month for 24 months), but require all service plans to be priced without the hidden subsidies. Canadians already buy things like furniture with payments and they understand the process.
This would improve competition and also mean that customers who are bringing their own phone to a carrier would not be forced to pay off a subsidy that they did not receive.

Please end 3 year contracts. Do you really think it is a reasonable contract period?

Did anyone at CRTC read the submissions the first time?

I recall there were many comments regarding contract lengths being unfairly onerous and that locking of phones serves no legitimate purpose. In fact I think those two topics probably outnumber all the other concerns. Yet there is almost no mention of them. The best I could find were provisions for unlocking of phones after 30, yet there was no stipulation to prevent unreasonable unlock fees (or qualifying what reasonable would be).

Since locking of phones serves no legitimate purpose at all, yet carriers seem addicted to the concept, then as our national regulator, the CRTC needs to ensure we are protected from such an abuse. Regardless of receiving a discount, can anyone think of a legitimate reason to lock a phone? No. The best excuse is usually "well, you received a discount". That is irrelevant, since the carrier received a long term contract in exchange for that contract. A lock doesn't nothing to ensure that contract. Since there is no legitimate purpose and since it encroaches on a consumers right to free trade, this practice should already be illegal. Please CRTC, listen to Canadians and do the right thing here. Forbid locking of phones under ANY circumstance.

Request that cell phone companies should be prohibited from collecting personal information from users.
I have an account with Rogers that demands that I supply a birth date.
I do not think that my age is any of the vendor's business.
A few years ago they were also demanding a SIN number which is also none of their business.
---
The provision of network devices and network services should be severed. I should be able to take my device and migrate to a different service provider. Normally this is nothing more than a SIM card change.
As a consumer I should also have the option of purchasing a device from a 3rd party and then contracting for network service from a cell provider. Such a change would increase competition and result in lower prices for both handsets and for network service. If network providers have concerns with regard to the quality of devices connecting to their networks I believe such demand should be viewed with caution as it smacks of the old Bell Telco practice of mandating that only Bell devices could connect to the Bell PSTN. That demand was altered and there was a great increase in the range of devices, the cost of devices, and the capabilties of devices, and the PSTN did not go down.
Agree with the provision to force providers to permit device unlocking.
---
Glad to see CRTC requesting public feedback!

It's disappointing to see that the most important and talked about issue amongst Canadians was entirely glossed over. Three year contracts are not acceptable.

my only comments to this change! is a s follows.
1. no contract length.
2. carriers can not sell phones.
3. over inflatted prices on phones, to not be on a contract is "blackmail". noway a phone is worth more than a new computer or tablet that is 5 times as big!
4. MORE CARRIERS!!!!!!!! AND THEY HaVE TO BE ABLE TO SET UP IN EVERY MAJOR CITY TO START!

5. pay for this pay for that! NOWAY! one fee gets you all!phone,text, data its all on one device! 1. $25 province wide! 2. $45 canadawide
3. $65northamerican wide 4. $100trade partners wide! 5. $150worldwide (maybe a data fee, but 2gig minimium for all contracts!)

While we are talking carriers and providors. how about cable tv / phone / internet / wireless. for sure the one cable coming to my house is used for all the services! Not to mention that they can all conect now to wireless services just fine. Has anyone thought to ask why when we use one cable we pay three times for 3 things that all use the same infastructure! we have paid for the maintenance, wages (fat ones to for people like MR. ROGERS!) Our telecommunications network has beennpaid for well into the future and it is about time that we get on with it and make sure that we are the best and not the most expensive to use!

Keep canadians down is all our high cost user fees are doing! THIS INCLUDES EVERYTHING THAT CHARGES USER FEES, ACCESS FEES, you name we pay for it! My monie not theirs and the rules of getting my monie have to be bothways not just the way that make banks fat or companies get more to give to ceo that gamble it away in the stole market!

my 2 cents, might be sloppy but my point is the best one! call me I am happy to make laws that work for the people, and just when the shit hits the fan! NO bail outs just proper management of all companies smal big or government run. FAIR IS FAIR!

NO to 3-year contracts
I'm really disappointed to see that the most topic that Canadians want (no more 3 year contracts) are fully ignored. It's like asking us to comment and help you with the code was just a diplomatic move to seems fair. But then totally ignored our comments.
If you do not address the 3 years contract issue you will countinue to make Canada the winner of the worst telecommunication system in the western world.
We still have faith in you to do what's right for us. Thank you.

This code does not go nearly far enough. What about the 3 year contracts? These are unconscionable and should be outlawed. Get with it, CRTC! Stop being fanboys for the telecoms and start protecting consumers!

The final version of the 'code' must include term limits on contracts. Three years is an exceedingly long period of time for a consumer to tied-down to a plan. Given that most hardware has a useable shelf-life of two years, contracts should also be two years in length. Moreover, this will encourage competition, since service providers will be forced to provide better plans, or risk losing the consumer to a rival after 2 years.

3 year contracts are simply ridiculous. Renewals made without express permission of the customer, this 'we'll renew you if you fail to contact us within 30 days of contract expiry' is simply ridiculous. Call me, present me with some form of electronic contract and assume I'll not be renewing unless I instruct you otherwise. Put the responsibility back on the telecom company.
I do like the idea of no expiry dates on pre-purchased minutes. The US has allowed 'banking' of minutes in perpetuity for a few years now. About time. It's analogous to gift cards that expire, a practice which is now being phased out. Why would the funds I apply to my prepaid plan disappear after 30 days? It's free money for the telecom company. We already pay a base fee just to have a plan so why can't we bank minutes? Again, it's just morally wrong.

3 years Contract should be removed!

Ill keep it simple.

Remove the 2 and 3 year contracts it should be illegal!
Locked phones sold from the carrier should also be illegal! They should be sold unlocked.
Offer Unlimited Nationwide talk, text and data plans for a reasonable cost!
No more ridiculous roaming fees while in the USA!

Please END 3 year contracts -- WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT CONTINUES TO DO THIS. 2 years is much more reasonable. Please act responsibly and alter this.

Please add contract lengths to this as well. Cell phones don't last more then 2 years ever and carriers no this so they make you sign a 3 year contract. When your phone breaks you can buy out your contract for typically $150-$200 at this point or sign up for ANOTHER 3 year term on THERE TERMS and then they'll give you a discounted price on a new cell phone. Just doesn't make sense! Either this or we as consumers should have a mandatory OUT on the anniversary date by paying maybe a small fee after the second year! Also incoming text messages should not be charged. This makes no sense since I have no control over incoming text messages! A marketer or someone simply that doesnt get along with me can send me 50 spam messages and I have to pay for the messages!

How is it possible that a wireless code not include provisions to protect consumers from (a) obscenely long contracts and (B) locking of phones which amounts to restraint of trade?

a) Wireless contracts in Canada are the longest in the world, yet our rates are also the highest in the world. Are our carriers so incompetent that they need to be allowed to double dip in their world-leading anti-consumer practices? There is no reasonable excuse for them to be allowed to abuse their hegemony in such an overtly gouging manner. Please include provisions to limit the length of contracts to a reasonable, yet still long, 2 year term.

b) Locking of phones is effectively the carrier introducing an intentional defect into the product that ONLY serves to prevent a consumer from exercising their right to use their own property to do business with companies of their choosing. Yes, the customer might have received a discount in exchange for taking a long term contract. But locking of the phone does nothing to ensure or guarantee the customer (or carrier) will honour the terms of the contract. The contract itself and the terms regarding cancelation fees are in place to ensure that. Whether the phone is locked or not, the customer may or may not stay for the duration of the contract. What a lock does achieve is to prevent that customer, while remaining in contract or not, from using their phone on another carrier. It forces them to pay roaming fees to use their phones off of the primary carriers network. Forcing a customer into a position like that and preventing them from choosing to use their phones as they choose with whom they choose is by definition an intentional restriction on trade. Please add provision to stop this activity which seemingly should already be illegal.

I am very disappointed to see there is no limit on 3 year contracts. No other country in the western world has 3 year contracts and it's ridiculous that Canada does. Especially since phones only come with a one year warranty. Please add into the wireless code that the max length of a contract should be 2 years. Thank you.

I received a bill from my cell phone provider informing me that I went over my data usage by $100 which amounted to about 2 GB, which is about 4 times higher than my monthly average of 500MB, but when I called to inquire what put me so far over, the company refused to give me any information but said I still have to pay it. If $100 disappeared from my bank account, my bank would at least let me know what happened so I can investigate it, but how can I dispute a charge if the company wont tell me what happened? How do I know I wont go over next month by another $100? How do I know my telecom provider isn't trying to bully me into taking a more expensive contract?

There needs to be more transparency from telecom providers as to what is causing certain charges, because without it, telecom providers can continuously charge customers for exceeding their plan usage and not have to tell their customers why.

I cannot believe there is no regulation concerning contract length! A 3-year contract is not allowed in much of the Western world, and when devices often do not last 3 years, it is completely inappropriate to allow them. 2-year contracts should be the maximum. This regulation is the most important legislation needed to protect consumers from the big players in the mobile telecom industry.

In addition, there is no option not to sign a 3-year contract when it comes to most, if not all smartphones, even if one chooses to purchase their own device without any sort of subsidy. Simply put: three year contracts trap consumers and do absolutely nothing to benefit them.

I'm as well disappointed that the CRTC has not addressed the issue of contract lengths. When devices have 1 yr warranties on 3 year contracts, it creates a situation where consumers find themselves locked to carriers indefinitely. If my device fails out of warranty, the carrier will hook me into a further 3 yrs by offering some incentive in the way of a device discount. Or when I am 30 months in on a 36 month contract they will offer an upgrade again to lock me in for another 36 months. Considering that some 'Superphones' can not even be placed on anything but a 3 yr term (Iphone for example). This is an issue that needs to be addressed

Received text messages should be free by default. I can decide to not receive a call, but I can't control incoming text messages.

I am disappointed to see that the Draft Wireless Code does not contain any regulation pertaining to contract length. I believe this is one of the largest issues that plague the Canadian mobile telecom industry and was brought up by many in Phase 1. The "3 year standard" is ridiculous and costs Canadians hundreds of dollars in the event a device is damaged. Insurance for accidental damage is sky high with large deductibles. Three years is a long time in the current technology industry and only providing Canadians with this option is unjust. We should follow in the footsteps of many other countries and limit these contracts to two years maximum. I believe this issue should be the most fundamental policy implemented by this code.

I am writing with regards to D5.1 Notification of Additional fees. Rather than pay for expensive cell phone talk time, we purchased an unlimted texting contract for our son. Texting is the method our son and his friends use to communicate so this worked out well for several months. Then one day just before our cell phone statement was to arrive, I received a phone call from our provider saying "we're going to have to do something about your bill." I couldn't understand why there was a problem until they told me my bill was over $1000. Flabbergasted, I asked them why it was that high and they told me the texting cost was over $900. I asked by son about this, he said he had just texted his friends the same as always. So I called our Cell Phone provider and they advised me my son had been texting to the United States. I asked my son and he said, yes his friend had moved to the US and they had been texting back and forth for the better part of a month. My son was not aware that his unlimited texting was for use IN CANADA only. I called my cell phone provider and asked them why, when my son (their consumer) began using a service or feature that was not included in his wireless service plan, they di not advise him of the cost of continuing such usage. They said they weren't required to do so. I would like to know if there is an existing regulation where this notification is required and what the regulation would be. Also when I purchased the texting contract, I was not advised of any additional costs that could occur when texting (other than what they quoted me).

The following are my opinions concerning the drafting of the code:

A3: option 1

A6: terms of contract, specific to each individual consumers service, must also be available via a web portal

B1: option 2

B2: option 1

C3: make these contact portals and numbers available directly from a providers own portals and/or contact services (as a last resort option only if a consumer complaint has been filed with the provider: ie, via a case/reference number)

D1.3: option 2

A SITE MAP, WITH CLEARLY LABELED (ALPHABETICAL?) ONE-CLICK ACCESS TO ALL IMPORTANT LINKS WITHIN A PROVIDERS ONLINE PORTAL

D2.1: option 2

D3.1: option 2

D3.3: option 2

D3.4: option 2

D5.1: at the text message indicating 80% of usage, ALSO indicate costs of continued usage beyond 100%
AND- where technology permits, the notification warning of roaming will be sent BEFORE connecting to a foreign provider

D7.1: option 2

D10.1: option 1

Thank you for this opportunity!

Some service providers have language in their contracts that allow them to listen or record your calls if it is important for their network performance. This should never happen without your prior consent and only on calls when they are taking to someone in a service provider's call centre.

International roaming charges are very high with Canadian service providers and although they receive a text message to confirm the rates, we have heard of consumers who have spent $10s before finding out how much it costs to roam. On a iPhone one also has to turn the wireless network on before you can turn off data roaming. Customers should be given a grace period or grace amount of free data allowing them the time to find out the charges and turn off their data roaming. They should not be charged for incoming text messages beyond the normal home based incoming charge.

D10: A disconnected customer must be able to retain their number, allowing them to re-connect their service or port to another service provider within 3 months of disconnection. Customers should only be disconnected when the consumer call centre is still open for another 3 hours allowing them to resolve the problem and be reconnected before close of play that day. Errors should be reconnected within the same day if the subscriber complains with more than one hour before the closing time of call centres.

Call centre opening hours and numbers should be clearly communicated on the disconnection notice.

D8.1: For customers who have lost or had their phone stolen, they should be able to buy the same (not any) device at the carrier's cost plus a small handling fee.

D7.1 I think a device should only be unlocked when a customer has paid 25% of the subsidy. They should be allowed to pay this in advance and get it unlocked for international use immediately.

D7.1 Many consumers sell used unlocked devices. New buyers frequently call the previous owner's carrier to confirm if the device is unlocked. The service provider should give a straight answer if they know the answer. i.e. if they have unlocked the device, they should give this information to a potential new purchaser.

D6.2 If a temporary device supplied by the service provider is not easily capable of the same features, the charges of those features should be suspended. For example if an old android phone is provided for 6 weeks while an iPhone is repaired, and the user does not set up their email, cannot use the browser and visual voicemail is not available, the charges for data and visual voicemail should be suspended.

D6.1: The service provider should provide a limited warranty for the period after the expiration of the manufacturer's warranty until the end of the signed contract. While this should not cover all situations, devices that have been cared for should be working until end of the contract period at no additional cost to the consumer. It does not seem fair to be locked into a contract when the associated device no longer works, through no fault of the customer.

D4.3 If fair use policies include absolute thresholds these must be included in the far use policy. If the fair use policy has calculations the appropriate current thresholds should be included. i.e. If the fair use policy is that it is unlimited as long as you do not use more than double the average usage, it must state what the current average usage is at the time of the contract. If there are no current numbers available (which is the case for new rate plans as there would be no customers on them), an estimate should be provided. i.e. We expect that the average user will use 600 minutes on this rate plan.

D3.3: Option 1. There is no economic benefit in an LTO (limited time offer), unless you compare it with alternatives. Customers should never have to pay more than the handset subsidy. Handset subsidy should really be calculated off the carrier's cost of the device, including discounts, not the inflated retail price. i.e. TELUS buys a blackberry for $200, retails it for $400 and gives it away for $0 on a 2 years contract. Then the total subsidy is $200, not $400. Or $8.33 per month. If the customer cancels two months early, they should have to pay $16.66. The $8.33 should be broken out in the contract.

PREPAID CREDIT BALANCES
A few comments on specific sections of the draft code. With respect to prepaid, operators have suggested that they MUST have an expiry, and have purchasers LOSE any unused credits, or there will be a proliferation of unused phone numbers. These statements are self-serving and misleading. There are plenty of examples in almost all EU countries of a practical approach for carriers that protects consumers.

Simply put, phone numbers issued for prepaid service should have a reasonable duration. A one-year minimum would suffice, although some carriers offer longer periods. Any credit balance is maintained for that length of time. The ONE-YEAR EXPIRY IS EXTENDED WHENEVER CREDIT IS ADDED TO THE ACCOUNT (Phone number). ANY PREVIOUS CREDIT IS CARRIED FORWARD each time credit is added.

This approach will ensure that phone numbers continue to be used, while expiring unused phone numbers. It also ensures that consumer credit balances are not simply APPROPRIATED BY THE CARRIERS -- the outrageous current approach. I would note that I have had the SAME Italian cellular number via a prepaid service in Italy for the last 14 years. Consumers wish to have CONTINUITY in their phone numbers! But the current unacceptable approach by carriers in Canada is simply designed to provide unjustified windfall profits to carriers.

D1.3
Adopt OPTION 2. But modify language to indicate that credits (and phone number) expire unless the consumer purchase additional credit before a specified expiry time.

CONTRACT TERMINATION FEES
As has been stated ad nauseum by all hearing participants except for the carriers and CWTA, the contract for handset/device loans should be SEPARATE from wireless services contract. Thus the "termination fee" for the device contract is simply the remaining balance owed on the device. However, carriers may still wish to offer incentives to enter into longer term service contract. If so, there could still be an early contract termination fee for a services contract. Such a fee should be reasonable, based on any "discount" that the carrier provided in its monthly services charges. Thus:

D3.3 Option 1
Modify to indicate that a termination cost for the device contract be the remaining unpaid balance for the device. ADD wording to indicate that a reasonable termination fee can be applied to the wireless services contract, based on a services charge discount provided under the services contract.

D4.3
UNLIMITED plans should be UNLIMITED period. Forbid the use of the term "unlimited" if in fact there are limits to usage or speed of the service.

D7.1
Option 1. Consumers should be able to have the phone unlocked within 30 days, if they pay the balance owing for the device/handset, under the device contract. However, the Commission should consider FORBIDDING phone locking, in the absence of a compelling rationale by the carriers for locking. They have provided no such rationale. Phone locking is simply an anti-competitive measure designed to "imprison" the consumer with the existing provider. Locking also renders the device worthless in the secondary market if the consumer wishes to upgrade their handset.

PLEASE ENSURE A FAIR AND COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE FOR CONSUMERS!

D2.1: Option 1. Adding another 30 days to a postpaid contract is a cheap trick, especially since all carrier bill for the month in advance.

D1.2: The amount that the device is subsidized per month should be broken out. Any subscriber that either pays in full or brings their own unlocked device, should be able to get the same rate plan without paying for the handset subsidy. For example: Total monthly minimum = $60.00, monthly handset subsidy = $15.00 therefor a subscriber with their own device would only have to pay $45.00 for the exact same rate plan.

Calls to 811, the health information line (and other 3 digit access numbers?, 511, 311 etc), should be treated as local calls as they are when using a fixed phone. This not the case now.
Or, if the 811 call would not be local, the caller is advised of the charges before deciding to proceed with the call.
D5.1
Good if it is applied properly. For example it must apply to the following situation:
- prepaid card offering "unlimited" local calls for specified periods (eg 18h to 8h and weekends)
- the caller is advised of the charges for any call that is not local (including 811 calls) before deciding to proceed with the call.

There should be a cap on early cancellation on contracts. It is terrible how much they can charge if you are not happy with the cell provider.

D5.2
TOOLS TO MONITOR AND MANAGE USAGE

This section is perfect and essential!

D2. Changes to contracts by service providers

I fully support option 1, as option 2 is too non-specific in terms of what the consumer considers more obligations/what the provider thinks, etc. Not all 'positive' changes a provider makes in the contract are necessarily positive for every customer. I fear that, if option 2 were to be implemented, this clause would simply become a generality and create loopholes in the code.

If you were to implement option 1, please make it more specific (ie. a provider must send written notice of contract change 30 days in advance).

Thanks!

D2. Changes to contracts by service providers

I fully support option 1, as option 2 is too non-specific in terms of what the consumer considers more obligations/what the provider thinks, etc. Not all 'positive' changes a provider makes in the contract are necessarily positive for every customer. I fear that, if option 2 were to be implemented, this clause would simply become a generality and create loopholes in the code.

If you were to implement option 1, please make it more specific (ie. a provider must send written notice of contract change 30 days in advance).

Thanks!

Cooling Off Period
I would like to see the cooling off period be extended to include time to review my first bill. Promotions and discounts are always promised while you are standing in the store but never show up the way they have been presented. Any promotion needs to be applied on the first monthly invoice, not within 3 months. With the current 15 days or 30 minutes of talk time cooling off period the service provider does not give you a fair chance to evaluate the billing aspect, it should be 15 days from the date of billing. Everything is fine in the first 30 days, it is when you get surprises on your bill that makes me mad.

re: D1.3 PRE-PAID SERVICES...My vote is overwhelmingly in support of Option 2. Many people seem to agree here that there should be NO expiry date on pre-paid credits/balances. Forcing people to refill their phone when they don't need to is nothing more than a cash grab. As an infrequent cellphone user I have accumulated hundreds of dollars in airtime over the years. Despite having this huge airtime balance, I have to keep purchasing MORE airtime every 30 days or I lose everything. This policy makes no sense for consumers and needs to end.

I would like to comment on the privacy policy. There have been past reports that big phone brands and service providers (not necessarily in Canada) have monitored and collected private data from users without their permissions. An example are apps on the cellphone that record key presses collecting usage statistics but also collecting (intentionally or unintentionally) credit card numbers and passwords.

I think there should be:

1. an option to opt out and

2. full disclosure on the part of the information collector as to what is being collected and for what including but not limited to what damages can result from this collection.

Privacy is a big thing in this time and age, especially with information being sensitive.

I would like to comment on section D7.1 Unlocking Phones.

Allowing companies to lock phones in the first place seems unreasonable. It eliminates your options to change carriers by creating the financial burden of having to purchase a new phone. The carriers claim this is necessary to recover the costs of subsidizing the phones, however these subsidies are artificial. They take a $100 device, mark it up to $300 then sell it subsidized for $100 if you sign a 2 year contract. They get to lock a customer into a contract at no cost to themselves.

Allowing carriers to set a rate to provide unlocking is just granting them another avenue to abuse their customers. To cancel a contract and change carrier not only do they get to make you pay out the artificially inflated cost of the phone, but they now can also charge you a ridiculous fee to unlock the phone.

Canadians are being absolutely raped by carriers. It needs to stop.

Locking should be prohibited.

Excellent comment, very well articulated, and I agree 100%.

In addition to simply banning locked phones, (which would save the industry a great deal of overhead,) and requiring the unlocking of existing phones at no charge, another condition is needed.

To enable Canadian consumers to be able to switch between providers, to create a properly competitive marketplace, these 3 changes are required:

1. Termination at any time and fair termination "fees" (repayment of the remaining deferred cost of the phone, the so-called and misnamed "subsidy".) The Wireless Code draft does have this in section D3.1 and D3.3.

2. Unlocked phones. The Wireless Code section D7.1 should be changed to option 3: Providers may not have locked phones and must unlock a customer's phone upon request at any time and at no charge.

3. Providers must provide service to a customer on a compatible phone purchased elsewhere at the same terms as offered to customers on a phone purchased from the provider minus the "Amount applied toward subsidy each month".

Not having 2 and 3 in the Code as well as 1 defeats the whole purpose of 1: You may be allowed to end a contract at any time, and only have to pay off the remaining deferred cost of the phone, but if your phone is locked to the provider you're still essentially stuck, until you go to the trouble and expense of unlocking the phone.

You may be allowed to end a contract at any time, and only have to pay off the remaining deferred cost of the phone, and your phone may be unlocked, but if the only other provider compatible with your phone refuses to provide you service because you didn't buy the phone from them, then you're still essentially stuck.

The Wireless Code needs to provide all 3 conditions.

By the way, number portability is also a condition. I did not mention it above because we already have it, but shouldn’t the Wireless Code include mandating number portability to be complete? In fact, perhaps the Code could further limit the amount of time taken to port a number when changing providers.

As noted above, there should be no requirement to add more time to an account every month and the time should not expire.

I think 'discount' is the wrong way to look at it. In fact, 'rebate' and 'subsidy' (used in the Code) are also the wrong words. There is no real subsidy, just an installment payment plan.

Either way, you are paying the full cost of the phone. It's just that depending on the contract length you are paying a different amount upfront followed by monthly installment payments. An example can be seen here: http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/1699#comment-1699

The CRTC/CCTS should seriously consider finding another word than 'subsidy' in the Wireless Code. Perhaps it should be called "Deferred cost" or "Installments total"?

Perhaps the word "contract" should be changed as well because the word automatically makes so many people think they are locked in for the full length of the contract. (As can be seen in all the comments and likes to ban 3-year "contracts".) It really speaks to just how much we have been conditioned after all these years of the CRTC catering to the big phone companies. So the term "contract" in the Code should perhaps be changed to "installment agreement" or "installment plan" or "payment plan" or "service plan" or "payment schedule"? Maybe someone can come up with other good suggestions. Either way, the CRTC/CCTS should also mandate that providers must make it absolutely clear to the public that these payment schedules can be exited at any time. The new Wireless Code will only be effective if consumers are properly educated about it.

That would be a vote for option 1 in D2.1Changes to contracts by service providers

Option 1:The consumer has the right to cancel the contract without penalty if the service provider amends the contract.

(Option 2 requires the consumer to send "the service provider written notice to that effect no later than 30 days after the change comes into force.")

The Wireless Code so far seems to be a step in the right direction for Canadian consumers. Here is some feedback:

A4. "The Wireless Code is to be interpreted in favour of the consumer and must not be interpreted in a way that prevents a consumer from benefiting from any other federal or provincial law or regulation which is more favourable to the consumer. [Note: This presumes that the Wireless Code will co-exist with provincial consumer legislation.]"

Very good.

A6. should also include modification arrangements negotiated over the phone.

B1. should be Option 2: Sections of the Code should go into force as early as possible, with all of it in force by within 6 months.

B2. should be Option 1: The Code applies to all contracts, new and existing.

C1. should mandate the CCTS and CRTC to protect consumers. The word 'systemic' should be removed.

C2. allowing the CCTS to order monetary compensation of up to $5,000 or specific actions from a service provider is good.

D1.1 The reading length of contracts and policies should be limited so that the average consumer can read them completely within, say, 10 minutes.

D1.2 should explicitly state that the amount of device subsidy that is paid off each month is to be calculated as subsidy / number of months in the contract.

D1.3 should be Option 2: no expiration of pre-paid credits.

D2.1 should definitely be Option 1: The consumer has the right to cancel the contract without penalty if the service provider amends the contract.

D3.3 Excellent. Option 1 is more concise and straightforward. However, the word 'before' should be changed to 'when' to avoid phone company games. As with D1.2, it should perhaps be explicitly stated that the "Amount applied toward subsidy each month" is to be calculated as subsidy / number of months in the contract.

D3.4 should be Option 2 (no automatic renewal of contracts.)

D4.2 good (Bell charged me for services I did not purchase, then claimed they could not refund me because it was a third-party service. This should end such practices.)

D7.1 should be Option 3: phones should simply never be locked. Given that the consumer must pay off any remaining subsidy on the phone the moment they end their contract, the phone should be considered fully paid for from day 1 and should therefore not be locked. What is the cost overhead to providers of locking and unlocking phones? Would they not save millions by doing away with this locking/unlocking?

D8.1 part '(2) applicable early termination fees' should not apply if the services are suspended when a phone is missing. They should only apply when the consumer has decided there is no hope of recovery and gives actual notice of early termination.

F1. The CCTS annual reports should rate the different service providers for their compliance. The service providers will not want to come in last place. The reports should also detail the monetary penalties levied by the CCTS, in total and to each provider.

Some things that are still missing from the Wireless Code:

- Per-second billing should be mandated across the board. There is no valid reason for per minute billing. By having all providers on per-second billing, consumers will be far better able to compare plans. (A spreadsheet analysis of my own usage showed that per-minute billing amounted to 22% more minutes charged than per-second billing for the exact same calls.)

- If per-second billing is unfortunately not mandated, the contract should clearly specify whether billing is per second or per minute.

- The top of each monthly bill should clearly inform the consumer that they can terminate their contract at any time and show the amount they would have to pay to do so. Using the examples above, a bill might state: "To terminate this 3-year contract at this time, there are no cancellation fees, but the phone rebate you have remaining to pay is now $200." Or, in the example where there was no phone rebate, it might say "To terminate this 3-year contract at this time, your cancellation fee is now $36." A properly informed consumer increases competition in the marketplace.

- Consumers should be allowed to choose between 1, 2, and 3-year contract lengths, or to subscribe to a service without any contract. Service providers should not be allowed to refuse to sell a phone at full price without a contract.

- The Code presently does not mandate the different contract lengths that providers should offer. I feel they should be mandated to at least off 1-year, 2-year, *and* 3-year contracts. My line of reasoning for requiring the option of 3-year contracts is outlined in this linked comment: http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/1699#comment-1699

- The costs of text messages are ridiculous and should be regulated. Why should it cost $0.15 or $0.20 to send a text message, and the same amount again to receive one, when such a small number of bytes are being transmitted and received? According to a recent CNN news article: "The actual cost to carriers for sending a text message is about 0.03 cents." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/tech/mobile/sms-text-message-20) What Canadian consumers are being charged for text messages, relative to what it actually costs the cell phone companies, should be properly scrutinized and regulated.

- The cost of caller ID is ridiculous and should be regulated. Caller ID is an even tinier number of bytes than text messages, yet consumers are typically charged a completely-disproportional $5 per month for this. The actual cost to provide caller ID is probably so small that the CRTC should quite simply regulate it to being free.

- Voice and data rates should be advertised and charged independently of the phone rebate repayments. A consumer subscribing without having received a phone rebate should pay less per month in total than a consumer subscribing with a phone rebate that they are repaying. Why should a consumer that paid full price on a phone (for example, $700,) still have to pay the same amount per month as someone that received a phone rebate and only paid a fraction of the phone cost (for example, $100)? Furthermore, why should a consumer that has completely paid off the subsidy of their phone still have to continue to pay the same monthly amount as before? This makes no sense at all, and the sole purpose of this is to drive consumers towards anti-competitive multi-year contracts.

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by Rogers and Bell are particularly aggressive. Unlike most of their wholesale competitors, Rogers and Bell seek to convert caps into a profit by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap.

In addition, the CRTC needs to study the impact of such practices and whether or not they produce an incentive for Bell and Rogers to avoid raising their caps even as its own capacity expands and cost of delivery decreases.

Capping the "max overage" or adding "bill shock" protection for mobile consumers is good first step but I would urge the CRTC to further investigate these “flex rate plans” and “data caps” to evaluate their impact on Bell and Rogers competitors and the public interest.

The following questions need to be asked of the ISP’s

• Which ISP-offered services are excluded from the cap
This should include reporting on those services, such as voice telephony and video programming, which compete with internet-delivered non-ISP controlled offerings.

Why for example is Bell Mobile TV Addon data, excluded from end-users mobile data plans while Netflix’s is not?

• How often the cap is enforced
This should include the absolute number of customers who exceed the cap as well as the percentage of customers who run afoul of the limit. Additionally, it should include amount by which the customers exceeded the cap and how many of those customers are repeat cap exceeders.

• Steps taken to warn customers
This should include the steps taken to warn customers, and when those steps are taken. Additionally, the reporting should include data on the effectiveness of these warnings in preventing overages.

• Average penalty incurred by customers
Caps charge additional fees based on how significantly the cap is exceeded. Reporting should include data on the size of the penalties incurred by customers.

• When and how often a penalty is waived
In addition to the publicly announced grace periods, the public would be well served by understanding how often and under what circumstances reporting ISPs grant additional waivers.

• The relationship of enforcement to times of network congestion.
If used properly, theoretically data caps can be a tool in easing network congestion. However, instead of restricting caps to peak times, ISPs have begun to employ blanket caps on a per month basis and charge overage fees.

This has led to the widespread belief that ISPs are using data caps and usage based billing as a pretext to protect legacy services such as cable television and satellite TV from online competition like Netflix.

The CRTC needs to investigate the effectiveness of the current caps on reducing network congestion and if such caps are anti-competitive.

• How data caps are set
What criteria are used to arrive at the cap for various offerings? What criteria are used to determine appropriate overage fees?

This is probably the most important issue for consumers as the link between what the experts theorize the cost of delivery being and what consumers are actually getting charged is quite large.

• How data caps are evaluated on an ongoing basis
Data caps are often defended as necessary to address current network congestion issues. However, network technology is constantly being modernized and made more efficient, resulting in a lower cost of delivery.

Conversely, data usage among consumers has been on the increase. For example, a study commissioned by Cisco systems maintains that the average household worldwide used 26.2 GB of data per month in 2011, and by 2016, more than 84 GB a month will be consumed by an average family.

In light of this pattern, caps that are appropriate for today’s network (in terms of cost and effectiveness) may be inappropriate in the future. How do ISPs evaluate their existing caps, and what are the conditions under which caps are either raised and/or eliminated?

Canadians pay too much for wireless service. We pay too much for regular plans, for contract cancellation, for long distance, for roaming and more. I would not be surprised to find out that the prices advertised and charged for our phones are inflated as well. There seems to be "country pricing" going on in Canada's wireless industry just as there is in the automotive and publishing industries.

Usurious prices have not been addressed in the CRTC draft. Consumers need to be protected from companies who collude to overcharge Canadians. Items such as D4.3 should be changed to ensure this. I.e. The term "unlimited plans" is false in many cases; companies simply should not be able to lie to consumers and they should be liable for charges above what their "unlimited' caps are.
There are some positive changes outlined in the draft Wireless Code, but the CRTC seems to be afraid to address head on the biggest problem with this industry in Canada: Canadians pay too much for every aspect of owning and using a cell phone.

Regarding locked and unlocked mobile phone handsets -

As a consumer I understand that the carrier subsidizes the phone, but the terms of the contract ensures that regardless of whether I continue service or cancel, they will recover this cost. So locking the phone means of creating a somewhat one sided and unnecessary barrier for consumers using the device freely. Consider these two possibilities:

1) A consumer travels, and purchases a pay-as-you-go sim card in another country. The consumer continues to pay for wireless service in Canada, so there can hardly be any argument that the carrier isn't recovering its handset subsidy, but the consumer may not be able to use the other carriers' Sim card in their phone.

2) Having signed up for a contract on carrier A, another family member having signs up on carrier B, but the two want to swap handsets. Is there any reason not to switch handsets? No, of course not.

Replies to options
B1.
Option 2
Canada has been without a wireless code long enough, I think that it should be implemented as quickly as possible

B2
Option 1 or Option 3
Option 1 would be most preferable because this Code is meant to improve Canadians wireless agreements and for many people, the changes that are made thanks to this code may not be able to come into effect for 3 full years. I can however, understand the difficulties that could arrive by imposing new restrictions on existing contracts. Under no circumstance should there be a reason for it to be Option 2.

D1.3
Option 2
I used pre-paid plans before I had enough money to afford a plan on a contract and it always annoyed me that I couldn't use the money THAT I NEVER EVEN SPENT! This would be a major change that could be really beneficial.

D2.1
Option 1
There is no reason that a consumer should not have the right to cancel a contract for which the terms have changed. If the option is they only have 30 days to cancel their contract, they may go a month on the new contract and realize by actually using the plan that something they used essentially had changed and by the time they had realized that, the option to get out of the contract would be over and they would still be stuck for the remainder of the contract. Should option 2 be selected, I believe that it should be at least 90 days for the consumer to get out of the contract.

D3.1
Option 1
The alternative option is terrible because I'm sure that some service providers may be a little bit slower in receiving its notice if this was the case.

D3.3
Option 1
This is another item that could have a great impact on cell phone service. Option 1 should be selected because my current contract would let me cancel early for better terms than Option 2! This code is about making cell service better for the consumer not worse and option 2 would be a very expensive way to get out of a contract.

D3.4
Option 1
This option does sound better for the service provider but it also seems better for the consumer because this is the option I would prefer.

D4.3
There is not option here but I believe that unlimited plans should truly be unlimited. If a service provider wants to call a plan unlimited, it must be unlimited with no restrictions.

D5
All of these features seem to be very useful and seem to be something I would appreciate.

D7.1
Option 2 (If no alternative)
I believe that all phones should be provided to the user unlocked. There is no reason for a phone to no be unlocked because they will still be paying the service provider the same amount whether or not they use the service. Unlocking should be available for free for all phones.

F1
I think that the wireless code should be reviewed every 3 years. With technology changing so fast the code must be able to adapt with the times.

Additional thoughts

I am very disappointed that there is nothing regarding Canada's 3 year contracts. It is unfair that we are subject to these contracts while the rest of the world is only subject to two years. This is probably the worst aspect of Canadian cell service and it disappoints me a that it isn't even mentioned in this document.

I’ve reviewed this section of the code the most thoroughly, and as a layperson, this is my opinion on the matter.
D1.1 is especially needed. Too many contracts nowadays are so loaded with legalese that it might as well be considered another language.
D1.2, and D1.6 are reasonable and proper. Consumers deserve to be informed as to the terms of the contract.
D1.3 is critically needed. Allowing pre-paid credits to expire is in the same league having monetary gift cards expire, a process which has been outlawed in Canada.
D1.4 contains many pieces of valuable information that should be provided to the consumer at the time the contract is being signed.
As a person with a significant disability, D1.5 is especially helpful. Every service should be available in a way such as this.
For D2.1, option 2 is agreeable. Service providers must be held accountable if they are to increase the cost for consumers, and consumers must be given the option to cancel the contract if it is changed.
D2.2 is reasonable.
D3.1 should come in to effect when notice is provided (option 1). That way, a service provider cannot take their time cancelling the service while fees are incurred.
D3.2 details the way cancelled contracts should be handled.
D3.3 should be calculated using option 1. If the consumer has paid the subsidy on their contract, there should be no penalization for them.
For D3.4, option 1 is preferable. The consumer should be notified as to the end of their contract and/or renewals.
D4.1 includes the proper way advertisements should be handled. The total should always be known to the consumer.
D4.2 is very important. Consumers should never be charged for services they don’t sign up for expressly.
D4.3 should be extended even further. A plan known as “unlimited” is thus: a plan without limits. Service providers should not be allowed to advertise unlimited plans with limits.
D5.1 is essential. The consumer should be informed of their usage and warned of reaching the limits.
D5.2 is also very important. Many times I am not able to access my usage through an online tool, and have no way of knowing if I reach my limits. The ability to cap bills and restrict certain features by the consumer is also very handy, and would be helpful to those with limited incomes.
D5.3 is definitely needed, and should even be extended. Consumers should be warned by a text message or similar method when they subscribe to MPSs.
D6.1 and D6.2 contain very helpful measures for hardware repair and the measures provided are agreeable.
For D7.1, option is the method it should be handled. Consumers should not be locked to a certain service provider, and the ability to unlock their device for a reasonable fee (preferably less than $30) should be available promptly.
D8.1 is agreeable.
D9.1, D9.2, and D9.3 are reasonable.
D10.1 should follow option 1. Consumers should know why their service was cancelled, but if they haven’t paid, it should be cancelled promptly.
D10.2 is needed. If a deposit is paid, the service provider is not operating at a loss.

Comments on the specific section are detailed in the section after the summary below:
Summary:
1. The 3 year contracts should be eliminated altogether.
2. All phones should be unlocked for free after a device (subsidy) is paid off.
3. Unlocked devices should be made available to be purchased outright at the MRSP
4. If subsidies are to be provided then use a clear and simple language to explain the contract
5. Take away all the fine print
6. All the plans that offer “UNLIMITED” calling should actually mean unlimited number of minutes. This term should be banned for using any limit on the number of minutes under the fair use policy. If carrier is so much interested in Fair use policy then they should simply advertise the plan as 3000 minutes plan rather than an unlimited plan. This is cheating with the customers that some Service Providers use with fine print.
7. Users should be able to put a roaming limit while travelling outside on Canada
8. Roaming costs when travelling outside of Canada should be cost effective

And now for the Details:

A3 – Option 1 should be made mandatory
A6 – Increase 30 days to 45 (or 60) days so that the customer can be given a time to review and confirm everything in details after getting the first bill from the carrier. Thirty days is too little of the time for busy Canadians and it does not provide an ample time to receive the first bill to confirm they got what they asked for. Once they receive their bill then it could be too late to cancel as 30 days are over.
B1 – Option 1
B2 – Option 1
C1 – Please include the details on what action will be taken by CRTC (Paragraph 4)
C2 – Change the verbiage from “consumer with an explanation or apology” to “consumer with a written explanation or written apology within 30 days of CCTS contacting the service provider”.
D1.1 – Please specify the minimum font size or provide better instructions to make it easy for people with bad eyesight to read them.
D1.2 (f) – Change the following “whether it is locked” to “Whether it is locked - if yes when will the device be unlocked or available for unlocking”

D1.3 – Option 2

D1.4 – Add the following at the end of the paragraph. “The consumers should have the ability to cancel the contract , without any penalties, within 45 (60) days after signing the contract or within 15 (or 30) days after receiving the first detailed bill from the carrier.

D2.1 – Option 1. Please do not give Service providers a leeway with option 2 to rip the consumers. Just delete option 2.

D2.3 - Change the 30 days to 60 days

D3.1 - Option 1

D 3.3 - Both Option 1 and option 2 are little confusing for the end user. How about the third Alternative:
Option 3:
Early termination fees are to be calculated as follows:
Pre-Paid – Early termination fees do not apply to pre-paid wireless
Post Paid – Early Termination fees should be calculated as follows
A – The remaining subsidy on the device if the phone was subsidized by the service provider
B – No early termination fees for the contract expiry date of less than 6 months
C - $50 for contract with expiry date over 6 months

D3.4 - Option 1 seems more logical.

D4.3 - Unlimited in plain English means “UNLIMITED” - which has no limit. So treat it as such.
If the service provider wants to hide behind the fair use policy then CRTC is helping them with this verbiage. TAKE THE UNLIMITED OFF THE TERMINOLOGY and Enforce service provider to advertise “limited number of minutes” policy and make sure the UNLIMITED really means UNLIMITED. This appears to me that CRTC is allowing the Service provider to play with the consumers and does not really side with the consumers.

The best way to reword it, in my opinion, is:
“UNLIMITED plans means unlimited use of the advertised technology i.e. Number of minutes, number of text messages, etc.
Service provider must not use the term UNLIMITED unless they intend to offer the true unlimited service. If there is a limited plan then it should be advertised as such without the use or any reference of UNLIMITED word.”

5.1 – Offer the unlocking service to the consumer when they travel outside of Canada. The following verbiage should be changed from
“When hardware connects to a network outside of Canada. The notification will include the roaming rates for voice, data, and text messaging.”
to
“When hardware connects to a network outside of Canada. The notification will include the roaming rates for voice, data, text messaging and the device unlocking service.”

D7.1 –Option 2 (do not offer Option 1)
Change the verbiage from “at the rate specified in the contract” to “at $25 or the rate specified in the contract , whichever is minimum,”

D8.1 Go with option 1
Option 2 will allow the consumers with long term fixed contract with good pricing to suffer if the service provider decides to discontinue the old plan and does not offer it now. The verbiage is purely in favour of the service provider. It should be reworded as such:
“The service provider may cancel a fixed-term service if the service provider no longer provides the service and the consumers accepted, in writing, the discontinuation of service. The service should be cancelled after at least 60 days of mutual agreement between the service provider and the consumer.“

Most of us across the country don't even have those as choices, they are currently only in major markets.

Most of us across the country don't even have those as choices, they are currently only in major markets.

Suggestion for D1.3 Concerning pre paid service, why not have a system that the credit NEVER EXPIRE but when you enter in a buisness relationship with the carrier a specific amount per month to acces the service that you use it or not would be taken from the account. This ammount could be 10$ per month for example. If there's still credit in the account the carrier cannot reset the credit to 0$. If there's a negative ammount in the account the service cannot be used anymore and after 3 to 6 months the number would be cancel. Why would a carrier be allowed to cancel a account with 500$ in it because the client did not put 10$ more into the account this is again a way a thief would operate.

Most of us across the country don't even have those as choices, they are currently only in major markets.

I apologize if I missed it, but I see a lot about termination fees, but nothing there to truly protect consumers when wireless carriers decides to make changes to our contract. Right now, they have the rights to change a contract given that they give consumers x days notice. This translate to carriers having the rights to modify contract anytime they wish and consumers' hands are tied. An excellent example is Bell (I am sure it is the same for Rogers, Telus...etc) raising they text messaging fee. By doing so I see that Bell broke their agreement and I as a consumer should have the right to cancel WITHOUT penalty if I do not agree with the "New" contract.

That's exactly what happened to me recently on a monthly plan from Woof. My regular ole caller ID was working fine for a few months, then I got a marketing call about some free features for a month like call waiting and name-based caller ID (does a lookup, sends business/landline names along). Tried it for a month, took it off... Regular ole numbers-only caller ID no longer worked and the cheerful commissions sales drone informed me that it would cost $12/mo with voicemail and a bunch of other junk to get it back!

WHY WHY WHY. Why does after your contract is done or if you bring over your own phone do you get charge the same price as someone who's receiving subsidies. Isnt it stealing? There should be a automatic way that carriers after the phone is paid and fully own by the customer that they get a 10% off there package. If you dont make it automatic people will not know about it and carrier will just cash the money and smile. Thief!!!!!!

Thank you for taking on the herculean task of wireless telecom reform in this great land!

(D3.3) proposals seem to address porting out and being billed for an additional 30 days of "service" on a monthly or expired contract, per the provider's cancellation terms. Not only is this not compatible with the CRTC's own procedures for wireless number portability, it is nothing more than a blatant last-ditch money grab. Bonus points if you make this retroactive and widely publicized.
(D5) proposals for usage notification/limits are great, should eliminate many surprise bills.
(D7) proposals regarding device unlocking are tricky. I prefer option 2 as carriers should have little legitimate interest in keeping non-subsidized devices locked, however I would like clarification on "...the rate specified in the contract and personalized information summary." for unlocking subsidized devices. Will carriers be free to set these terms and costs, or will you define a device subsidy equation that will be used to calculate the price of (legally) wrenching "your" device from their grasp?
(D8) regarding loss/theft needs to enforce mandatory carrier participation in IMEI blacklisting using the international shared CEIR. I'm not convinced that all carriers will magically have this going by September 2013. The violent theft and profitable resale of stolen devices is a serious public safety issue and needs to be enforced as such.
(D10.1) outlines a fair and straightforward process in option 1 using the Deposit and Disconnection Code, while option 2 appears to strip several of the consumer protection/recourse measures, along with making it very easy for carriers to halt corporate rate, grandfathered, unlimited and other plans they no longer deem profitable.

Re: Pricing: We pay a premium here for devices and services and, looking at carriers' balance sheets, the "low population density makes it expensive to provide service" argument is not convincing. The CRTC should not put itself in a position of setting prices, but further consumer protections and reform seem necessary to encourage transparency and competition.

Re: Contract length: People who want the latest and greatest toys at heavily subsidized prices should understand that they come with a guarantee of future revenue for the carrier. That's a really big deal for the shareholders who own the company and trust that it will keep making money. Perhaps the CRTC could encourage carriers to explain this as a device "lease" or some kind of "tab", making it clear that a no-strings-attached device can be purchased at full retail price.

Wishlist:
- limit the nickle-and-diming by including basic features such as caller ID, call waiting and voicemail in all plans
- no long-distance charges on the carrier's network at the very least, ideally Canada-wide
- minimum standards for customer service including hours of operation, IVR interface and hold times
- improved US and international roaming/add-on plans
- deliver us from the wireless third world!

D4. CLARITY OF ADVERTISED PRICES

While it is helpful to competition to permit payment at any time for the residual cost of the handset, it is insufficient. Consumers must be able to compare the cost of services across carriers. In particular, it is CRITICAL to be able to compare prices for the same services by different carriers. Embedding the handset "subsidy" cost in the price of services impedes the ability to compare service cost. I suggest a new subsection in section D4 with roughly the following wording to address mandatory minimum content in monthly bills:

D4.4 Billing for wireless services should clearly distinguish monthly service costs for phone, text and data from the cost associated with repayment of the initial handset "subsidy", if any. Any monthly charge for repayment of the residual debt owing for the handset should be SEPARATE from monthly services charges.

A1 Application of the Wireless Code to wireless providers
I believe it is essential for consumers that the draft code be mandatory through legislation or regulation. Such federal legislation should SUPERSEDE any provincial legislation in this area. Even the CWTA supports an overarching federal code. Have the CRTC wireless code, whether voluntary or mandatory, simply "coexist" with provincial legislation is simply a recipe for confusion. Consumers will not know where to turn. Additionally, the higher cost of compliance for the wireless operators will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Please BOTH the industry and consumers through a SINGLE code or single piece of legislation that applies to wireless services.

"D8.1 - Application of service charges to lost and stolen wireless devices"
This talks about being responsible for charges up to reporting a device lost, and being responsible for early cancellation fees. What about monthly service fees, if I plan to replace my phone? Do I still pay the monthly fees while my service is suspended?

"Security Deposits - D9.2 - A maximum amount"
The total deposit "shall not exceed the sum of three months of the minimum monthly charges for wireless service, and the total subsidy on any hardware provided"
Does this mean my security deposit could equal the sum of the subsidy plus 3 months of monthly charges?

D2(1): When the service provider provides notification, that notification should include telling the customer that if they are so choosing to cancel their plans they only have 30 days to do so in writing (and you should have 30 days to send said letter, not 30 days to send and have it received)

D2(2): what does "accessible" mean, and are you leaving that up to the phone company to decide what is accessible? they should have to disclose in writing to make sure everyone knows. people make online accounts, but not many go online looking for updates.

D3(1): option 1: when provided. What if, they lose the mail internally, or they have a backlog and it doesn't get opened right away. that is additional costs to the customer that they did not even use or want.

D3(3): what is a "monthly subsidy". I have not seen it anywhere else or in the definitions. Same problem with option 2, can you tell us and give us what you mean by economic incentive. its not defined at the bottom of the page

D3 (4): Option 1

D4(2): expressly is good

D4(3): good

D5(1): I understand the complexity the companies they say the will face with such specific and personalize messages. I don't think we need a message warning us we are using a feature not included in our plan. We purchased the plan, if the rest of the rules being put in place work as they should, we should not be aware of what the feature of our plans are. everything else is good.

D5(2): Ability to cap monthly bills: an amount set by the customer or in the absence of a set cap $50 sounds logical and reasonable. When these companies say it should be closer to $150 - $200 because thats when people usually hit their "worry point" is such a ridiculous statement to make. People want this bill to enable them to STOP WORRYING!! So if the cap is set at the "worry point" what is the point of this bill again? they just want the ability to make an extra $150 - $200 a month still. They are using the problem we are trying to fix to defend doing anything truly to fix the problem at all by arguing that. its ridiculous.

Ability to restrict features upon request: This information should be part of the information the salespeople have to tell you when they explain the data package you get when you purchase your phone. If people are not told they have this ability, no one will use it

D5(3): Necessary. This is very necessary

D6(1): Yes
D6(2): If you do not have a warranty, but you pay to have the phone fixed, and it is fixed with the manufacturer or service provider, they should still suspend your services.

D7(1): option 2, but are you going to monitor somehow, how high these rates get to make sure we don't start getting ripped off as consumers that way?

and for non subsidized phones, option 1, when provided without a subsidy.

D8(1): all of this it good, but regarding part (2) this is only if the person does not want to purchase a new phone, correct?

D9(1): At the time of requesting the deposit the salesperson should not only have to tell the customer why they need to provide the deposit, but also the levels/conditions/category they need to get too in order to not be required to provide a deposit

D9(2): the further i read into this document i see subsidy is just saying if i "upgrade" my phone, but 3 months minimum payments + how much you save on a phone when you upgrade can become a substantial amount of money in a large proportion of cases. to buy an 32 GB iphone no term is $800. so is the subsidy the different between the 800 and the cost if you got it on a 3 year plan? or is it that but the 800 also included the GST? because that can be as high and higher than $520 + 3 months payments. You should have to choose one or the other. Most people with mobile phones could never afford to put that much down at once, thats why most people rely on upgrades or "subsidies"

D9(3) Good

D10(1): Option 2

D10(2): good

One aspect that seems to get overlooked as all our eyes are on banning 3-year contracts is competition. Honestly, I felt the telecommunication market can be competitive as long as companies in the sector are truly devoted to competing but what I'm seeing right now is all of the Big 3 are basically offering the same plans and options and rarely I see one company pushes out a promotion and another tries to offer something better or at a lower price or both. This is what the CRTC needs to look at basically the current behavior of the Big 3 looks awful lot like price fixing to me.

Re: unlocking of phones
Please add that the means of unlocking will not void any warranties on the device nor damage the device in any way. Unlocking is not to diminish any consumer protections that were in place at the time of purchase.

Why the caller ID is listed as an optional feature? In other countries it is just automatically provided. It feels like providers here first "remove" it and then "resell" the feature which is just a part of provision of cell phone services in other countries.

Section 1.2 (f): Provides an excellent start with respect to requiring carriers outrightly declare any device subsidy and the amount being applied against this subsidy each month. Instead, carriers should have to charge device subsidy recovery as a separate line item on monthly bills as is the case in much of Europe and Asia.

Given the among highest mobile fees in the world, device subsidies are being used as an excuse for what are essentially high interest loans in Canada. If I purchase a phone elsewhere and bring it to a Canadian carrier, I should not have to pay the same exorbitant monthly fees as someone who agreed to pay these high fees over three years in exchange for saving a couple hundred dollars on a device (which probably won't last for three years).

Allowing subsidy costs to be masked within service fees requires that some consumers (those who purchase their phones up front either from a carrier or a retailer) subsidize hardware subsidies for other consumers. Further, including the subsidy charge as a separate line item will improve transparency as consumers can more easily distinguish between the carrier's contract to provide a device savings over time and the carrier's contract to provide services for a compatible device.

Section 7.1 Unlocking: Option 2 is by far the best option because it stipulates that devices owned by a consumer because they brought it to the carrier themselves or purchased it at the unsubsidized price must be unlocked free of charge. If I pay a Canadian carrier an unsubsidized price for a handset, it should not be locked to the carrier under any circumstance. Further, Canadian carriers generally charge well above fair market price for devices at the unsubsidized rate as compared to purchasing those devices from a retailer who does not provide mobile service and does not sell locked devices at all.

I like some of the options in the code, specifically:
B1. Option 1 -starts for all aspects in 6 months
B2 Option 1 applies to ALL contracts
D -Need to make consumers sign the contract so they actually get a copy
D1.3 Option 2 -no expiry of benefits
D2.1 Option1 Consumer can opt out if rates change (It is not really a contract if the phone company can change the rate at any time when the consumer has a 3 year contract and must pay penalties to cancel). This option will make it fair for consumers.
D3.3 option 1 -repay the subsidy
D3.4 Option 1 -renewal changes to month to month at same rates
D4.3 Add that a plan cannot be advertised as "unlimited" unless it is unlimited. Otherwise must be advertised as limited and the limits explained.
D5.1 Really like that the additional fees will be explained to consumers. Also like the tools to monitor and restrict services (i.e. I would like to turn off texting or not pay for incoming ones when i do not encourage them) (5.2)
D7 -Like option 2- after the end of contract, people should get it unlocked free of charge (as well as if they buy the phone at the start).
D 10.1 Option 1

I hope that these options get chosen and that CRTC will hold firm in protecting Canadians from the predatory practices of the phone companies (and not be swayed by their lobbyists).

So my wifes phone contract expired after 3 .....yep THREE years with Rogers. They wouldn't unlock her phone to use with another carrier unless we paid a $50 fee. WHY ??

D7.1 - Option 2 is for me. I plan to purchase a new phone and my 3 - year contract has expired and I am currently on a month to month plan. I will be paying full price and expect that since I will be the owner of the phone outright it will be unlocked. Unlocking should be free. If my current service provider wants to keep my business then they will have to treat me fairly.
B2 Option 1 - Should apply to all New & Existing Contracts

Minutes should accumulate to a customers favour on a month to month basis. The customer pays for those minutes every month and should be able to accumulate them for use at another time. I don't always use my minutes each month and then have months where I am over and have to pay for excess minutes. NOT Fair!

We pay for our device typically over a 3 year period, and we are paying way too much. It is totally unacceptable that a device should be locked after this pay period, and it should be unlocked free of charge by the service provider when the initial contract is over.
Roaming charges, data charges and most other charges are unjustifiable high.
The industry is basically a cartell, and by European standards we are being ripped off.

"If the consumer did not receive an economic incentive and cancels their fixed-term service before the end of the commitment period, the cancellation fee will be the sum of (1) the price of the services provided up to the effective cancellation date, and (2) the lesser of $50 or 10% of the monthly rate for unexpired months of the commitment period." -- I believe this is fair and I hope it will be made retroactive so that existing customers can take advantage of this option. We have something similar in Manitoba but it was not made retroactive so was of no use to people with existing contracts.

Also for contracts I believe all contracts should need to be signed, this goes for contracts being renewed. The telcos should not be able to say "oh you agreed to blah blah blah" and then the customer has no recourse as the telcos can say what they like and the client has to fight to get out of a contract the telcos said a customer verbally agreed to. Verbal agreements should not be binding on either the telco or customers. No signed contract should mean no contract.. period!!!

I agree with pretty well all of the ideas in the proposed Code, but I want to especially point out one practice of the three main companies that is so obviously outlandish, if not outright illegal.
It has been only tangentially referred to, both in the proposed Code and in the comments; and it is this:
If I agree to receiving a new phone and a 3 yr contract, let's say I chose a plan that will cost me $X/mnth. The providers claim that the monthly cost includes an amount for the amortization of the balance of the cost of the phone. Not only do the providers refuse to divulge this component of the monthly price, but if I buy my own similar phone, and agree to the same plan, I know that Bell (I'm not sure about the other two) will only discount your monthly cost $X by 10%, which is certainly much less than the penalties the company will apply if you want to break the contract mid-term. And they then claim that these exorbitant penalties are, or largely include, the costs to pay for the "balance" outstanding on the original price of the phone (which, in addition, certainly cost the provider, buying in volume, much less than the original retail price we would have to pay).
In other words, they can't claim that the high mnthly fees are so, largely as a result of the phone price amortization, but on the other hand, only give you a 10% discount when you buy your own phone on the same plan.
And finally, in addition, when we buy or already have our own phone, we have to pay an additional fee for using (not owning) their SIM card, plus an "activation fee" (usually about a 2 minute operation).
All this and the other comments, are the result of an obvious near-monopoly, and lack of true competition !!

Thank you for addressing the mobile customer issues.

Section D1.3 Prepaid credits should not expire. I use my pre-paid phone primarily for emergencies and I find the most cost effective option is to purchase $100 which allows me 365 days. However, I am forced to do this yearly and the number of unused minutes accumulates each year into the next if I renew within the 365. I now have lots of minutes but I am forced by the Telco's to renew each year.
The prepaid option should be harmonized with the new gift card legislation in that it never expires.

One comment on the term pre-paid in the document. In section A3 it is spelled prepaid and in section D1.3 it is pre-paid.

Section D7.
All phones should come unlocked and without long term contracts. Upon termination of a contract the phone should be unlocked by the carrier free of charge (part of the termination agreement). This should include prepaid phone equipment also

Phones should be subsidized separately from the plans. If you wish to purchase a $600 phone over 3 years it should be based on the hardware and not the plan. Minutes are cheap for the telcos and plans within telcos should be more competitive.

W.R.T cancellation fees. No cancellation fee should be charged other than to cover the cost of a new phone. If the client has renewed a contract but did not purchase a new phone as part of that contract then there is absolutely no need for a cancellation fee at any time.

I have a few comments regarding specific sections of the Code. Where a section is not listed, you can assume I have no comment:

A3 - Should apply to both prepaid and post.
B1 - Bring entire code into force at once
B2 - Apply to all contracts, current, amended, and new from coming into force date.
D1.2 - Well drafted, but point j. regarding early termination fees should be emphasized or expanded. Many contracts currently include "a calculation" but it is by no means stated clearly.
D1.3 - Use option 2. Minutes should not expire. Other consumer protection agencies have enforced the same standard on repaid credit cards and gift cards. Expiry of minutes after an arbitrary period is simply a cash grab. If a period must be specified, it should be several years.
D2.1 - Amalgamate the options. Providers should have to notify of any changes in contract terms, but the consumer should still be able to cancel for any reason if the provider does amend the contract. Amendment is tantamount to unilaterally forcing new terms on a contracted party without recourse, so the recourse should be allowing the contracted party to decline the new terms without penalty.
D3.1 - Date that notice is provided. I've had personal experience with customer service at the provider claiming that notice was not received, and it is unfair to the consumer to have to wait until notice makes it way through the bureaucracy of the average provider's customer service department.
D3.3 - Option 2 is way too complex for the average person. Early cancellation fees should be limited to any remaining device subsidy balance. Option 1 is best.
D3.4 - Option 1 is clearest. Automatic renewal should be advertised well in advance.
D7.1 - Option 2 is best, although if a device is not subsidized the carrier should not have the right to lock it to their network in the first place. For that matter, consumers should not be expected to spend hours on Hold listening to "Your call is important to us" just to get their phone unlocked if they paid for it in the first place. No one would accept this with any other piece of property, it is therefore totally unacceptable for phones as well. I've spent the 3 hours on hold with Bell customer service, transferred between 4 different agents, and ultimately told that it would cost me $75 to unlock a 2-year-old device. I then went online and unlocked it via a web service for $10. This type of business practice by providers is nothing more than a predatory cash-grab.

Very much looking forward to seeing this code in force - on all contracts in Canada. It's about time consumers received some protections in this predatory industry.

D1.3 Additional information specific to pre-paid services

As a consumer I should be able to purchase pre-paid service for an unlocked phone with no restrictions. I.e. if I have an unlocked phone, I should be able to purchase a SIM card on any network and then purchase any amount of time on that network and use it when I want. I should not be required to add more time to my account on a monthly basis and the time should not expire.

D7. Unlocking wireless devices

As a consumer if I purchase a device outright, that device should be sold to me unlocked.

If I purchase a device on a contract (subsidized), the device can be locked but as soon as the commitment has ended or I cancel the contract and pay the remaining amount of the subsidy on the device it should be unlocked.

Unlocking a device should be at NO CHARGE.

The draft code address several important topics related to the fairness of wireless communications in Canada. I have two concerns with respect to hardware subsidies and SIM locking of phones.

With respect to subsidized hardware prices, I am concerned that there is nothing in place to ensure fair retail pricing. If virtually all phones are sold with a very significant(with respect to the retail value) subsidy, there is nothing to prevent falsely inflated retail prices. Simply relying on MSRP as a guide-line is not adequate. Even without deliberate collusion, an understanding of expected MSRP could quickly be established between handset OEMs and wireless carriers. An excellent example is the recently launch Nexus 4, a device manufactured by LG and marketed by Google. This hardware sells with an MSRP of $349 CAD where it's closest comparable competitor, the Samsung Galaxy S3 is selling for over $600. Hardware subsidy is wonderful for many consumers; however, this marketing technique has effectively eliminated any real competition because consumers are only interested in the subsidized price. As a further example, consider Telus and their alternative brand Koodo. Despite the fact that these are simply two brands of a single company, it has been this author's experience that they will not compete on hardware prices. That is, if one of the brands offers the same hardware for a lower price, the other will not match. Compounded with SIM locking this marketing strategy effectively eliminates real competition in the market.

The provision in the code addressing SIM locking is refreshing after many years of what have seemed to be an almost extortionist marketing tactic. Some carriers already offer the service of unlocking the handset for a fee. This seems unreasonable considering that it was the carrier who applied the lock. When subsidy contracts are no longer in force due to expiration or buyout, carriers have no grounds to leave locks in place. Once the hardware is owned outright, the carrier should have no right to collect a fee for providing the customer with an unlock code that was installed by the carrier(or by the OEM on the carrier's behalf.)

This author has experienced a carrier offering to unlock a phone, after 3 years for $70, which is approximately 25% of the retail value of the device(when new). The claim made by the carrier was that other methods(such as internet based unlocking services) could damage the phone, and that by paying them $70, the author could be certain that the hardware would be successfully unlocked and not damaged. Of course, what must be considered is that the only reason the carrier could be so confident in their probability of success is because the SIM locking was applied by them in the first place. It seems that it would likely be illegal for a locksmith to demand an additional fee for keys to your house after you'd already paid him to change the locks. How is this scenario any different?

3 year contracts and hardware subsidy can be beneficial to consumers, however, there must be a way to enforce fair hardware pricing. Simply disallowing SIM locking would at least force carriers to compete for the market that would like to purchase phones outright, but this seems to be too small of a market to effectively ensure competitive pricing. The current draft code does not address this very real concern in any meaningful way. Disallowing SIM locking would, however, allow consumers the freedom of choosing temporary carriers when traveling and would present no risk to the carriers. The carrier's hardware subsidy is protected by the contract and so, in the example of roaming(travel), disallowing SIM locking would simply force carriers to compete rather than charge exorbitant rates for roaming. SIM locking effectively allows carriers to extend their monopoly on their customers across boarders and even oceans.

Cancellation = subsidy remaining

First of all, it's great to see this code finally happening in Canada. Having lived for years in Japan, I can testify that Canadians get a very raw deal in terms of services and costs of wireless. Service is less expensive in Japan, and better. For example, there is of course no charge for incoming calls - what a ridiculous notion, there are no long distance fees with in the country, contracts are two years and the list goes on. About five years ago, the Japanese government stepped up to provide protection to consumers against the subsidy/exorbitant-contract-cancellation-fee racket. In Japan, the maximum cancellation fee is $100. Period. Canada is late, but it's nice to see action finally being taken.

Congratulations to the CRTC and all Canadians who have participated so far. The draft code overall looks very good. Important choices or changes I would make are:

D3.3 - This should be option 1, of course. Option 2 sounds like something drafted by the Canadian telecom cartel themselves. Who defines what an "economic incentive" is? Sounds to me like just a way to work loopholes into the code so that the the telecom companies can circumvent it. Option 1 is the obvious way to go. The damage to the company of a consumer ending a contract early is the remaining portion of the subsidy given to the consumer at the start of the contract. The unpaid balance of that subsidy (really a "handset loan") is the only compensation for contract termination a telecom company deserves.

D3.4 - Option 1 is good. Three written notices is plenty for the consumer to understand their options. One month at a time is not too long for a consumer to remain "locked in" to an existing contract should they suddenly realize they would like to change it. The red-tape and lack of convenience associated with Option 2 is not worth the added protection.

D7.1 - The practice of locking phones should be discouraged, if not banned entirely. As many others have already mentioned, the telecoms are already protected by the cancellation fees associated with any contract for which they have subsidized the handset. Needless to say, the practice of locking phones is quite effective in its intended purpose: stifling competition. There is no advantage to consumers. If the telecoms offered a real discount on locked handsets, that might provide a reasonable option for some consumers. But there is no discount provided by telecoms - just a loan. For example, if one were to purchase an unlocked iPhone 4S directly from Apple, the cost would be $600. The same phone, locked, purchased directly from Virgin (or Bell) is $650. A consumer can get up to a $500 subsidy on that phone, but five minutes comparing plan features and prices vs the attached subsidy makes it clear that the consumer will be paying back that subsidy at the rate of $15 a month over the next 36 months. No discount.

The point could be made that consumers who are "foolish enough to buy a locked phone" deserve what they get. Unfortunately, the options for unlocked phones are not good. Apple has enough power to dictate terms to the Canadian telecoms. Most smaller manufacturers don't. If they want their handsets to be carried by a Canadian telecom, they have to agree not to sell unlocked handsets in the same market.

The best choice would be for the CRTC to ban the practice of artificially restricting handsets from using any network their hardware supports (i.e. ban locking). Of the options presented, Option 2 is of course better. If a consumer has completed their contract, fully paying off the original subsidy, the handset they paid for should be entirely their property with no restrictions attached. In this case, there should be no charge and no impediment associated with unlocking the handset.

In section A3, Application of the Wireless Code, I believe that the code should apply equally to pre-paid services as to post-paid, therefore A3 Option 1. Since this is a national wireless code, there is no reason why prepaid services should be excluded. Thousands of people use and will continue to use these cheaper services and they should be equally protected as the higher paying clients from service providers.

As a long time user of pre-paid cellular services I feel very strongly about the elimination of expiry dates on pre-paid balances. There is no reason that any account balance should expire other than service provider greed or the process of locking in clients in. I've personally lost over $100 just by forgetting to add credits in time so it makes no sense to have such a policy with almost all the carrier in Canada. The service provider should allow clients to keep balance indefinitely and with out expiry. If the service providers need to eliminate unused accounts, they should set up systems that charge a small fee, for example 5 dollars, for unused accounts past 90 days and if there is still no activity after 180 days, the account balance is returned by cheque to the mailing address and the account is shut down. This process should not add any overhead since these mechanisms, to check for activity and mail cheques, can be implemented very easily by service providers. Therefore section D1.3, I choose Option 2.

As it currently stand, when you buy a cell phone, you are also choosing your provider and you are tied to that provider whether your phone is subsidized thru a multi year contract or even if you own your phone and take the service on a month to month basis. As an exemple, I own a phone, purchased 4 years ago thru a 3 years contract with Bell. The phone is now mine, and I am on a month to month basis, however, I cannot change provider unless I buy a new phone that will be attached to the new provider. So, in a sense I am still tied to Bell unless I replace a perfectly working phone that is now mine, paid for but still under the control of Bell. I don't think that is fair to the consumer.

Locking should be banned, period. There is no need to lock phones.

What about flipping the whole regime on its head? If the provider wants to change the contract, it should be opt in for the consumer, not opt out. So, if the cell provider wants to change a term, the contract will automatically end, unless the consumer agrees to the change. The cell provider can reach out to the consumer to ask them to agree, but if they choose not to the contract should end. Doing anything else simply allows unilateral changes to contracts. This is not something we normally allow for in contract law - usually agreement is required. So why the special treatment for cell phone service providers?

I agree with your comment about D7.1, but wonder what you think about doing away with locking phones altogether? Why do cell providers need to lock phones when their interests are fully protected by the provisions of the service contract that require consumers to pay early termination fees?

Mobile phones should NEVER be locked

Section D7 of the proposed code should be modified to prohibit mobile phone service providers from ever locking mobile phones. Unlocks for existing mobile phones should also be provided, at no cost.

Locking cell phones serves no purpose except to deter consumers from switching carriers or from using the service of other service providers when the consumer is outside of their home area. This dramatically reduces the amount of competition that Canadian mobile providers are subject to, and serves to drive up the cost of mobile communication for Canadians while they are home, and while they travel abroad.

Allowing mobile providers to charge for unlocking phones simply requires a consumer to bet that they will incur larger roaming fees while travelling then the unlock fee. At the same time, it allows mobile service providers to profit without providing any service in consideration.

I understand that the reason carriers provide locked mobile phones is to ensure that they receive a return for the large subsidies that they provide consumers initially when they enter into a contract. While it is understandable why service providers want to provide locked cell phones, it is unnecessary and, as discussed briefly above, it has dramatic impacts on consumers. Allowing providers to lock cell phones is unnecessary because consumers are bound by contracts, that, even under the draft code, allow mobile providers to recoup the hardware subsidies provided to a consumer, if the consumer terminates the contract early.

Under the current version of the draft code, the CRTC is sending a message that it is okay for consumers to be tied into longterm contracts, and it is okay for consumers to terminate those contract early, as long as they repay a prorated amount of the hardware subsidy to the provider. This is a very fair position that is good for both the consumer and the mobile provider. Both parties are able to benefit from their mutual relationship and minimize their risk.

However, by allowing providers to lock phones, the CRTC will be modifying this message in a profound way. In effect, the CRTC will be saying, "Contracts are okay, and consumers are allowed to terminate their contracts early as long as they repay a prorated portion of the hardware subsidy. However, as punishment for breaking their contract, consumers are left with a phone that is usable only on the network of the provider that you just ended your relationship with. If you want to take the phone that you have now effectively bought out elsewhere, you have to pay still another fee to the company you are trying to leave."

This is a mixed message and the effects of it do not benefit consumers.

In summary, cell providers should not be allowed to lock phones because:
1. Their interest in recouping the hardware subsidy is protected through the contract and the Draft Code by requiring consumers to repay pro-rated amounts of the hardware subsidy back to providers upon early termination.
2. Consumers are forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees, or an unlocking fee (which is accompanied by no net service to the consumer) in order to use their mobile phone while travelling abroad, even if they are in full compliance with the terms and conditions of their contract
3. Consumers who leave a contract early and repay the owing amount of the hardware subsidy are forced to pay additional fees to be able to use their hardware elsewhere. For many Canadians, this will be salt in the wound, as they usually have specific reasons for leaving a cell service provider. (If they are unhappy with the service, why would they want to give extra payments to the cell provider when they receive no additional service). This also makes little sense, as the phone will have been fully paid for by the consumer.
4. Mobile providers do not need the additional protection provided by locked phones. They may want it, but they don't NEED it.

Thank you for reviewing my comment on unlocking phones. I hope you will consider my argument when you revise the code.

Three year contracts too long!

In most enterprises, the vendor takes a hit on certain things
to attract new business through these sales incentives. There are too few "real"
customer incentives in the cellular business. Three year contracts make
money, hand over fist, for the cellular companies, and ALWAYS cost the customer
much more than promised. My wife and I have iPhone 4 &
4S phones on a family plan that should see us both paying $60 each per month,
yet combined, we continually end up paying $180 each month! We rarely ever
use them to make calls, just texting and data. We are subject to some
of the highest priced cellular and longest terms, in the world. It's time to
do away with 3 year contracts...I should think that the majority of Canadians would agree.

Contract Term Limits

Contracts should be limited to a maximum of 24 months. Most wireless devices reach the end of their usable life by two years as they are either worn out, or out of date. Wireless carriers are verry aware of the above statistics. The third year in the term is designed to keep a customer perpetually locked in contract with the availability of upgrades. The allowance of a third year in the term severaly limits competition as it keeps customers perpetually trapped in contracts making the barrier for switching carriers high especially since most customers can reasonably expect to require a new device after two years.

The end result is an uncompetative market since competition must draw from a market where almost all customers are tied to a long term agreement with signficant cancelaiton fees.

D3.1 Effective date of cancellation

There needs to be a requirement for the wireless carrier to clearly provide at all times a mailing address, or email address where a hard/soft copy of a cancelation notice can be sent.

Currently carriers make it difficult for customers to properly cancel their services and rely exclusivly on call centers. The issue here is call centers are one sided and provide the customer with no notice proof of cancelation, and if an error was made it is near impossible for a customer to prove they gave the notice in the first place.

Carriers also will use those call centers to place barriers in front of you and the cancelations department making it increasingly difficult.

Wireless providers should provide a means for customers to send writen notices, including cancelation notices.

CANCELATION DUE TO DEATH

If a customer is deceased the aformentioned means should be provided for the executor to send notice of death for all services to be termined as of hte date of death. A clear policy should be outlined in this area, publicly available.

D10.1 Disconnection

Overall option 1 is the best here as it is the most clear, and fair to both parties. However I would amend the amount due exceeds $50, as that is less then one months service in most agreements currently. The provision for two months in that clause is more than acceptable.

D8. Loss or theft of wireless devices

I would make some changes here to allow the consumer a limited grace period to replace the device.

Customers with lost/stolen devices should be allowed to suspend the service for 30 days at no cost. However after the grace period expires the customer can continue to be billed at a normal rate. If the customer was on a contract, the grace period should not be counted as time served in the agreement, and thereby extend the contract by the given grace period. (ie. YOu lost your phone and use a 1 month grace period to get time to purchase a new device, then reactivate. Since you used 1 month grace your contract is now extended an extra month since you where not billed during that time and did not serve time in your agreement)

D7.1 Unlocking phones

Option 1 is almost a good option, however it allows the wireless carrier to control the marketability of your device thru the charges they set for unlocking the phone. Unlocking the phone is an action preformed at the request of the provider in the first place, and it's intent is to prevent the customer from using the device on another network, thereby reducing their likeliness of leaving as switching would cause a significant cost barrier as a new device must be obtained.

Since the customer is the owner of the device, and not the carrier, the phone's natural state should be unlocked when unbound from contract by any means (cancellation, outright payment, etc).

Allowing devices to stay locked only favor's the carrier, and makes it difficult for the customer to leave, and competition to pick up their business.

This is a CRITICAL mechanism because if phones are free to move between carriers, it give the customer choice to cancel by paying their remaining balance, and use the same phone to start-up with a competitor. This would put the power in the hands of the customer, and encourage wireless carriers to improve customer service to retain customers rather than entrap them.

Option 2 is best here because it allows the option for a customer to unlock their phone prior to the end of their contract at a fee. The best part of this option is once the customer's device is free of contract (either canceled, or never subsidized) the customer would be able to take their business elsewhere at a minimal cost. This encourages customer service in wireless carriers as it would leave wireless carriers with only price, better customer service, or better network coverage in order to retain clients. All of which benefit the consumer.

D3.3 Calculation of early termination fees

Option 1 is the clear winner here as it is much easier to communicate. Option 2 is far too complex and would be difficult to communicate in a sales conversation. Few customers would know and understand a cancellation fee description that long.The requirement for carriers to outline the discount rate on the agreement, and simple calculation method would make this easy to explain and understand.

The only change I would make to option 1 would be regarding a cancellation fee where no subsidy was given, but a promotional rate was offered. It would be fair for a wireless provider to recover a portion of the promotional discounts applied as part of a agreement where a customer has elected to cancel. However to prevent abuse a cap must be placed on these fee's ($50) to prevent abuse. Without a cap to such a fee, providers would simply make discounted rate plans the norm, and tie them to conditions with grievous withdrawal fee's.

Changes to contracts by service providers

Option 1 is by far the best arrangement as it has the most clarity. It also prevents abuse by wireless carriers common in notifications for option 2. (Hiding the notice, or never sending it but then it's your word vs theirs)

Option 2 seems quite fair, however it is open to abuse by wireless carriers in it's current form. Telecommunication companies have a tendency to hide their 30 day notifications in small print on the back of a random page of your bill. This 'burying' of the notification doesn't give the customer time to react. Another area that should give anybody pause for option 2 is that it is easy for the notification to be 'lost' in the mail or never sent by accident, and in all cases it would be big cellphone company vs customer. They normally win that fight, and you will get nowhere in the call center as they destroy your credit rating, and exhaust your will to fight until you pay.

If option 2 is chosen in section D2, the carrier should be forced to send a separate notice by registered mail clearly stating the upcoming change, deadline, and a clear method of response provided in the package. This would put the power in the customer's court, make it difficult to hide the change, and the additional risk and costs would make this an undesirable choice for the company.

Pay-As-You-Go money expires if not renewed by the expiry date and the money is lost. This should not be the case. It seems this is the parallel to the GIFT cards which at least in Ontario are not allowed to expire. I also think that the Load-Up Credit Cards are not allowed to expire. And Pay-As-You-Go is usually used by people that cannot afford a plan, and they should be the last people to be penalized.

Monthly Fees:

I think this falls under Section D1.2 - Monthly charges.

I purchased my own phone and, thus, have a month-by-month service contract that I can cancel with 30-day notice.

My issue with the monthly charge is this: I pay the same fee as someone with a subsidized phone. I think my monthly fee rate should be lower by the amount of the subsidy that is imbedded in the fee for a subsidized phone. For example, if the subsidy on a phone is $360 for a 36 month contract, then the subsidy is $10/month. In this case, my monthly charge should be $10/month less than the person with the identical subsidized phone and plan.

John

D2.1 - Because phones are subsidized wireless providers don't consider Early termination fees to be penalties under contracts. This means that if they want to change conditions of a contract they just force it on you by insisting that you either pay your ETF or accept the new conditions. So you either give them a bunch of money and have no phone service and end up with another provider whose rates will be basically the same because we only have 3 providers and their rates are always basically the same. You may even end up with the same provider or one that uses your original provider's network. The statement needs to change to something like financial obligation instead of penalty because when a wireless provider wants to unilaterally change a contract they aught to forfeit the ETF if they want to force the issue. Contracts are meant to protect the consumer from price increases not benefit only the wireless provider.

D2.2 - and what recourse does a person have if the new policy is unacceptable? We need real rules about what they can do with our information regardless of their policies not just better notification of how they are selling our personal info and how they want to limit their liability if they can't prevent someone from stealing it.

D3.3 - Since we get to know how much money is being applied to an ETF each month I think it should be mandatory for wireless providers to offer discounts equal to this amount at a minimum for anyone who brings their own phone. I also believe that if this is done it is fair to allow a provider to charge a reasonable amount of interest on the price of the phone (say prime +2 at max) otherwise the consumer is significantly disadvantaged by buying an unlocked phone or maintaining a phone that they purchased recently and forced to either simply pad the provider's profit margins paying off an ETF that is already 0 or constantly getting new phones from their carrier they may neither need or want and extending their commitments under contract.

D4.3 - Providers shouldn't be allowed to use the word unlimited unless the plan is actually unlimited. This paragraph seems to give justification to wireless companies lying to consumers. You shouldn't be able to redefine the English language with an "*" .

D5 - Given the fact that 1. Canada is known to have little to no competition in the wireless industry and 2. Wireless spectrum is a public resource we allow wireless companies to use. It is reasonable for us not only to require notification of fees but to cap fees that are known to be exorbitant. If a wireless provider is negotiating roaming rates in the current system it is to their advantage to allow extremely high rates and allow the other company to have equally high rates of them as it pushes up profit margins and places the entire burden on the consumer. We should have caps on long distance rates in Canada and roaming rates in a manner similar to Europe.

D5.2 - I'd love to be able to not pay for text messaging but the right to do so is meaningless unless people who try to text me get failure notifications when they try to contact me that way. It isn't enough to be able to turn a service off if that service constitutes a regular means of communication there needs to be a way that people realize I'm not recieving messages through that means without me having to tell everyone who wants to contact me (some of whom might get my contact info from a third party) that I have such and such a feature disabled.

D7.1 - Device unlocking should always be free as long as an account is in good order. I somewhat understand the reason behind allowing lock-in for the 30 day period but still don't agree. If a customer skips out on their bills does it really make that big a difference if the phone is unlocked? It is more important I be able to swap in another SIM to avoid absurd roaming rates.

D7.1 - This should be expanded to prevent phone providers from forcing particular applications on us in their provided phones. It is not uncommon for smartphones to have applications which are basically just ads added to the "system" programs so that they cannot be uninstalled. I once had a phone that would prompt me to create a photobucket account every time I took a photo with it. The program couldn't be uninstalled as it was a "system" app and the notifications couldn't be disabled. I rooted the phone and deleted that and other useless adware from the phone but I shouldn't have had to risk my warranty for this purpose. Text like "any carrier provided software added to the baseline model of a particular phone shall be user removable without the need to perform any action not covered under warranty."

D8.1 - where a consumer can prove their identity and ownership of a device a wireless provider shall provide any and all information regarding that device "GPS position, cell tower triangulated position" that is available to them for the purposes of informing the police and retrieving a stolen device.

D9.1 - The security deposit should be one month's rate not 3. 3 is ridiculous given how expensive some plans can be. Subsidized devices should make no difference as well. If you're already paying off a phone a month at a time why should you have to front the entire price of the device under the auspices of a security deposit? What is it exactly the phone carriers need to be protected from? I'd love to be a credit card company that can demand a user's entire bill in the form of a security deposit and then charge interest on the amount anyway...

Something that currently isn't included in the code is that wireless providers need to be forced into reasonable terms with VOIP providers. Why can I not get a Skype In number in Canada? Why does Google voice not work here?

Another item is that providers shouldn't be able to bundle services. If I want only voice and not data or vice versa I should be able to get only what I want without paying extra.

A3 I think the same rules should apply to Prepaid contracts as Postpaid. There is no rationale for differentiating.

B2 I think option 3 is the most reasonable and balanced approach. I don't think it's proper to reopen existing contracts.

D1.3 I don't agree that Prepaid wireless contracts should expire after a defined period unless they are "topped up". These contracts should be considered like any prepaid consumer contract such as a gift card where no expiry date is allowed.

D2.1 I think Option 2 is the most balanced approach. The provider must be allowed to make minor contract changes that don't affect the intent or terms of the initial contract with out exposing himself to contract cancellation.

D3.3 Option 1 is the simplest and fairest.

D7.1 Option 2 is the most balanced and reasonable approach. There is no rationale for a consumer who has paid for his device to be held hostage to only one service provider.

A4. Application of the Wireless Code in Provinces with similar legislation

a) At all times the Wireless Code MUST adopt the most stringent provincial law or regulation which favours the consumer in ANY province/territory. Said adoption must be both automatic, and it must be non-retrograde & irrevocable (ie. never lessening consumer rights or protections even if underlying legislation reverts to less consumer protection).

b) Should any province or territory adopt laws or regulations which are more consumer-friendly than is currently the case, the Carriers MUST abide by that more stringent law or regulation for all consumers in all provinces, irrespective of the province of residence of the consumer or the jurisdiction in which the Carrier is headquartered or operates.

For greater certainty the following examples will clarify how this rule is intended to operate:

Example A - If on January 30, 2013 Ontario bans 3-year contracts and sets the maximum contract term at 2 years, then all Carriers must immediately cease requiring 3-year contracts and all new contracts entered into in all provinces/territories must have a term on not greater than 2-years. Further, if on May 1, 2013 Nova Scotia bans contracts altogether, then henceforth the Carriers shall offer ONLY month-to-month at its standard service offering in all jurisdictions [see below for exceptions].

c) However, in the examples above, no existing contract shall be abrogated, ie. if PEI or Ontario or Nova Scotia resident consumer entered into a 3-year contract on December 31, 2012 , said contract would run to its full term notwithstanding the events in Ontario and Nova Scotia on the aforementioned dates.

Example B - If British Columbia bans the tied selling of handsets to cellular phone service contracts, ie. get a phone for $99 with a 3-year term, then all Carriers must immediately cease tied sales of handsets in all jurisdictions.

d) Neither of the foregoing two examples shall prevent the Carriers from offering, at the consumers EXCLUSIVE option, service contracts for cellular services for terms of 1 or 2 years.

e) Neither of the foregoing two examples shall prevent the Carriers from offering to provide consumer finance for the purchase of a handset, again at the consumers EXCLUSIVE option, for a financing term of 1 or 2 years also at the consumers EXCLUSIVE option. Interest on the financing to be charged at a maximum of [ the Bank of Canada Business Prime Rate + 10.0 percent - - currently 13.00% ] such rate to be fixed on the date of purchase of the handset for the duration of the financing period. The total interest payable on the financing of the handset purchase to be disclosed in full at the time of purchase. The consumer shall have the right to prepay the financing in full at any time, with interest charges to terminate on the date of the prepayment.

Nothing shall prevent the Carrier from requiring different ‘downpayment’ amounts for handset from consumers based on credit scores. Such downpayment amounts or percentages and their corresponding credit score thresholds shall be posted at each sales location. Posting of this information lets the consumer know how an improved/degraded credit score affects the affordability of any handset purchase.

f) The offer of handset financing is independent of “plans”, ie. no consumer shall be required to purchase a handset from a Carrier in order to obtain ‘most favoured” terms of service for any monthly or term plan of cellular service. The reverse shall also apply.

g) Bank of Canada Business Prime Rate is defined as the Bank of Canada series V121796 or its successor rate, and is proposed as a consumer independently verifiable benchmark rate (after all, we are talking about consumer friendly here, aren’t we?).

h) The CRTC (or another independent body) shall solely determine which consumer protection legislation is the most ‘protective’ of consumer rights at any time.

---------------------------------------------------------

A6. Application of the Wireless Code to distance contracts

Such written communication with the consumer must be in ‘plainly read’’ English or French.

If the Carrier’s written terms for the distance contract require the use of a lawyer to parse the meaning then the contract shall be deemed null & void in favour of the consumer, and no charge for the distance service shall be levied upon the consumer irrespective the passage of any amount of time.

---------------------------------------------------------------

B2. New: Implementation in relation to new and existing contracts

Options 1, 2 &3: Term contracts (eg. 3-years or other duration) are not deemed to be left uncovered by the new Code upon the expiration of the term. Whether the ‘old’ (not covered by the new Code) contract is renewed for a ‘term’ or whether it simply becomes month-to-month, it automatically becomes a ‘new’ contract covered by the new Code on the expiry of the old contract.

This is to prevent a Carrier ‘sleight-of-hand’ in claiming that an ‘old’ contract remains an ‘old’ uncovered contract simply because the calling features/price/or other items terms have not changed upon the expiration of the contract term.

Option 3: Any amendment to an existing ‘old’ contract, ie the adding/deletion of a plan feature shall result in the ‘old’ contract becoming a ‘hybrid’ contract. Any changes made to the ‘old’ contract shall be covered by the new Code.

The term of the ‘hybrid’ contract MUST not be required by the Carrier to extend beyond the expiry date of the ‘old’ contract’ unless the consumer expressly & separately REQUESTS a contract term extension – in which case the entirety of the ‘hybrid’ contract is then immediately deemed to be covered under the new Code. This removes the ‘negative billing automatic contract extension’ component from the Carrier’s arsenal of tricks.

----------------------------------------------

D1.6 Privacy Policies

a) There must be 90 days advance written notice given to consumers of any transfer of personal information outside of Canada - including call detail records. Such notice shall include identification of which jurisdictions(s) the data are being transferred to. Any such proposed off-shore transfer of personal information MUST be pre-cleared by Canada’s Privacy Commissioner before notification to consumers under this section is contemplated. All data proposed to be transferred to a foreign jurisdiction is to the encrypted as contemplated in paragraph c) below.

b) Carriers must disclose what, if any, personal information is already transferred/stored outside of Canada on the inception date of the Code of Conduct. Such notice shall include identification of which jurisdictions(s) the data are located, whether the information is encrypted, and the nationalities & residencies of who has the decryption keys. All such data already off-shore must be encrypted as per the requirements of paragraph c) below.

c) If those having the decryption keys are NOT both Canadian citizens AND Canadian residents, then the Carrier MUST ensure that all data is re-encrypted to new keys while in Canada and such new ***keys are to be held at all times solely by single-citizenship Canadian citizens resident in Canada.*** Decryption is not to take place in the foreign jurisdiction under any circumstance. Encryption must be done using 192-bit or higher AES. No decrypted data is permitted off-shore at any time.

d) Notwithstanding ANY foreign legislation which may require a Canadian-owned company or a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign parent to hand over data to a foreign government – decrypted or not, whether the data is resident in Canada or not, the Canadian subsidiary shall not deliver said data on pain of immediate forfeiture of all Canadian wireless spectrum without compensation unless ordered to do so by a Canadian court of competent jurisdiction after a public hearing on the matter.

Canadian data is no more immune than EU data
http://www.zdnet.com/yes-u-s-authorities-can-spy-on-eu-cloud-data-heres-...

---------------------------------------

D2.1 Changes to contracts *** & Terms of Service*** by service providers

CONTRACTS
In just about every field of commerce a contract is a set of terms & conditions which each party agrees to at the outset of the contract and by-and-large adheres to during the life of the contract. Generally there are no permitted changes in a contract unless agreed to in writing by both parties and which are arrived at on a more-or-less meeting of minds of equals in the change negotiation process.

The Carriers have completely turned the notion of what a ‘contract’ is on its head and have consistently abused their dominant position over their customers.

Take residential mortgages as a counter example. A mortgage, once entered into has terms & conditions which are inviolate except under the most extenuating circumstances. The mortgagor knows at the outset what the bank will/won’t do to the mortgage during the life of the mortgage. The costs are set as are termination fees.

Not so with cellular Carriers. To a Carrier a ‘contract’ is simply an Alice-in-Wonderland word that means not what it says. To a Carrier ‘contract’ means extracting as much money as possible from a customer, in the most confusing manner as possible, making it impossible for the customer to receive the services they desire at low, predictable costs, whilst arbitrarily and frequently changing the terms of service in its favour. In other words, ‘contract’ means only what the Carrier says it means for as long as the Carrier deigns it to be.

If a bank can issue a mortgage for something clearly more valuable than cellphone service, and keep the terms & conditions the same for 5, 10, or even 20 years, why can’t a Carrier do the same for three years….or even 3 months at a time?

It is a relatively simple matter to associate fixed terms & conditions applicable upon the signing of a contract with the specific instance of a contract. The bank mortgages do this all the time. There is no dispute and no changes to mortgage instance A occur when another customer gets a mortgage 8 months later than instance A under a different set of T&C’s then applicable at that later date. So why should cellular Carrier customers be subjected to endless changes of their ‘contract’ through the duration of the ‘contract’ term?

Common sense and law says that the contract should not change unless changes are fairly arrived at and agreed to when the nature of the proposed changes are known. But this is not the case with nearly all cellular ‘contracts’ as they are practiced in the Canadian cellular marketplace. The Carriers have excessive power over their customer and regularly abuse that power.

I am certain that the CRTC will not bow to common sense in this matter and require that the T&C’s of the ‘contract’ & services are retained through the life of the ‘contact’ as they were at the inception of the ‘contract’. Given this certainty, I will now direct your attention to what constitutes proper ‘notice’.

NOTICE
In a fatally flawed decision - Rogers v. Kanitz [2002] O.J. No. 665
http://canlii.ca/t/1w1c2
Justice Nordheimer declared that simply posting new T&C’s and changes to services on a web site constitutes sufficient notice – because that’s what the T&C’s at the contract inception said Rogers would do. It mattered not one iota that Rogers posted changes to their ‘contracts’ and T&C’s on its web site in a way which made those changes hard to find. The letter of the agreement mattered more to Nordheimer than the spirit.

Indeed, one analysis of Nordheimer’s decision offered the following:
“This is a dangerous way of thinking and the danger of it can easily be illustrated by an absurd example of what could have been included in the clause in question:
Notification can also be given by notes scribbled on any toilet door of Rogers Cables Inc’s staff toilets or by messages called out from the rooftop of Rogers Cables Inc’s office facilities.
If this procedure for notification had been part of the clause, and Rogers had, for example, called out the changes from their office facilities in accordance with the clause, would Rogers’ action then have constituted a valid notification?
Hopefully not, but it would indeed have met the requirements of Justice Nordheimer’s test (i.e. that the notification was given as contemplated by the terms of the agreement).” http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&contex...

To this day – some 11 years after the Kanitz case, Rogers still makes it difficult to find changes to T&C’s on their website, and such changes are not clearly explained – nor any history of changes are kept for customers to review.

Thus, it should be the policy of the new Code and agreed by all Carriers that merely posting notices of changes in the Terms of Service (ToS) or contract provisions on the Carrier website is insufficient notice to consumers. Carriers must not be permitted to assume that ToS changes posted capriciously in small print located several levels away from the home page on their web sites constitutes sufficient and adequate notice of changes which can affect consumer rights.

Carriers MUST be required to send change notifications to their customers by both the customer e-mail address on-file (if available), and via free SMS to the customer handset.

It is insufficient for the Carrier to simply point to a hypothetical new ToS (revised 03-2013) and leave it to the devices of the consumer to source the previous 58 page long ToS (revised 11-2012) hidden on the Carrier web site and read every page to find every comma which changes the meaning of a clause, or words added/omitted in the new ToS which change the tone & tenor of the Service & contract.

The e-mail must contain a document which details the differences between the old ToS and the new ToS, and provides a plainly read discussion of what exactly is different, ie. a three column document – column 1 contains the old clause 37, column 2 contains the new clause 37, column 3 contains the discussion of what is different between the old & new clause 37 and how it impacts the consumer.

The SMS must contain a working link to a copy of the same document e-mailed to the consumer. The link and the document should be maintained for at least 5 years on the Carrier web site from the date of issuance. If the document location on the Carrier web site changes, the Carrier must be responsible for automatic redirects to the new location. The documentation must also remain publicly accessible through any merger or reorganization of the Carrier.

So why the e-mailing of the complete document vs. just the link to the same information on the Carrier web site? By e-mailing the complete document to the consumer, the Carrier cannot alter the text later – as is possible when it is only on the web site. Since Carriers are known to speak from both sides of their mouths at the same time this is a prudent precaution to keep the carrier ‘honest’ and to ensure that the customer has the Carrier documentation and all subsequent changes in their own files as long as they wish to keep it, or perhaps even need it for later legal action.

It is simple & cost effective for the Carrier to use e-mail list-server applications to send an e-mail with an attachment, whereas sending the attachment via SMS to millions of customers could be burdensome to the cellular network.

In the interests of consumer-friendly Codes of Conduct, let us now explore the costs to a Carrier of properly notifying consumers of changes. The cost of a Carrier sending a SMS to a customer is zero, as the SMS message is carried on a signaling channel which is unsold spectrum and reserved for network management use. Sending 8 million SMS messages is not a burden to a Carrier’s personnel, nor its network. The cost of a Carrier sending a single e-mail message to perhaps 8 million customers is in the order of $1.00 – not millions, but one single loonie for all 8 million e-mail messages.

Today’s internet is all about “push” services – Twitter, Facebook, streaming stock prices, etc…. Consumers are USED to having information come to them – without being forced to seek it out. It is patently unreasonable for consumers to have to check and hunt through a Carrier web site for forthcoming changes to ‘contracts’ they thought were cast in stone for the duration of their agreement with the Carrier. This is why it is incumbent on the Carrier to “push” the full details of changes to the consumer.

I also take exception to the designation of thirty (30) days as being an acceptable notice period. A more appropriate period is sixty (60) days at minimum, and preferably ninety (90) days. Carriers have teams of lawyers, rate analysts, and cost accountants pouring over the details of changes long before they are announced – determining how to maximize benefits to the Carrier. Consumers deserve more than just lip service courtesy of 30 days when it comes to their own analysis of what the changes to their alleged ‘contracts’ mean to them and their families. A 30-day vacation is not out of the question for many consumers, and if out of Canada they’d be forced to call back to the Carrier at usurious roaming rates, wait on interminable hold, only to be cut-off before being able to tell the CSR they wished to cancel their service due to the changes to the ‘contract’ If their call wasn’t cut-off during the transfer from music-on-hold to the CSR, the final insult to injury inflicted by the Carrier is likely that the customer would find that their service cut-off immediately – while they are still traveling – despite still needing it for work or emergency purposes.

‘CONTRACT’ PROVISIONS AS PERTAINING TO PURCHASED HANDSETS
The following relates to additional discussion of Deceptive Billing in Section D11.1 below.

Consumers who pay full retail price to purchase handsets at a point-in-time rely upon and expect that that the policies in-force at that time shall remain in-force, This is the essence of contract law. A handset sold with the promise that the consumer can unlock it for free after 3 months of being a subscriber should NOT have the rug pulled out from beneath their feet and be forced to pay $10-$100 to unlock the phone at a later date. The business model of the Carrier clearly factors in all marketing inducements the Carrier can live with when the handset was initially sold. Changing the rule later is nothing less than fraud.

-------------------------------------------

D3.3 Calculation of early termination fees

a) Option 2 is unnecessarily complex. If CRTC Commissioners can’t clearly explain it at a Grade 10 level (ie. the national average reading comprehension level) then it’s too complex.

b) Where in Option 2 does the ‘magic number’ 48 come from?
48 sounds a lot like 48 months – is the CRTC (or the Carriers) now proposing 48-month contracts?
The CRTC needs to clarify what this ‘magic number’ is.

c) Option 2 sounds a lot like something only a Carrier could understand using their own peculiar brand of perverted logic.

Let’s do an example using a plain reading of the English language of Option 2 (I’ve been told that the French language version may be more accurate in how it expresses the intent):

Assume the contracted monthly fee is $ 45 plus tax.
Assume a 36 month term contract where the consumer cancels at the end of the 30th month, but has an unsubsidized telephone (ie. no economic incentive).

Thus 30 months of the service have been ‘consumed’
6 months remain on the contract

Using the CRTC’s words in the column to the left,
“If the consumer did not receive an economic incentive and cancels their fixed-term service before the end of the commitment period, the cancellation fee will be the SUM OF
(1) the price of the services provided up to the effective cancellation date = 30x$45 = $1,350
AND
(2) the lesser of $50 or 10% of the monthly rate for unexpired months of the commitment period” [$45 x 6]x 10% = $270 x 10% = $27

Hence the cancellation fee = $1,350 + 27 = $1,377 + tax, which is payable in addition to ALL the money paid by the consumer to that point.

Thus this poor consumer will have paid for 30 months service [$1,350] + a cancellation fee of $1,377, for a grand total of $2,727 + tax. Had the consumer let the contract run its full term he would have paid $1,620 + tax.

Has the carrier really suffered economic harm to the tune of $2,727 – 1,350 = $1,377 in NOT providing service for the final 6 months of the contract? Maybe the Carrier is wishing that the consumer will be roaming off-network in Uzbekistan for a while during those last 6 month and desires to be prospectively “made whole” for the roaming fees they didn’t earn.

Using the CRTC’s words, this is the exact result to expect when a programmer codes the business logic.

Talk about economic handcuffs, shackles, indentured servitude, and possibly even slavery (Hey wasn’t slavery abolished? Apparently not.).

This is also what happens when too many lawyers, accountants, and CEO’s get involved inserting “weasel words” rather than being crystal clear, and termination fees are based on a desire to punish rather than being reasonable.

-------------------------------------------------------

D11.1: Descriptive Billing

ALL charges appearing on a monthly statement MUST include a description which clearly describes what the line item amount is for, ir viewed a bit differently No amount shall be added to a bill without a corresponding line item description

Recently a family member received a bill from a New Entrant. The standing charge on the bill is $40 monthly + tax. Yet the total invoice amount was $10+tax higher than the normal monthly charge. There was no line item on the bill describing why the total payable was greater than the regular monthly bill. Only a 30 minute phone call with the Carrier’s Customer Service and Tech Support departments cleared up the mystery. The Carrier had unilaterally decided to unlock the phone in order to clear up a recurring network registration issue with the handset, and charged $10 for this. My family member was NOT notified that there was to be a charge for the handset unlocking, nor did they consent to any technical support fees.

Most people simply assume that monthly bills will be correct, especially if they are on all-inclusive plans and make no calls which are not outside the plan coverage or use far less data than comes with the plan. Thus most people would have simply not seen an additional unwarranted and un-described charge slip onto their monthly bill.

In the end, my family member had the $10 charge removed from their bill for reasons articulated above. BUT the $10 charge should have NEVER arisen in the first place as the handset had been purchased at a time which the Carrier proudly & publicly trumpeted that handsets could be unlocked for FREE after 3 months of ownership. This handset in question has been owned for 2-1/2 years.

-----------------------------------------------

D11.2: Deceptive Billing

a) No Carrier shall deceptively describe ANY amount of the bill as being on the bill due to a ‘government’ regulation, a “recovery” fee, service fee, auction frequency fee, or any other terminology which may cause ANY consumer to believe that the fee is required to be charged/levied by any level of government (except HST) – unless such fee/charge/levy is enacted by legislation and accompanying regulations. Any such legitimate governmental fee/charge/levy shall also have the appropriate legislative reference printed on the bill (Act, Section, Paragraph, Point).

b) Carrier shall have 60 days to repair their billing system in the event of a Deceptive Billing item being programmed. Any amounts paid by consumers for the Deceptive Billing shall be credited to their accounts within 60 days plus a bonus of 25% of the deceptively billed amount. Should the consumer no longer be the Carrier’s customer within that period of time, the repayment & bonus shall be mailed to the affected consumer within 60 days. Any amounts, including bonus amounts, due to consumers which go uncashed after 270 days of mailing shall be donated to homeless shelters – without attribution and without the issuance to the Carrier of an income tax receipt for the donation. Carrier must keep records of the donations and swear a declaration that the amounts donated were not claimed as a business or charitable tax deduction.

c) In all cases of deceptive billing the Carrier SHALL place full-page advertisements in all Canadian newspapers with circulation of 100,000 or more (including the national editions of the largest newspapers), in which they describe what the Carrier did, admit their guilt of Deceptive Billing, and list the total amount of money they Deceptively Billed Canadian consumers. Such ads must be set in 72pt. type at a minimum. Said advertisements shall be signed by the two highest ranking officers of the Carrier indicating that they accept personal responsibility for the Deceptive Billing, and carry their personal office contact information (mailing address, e-mail address, & telephone number) so interested members of the public may contact them directly about the matter.

-------------------------------------------

D11.3: Credit Ratings

No Carrier shall report or cause to be reported any blemish on a consumer credit rating due to failure to pay any amount related to a Carrier’s Deceptive Billing. The penalty payable by the Carrier for doing so shall be $10,000 per occurrence per consumer.

If the Carrier reports an adverse credit to say 3 credit reporting agencies as a result of one instance of non-payment related to Deceptive Billing, the Carrier shall pay the consumer 3 x $10,000 = $30,000.

If the Carrier reports the same consumer again in any following month for the same/continuing Deceptive Billing dispute then the penalty payable to the consumer doubles each subsequent month.

At least in this manner a consumer is protected against the trashing of their credit rating by a Carrier, in that they’ll have plenty of cash to use when their credit cards are cancelled as a result of Carrier Deceptive Billing & unwarranted reporting to Credit Bureaus.

-------------------------------------------

D11.4: Data Measurement

The units of measure for data shall be:
1 Byte = 8 Bits.
1 Megabyte (MB) = 1,048,576 Bytes (2 raised to the 20th power Bits)

----------------------------------------------

D11.5 Traffic “Storms”

No customer shall be billed for data or SMS usage resulting from incoming traffic “storms”, including but not limited to DDoS (distributed denial of service), “carpet bombing” SMS, or any other forms of attack on the customer’s handset.

One more thing: The changes to agreements needs to be made known to the consumer at least 45 days prior to the change and the consumer should have 2 billing cycles to retroactively reject the change.

Finally, when a consumer wants to opt out due to a service agreement change the process should be different. The consumer should be able to initiate the process over the phone and the service provider should be responsible to send out the written letter to confirm the termination of the agreement. It's too easy for the service provider to simply say they didn't get the letter and the consumer has a hard time finding the correct address and person to address in a large corporation.

However, the corporation already has your billing and mailing information and they are the ones who changed the contract terms so they should bear the cost of cancelling it. If they want to ensure that the termination was legit and additional mailings should be pre-paid by the service provider. Again, they initiated the change to the agreement so they should be responsible for the cost of the change.

The termination should be considered to have occurred the minute the consumer requests it over the phone. The service provider might argue that anyone could then terminate any contract. But right now the same could be said about any request to increase the services and thus the monthly bill. So it's OK to effect the cost of my monthly bill then the process should be OK to effect theirs.

Section D2. Changes to contracts by service providers

This needs to be even simpler. _ANY_ time the service provider changes the terms of the agreement the consumer should have the ability to opt-out with no penalty. Consider a change to the privacy terms of the agreement: The service provider could decide that they want to sell my personal info. It could be argued (though I wouldn't agree) that this doesn't meet the criteria of D2.1 "increase the consumer's obligations or reduce the service provider’s obligations" as nothing of material is changing in the relationship between the customer and the service provider.

This section needs to be more simpler and restrictive on service providers. If they want to change the agreement then the customer ALWAYS has a chance to opt out with no cost. Period, no exceptions. The contractual power needs to be equalized: Currently the service provider has all the power and the consumer has little, if not none.

Also, it should be clear that if the service provider violates the contract in ANY way then the consumer also has a chance to opt out of the remainder of the contract. In fact, there should be a penalty the other way. Consider, if I break my terms of the agreement it will trigger the termination cost of the agreement and the service provider will go to collection agency to get it back.

But if the service provider violates their side of the agreement there is no recourse currently. This should be specified in the contract. I should not be forced to stick with a service provider that doesn't meet their agreements. And there are costs to me to find another service provider. Finally, I may have costs to fix up my credit rating in the case of identity theft due to not treating my personal information according to the agreement.

This would force these companies to take my personal information seriously and ensure that they have a high quality of service. If the network goes down then all customers effected have the right to drop them and go somewhere else. Now if a company doesn't want that liability then they can't put in in the terms of the contract, but what consumer is going to sign a contract that doesn't tell them how robust their network is?

Locking/Unlocking Phones to Certain Carriers

There are many reason that carriers would want to lock phones to their networks. These need to be considered seriously as the locking of phones is always a reduction in competition and thus bad for the consumer.

The most obvious is that the carriers want to make it difficult to move to a competitor. This is ALWAYS bad for the consumer and should not be acceptable. Of course, the carriers will never state this publicly but will do all they can do to lobby for any reason to keep locking of devices.

The most stated reason I've heard is that carriers need to be able to ensure that they recoup the device's cost over the term of a contract. So they lock the phone to their network to ensure that the phone cannot move to another network. However, this is already covered in the contract as the cost of early termination which covers the outstanding balance of the device as well as an administration overhead cost. As a result, there is no reason to lock the phone since the cost is recouped via the contract terms.

I've also heard that the carriers want to limit their tech support and only allowing certain devices means they lower their support costs. However, if the carriers chose to (or were forced to) they could simply push that back to the manufacturers so that any devices that don't meet certain industry specs would be supported directly by the manufacturer. This would increase the quality of all devices since the manufacturers would want to limit this liability.

There is not one good reason I can see for locking a phone to a particular carrier's network. In all cases, there are other, better solutions to address the carrier's needs and having ALL PHONES UNLOCKED by default makes more competition which is much better for consumers.

Linear phone discount

If companies insist that a 3-year contract is necessary, a linear discount should be implemented.
A discount of $50 for 1-year, $100 for 2-year, and $500 for 3-year is absurd. They use this to give the illusion of choice. If a 3-year will give me $500 off then 1-year should give me $167 off and 2-year should be $333 off.
Or just catch us up with the rest of the world and eliminate 3-year contracts.

Advertised prices should include activation fees, taxes and any other fees.

but when you call up the company after your contract is over, they insist you still pay the same monthly fee even though the phone is theoretically paid for. they claim nothing in the monthly bill that was paying for the phone so nothing to lower my monthly bill

of course I can lock into a new contract and get a new phone at my current monthly rate....

this does not compute.............. :-(

if I am travelling abroad, why should my phone be locked and I have to pay absurd roaming charges to use my phone when travelling in other countries??

it should be illegal for them lock the phone. they already have us in a contract to pay the monthly fees so what is the difference? they still get their monthly fees from us even if we are away travelling

Honestly I am disappointed with this draft. why do they have the right to lock the phones at all? When travelling abroad, I'd rather be able to buy a local SIM card to use there. Why should I be FORCED to pay insane roaming charges???

you've already possibly got me in a 2-3 year contract that I have to pay monthly. you already getting my money so what are the mobile telco companies afraid of and what right do they have to prevent me from using another SIM card when travelling abroad???

I was hoping this code-of-conduct would be stronger against the oppressive behavior of the mobile telco companies.

Looked phone and changing service provider
I did not find under the fixed contract option any clear obligation on the service provider to unlock the phone for no charge once the contract is completed or terminated and the penalty has been paid. I have completed the three years fixed contract for 2 phones and cannot get them unlocked and feel trapped because if i go to another service provider, then I will need to buy a new phone.

D4.1 advertising leaves out costs

The wording of D4.1 suggets that sales tax and government mandated fees be left out. Only sales taxes should be left out, that's what the law in Quebec is and that's just plain sense. Everyone knows the sales tax in the province is extra on things and it's not same so yes leave it out and note it applies. But why leave out those fees?

A consumer deserves to see the full amount they pay and just have to worry about tax. If I'm looking at my bill and see I paid $45 before taxes, and I see an ad for the same services for $40 I should be able to realy on it being $5 cheaper. Letting those "fees" be left out means it is not really what the consumer is going to pay so it's not really the "price".

Didn't the Competition Bureau already say this sort of thing about various fees that were being charged? Your both federal government, you should be saying the same thing.

Also what does "that is incorporated by reference into a contract" mean? Does that mean there can be price ads that because they are not "incorporated by reference", do not get caught by this rule? If a company can make any price claim in ads that aren't covered by the code then don't even pretend you're regulating price advertising and leave it to the Competition Bureau or the provinces like Quebec.

UNLIMITED PLANS

WHEN A PLAN IS ADVERTISED AS UNLIMITED IT SHOULD BE JUST THAT, UNLIMITED, THERE SHOULD NOT BE WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

GET RID OF ALL CONTRACTS, ALLOW MONTH TO MONTH ONLY.
ONLY CONTRACT REQUIRED IS SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED AND AT WHAT COST.

D10.1 Disconnection. Option 1 is preferred. It is simple and fair.

D7.1 Unlocking phones. I believe that option 2 is a reasonable measure. It allows unlocking of phones within a reasonable period of time, expecially if the user brings his own phone.

D4.3 New: “Unlimited plans”. This section does not make sense. Carriers cannot set limits if they are advertizing "unlimited". This section must make it clear that if the word "unlimited" is used, it must be just that. Otherwise there are many other ways to indicate (numerically) large data plans.

Issue 1:
A6:
This:
The Wireless Code applies to “distance contracts,” such as contracts agreed to over the phone or online. The service provider must send the consumer the complete terms of the distance contract within 15 days of the contract being agreed to. If not, or if the service provider sends terms that conflict with the terms agreed to initially, the consumer may cancel the contract without incurring any early termination fee or other penalty within 30 days of having received the complete terms of the contract.

should be:

within 30 days of receiving the first bill, as the telecomm companies have been known to not actually bill what is on the contract. (I was charged a monthly 911 fee for a data only device even though it was not in the contract. although they said it was an 'applicable fee')

Issue 2:
D7.1
This:
Option 2: The conditions under which a wireless device may be unlocked depend on whether the wireless device provided was subsidized or not. Subsidized wireless device: Where the service provider has provided a subsidized wireless device to a consumer, the service provider must provide the consumer with the means to unlock the device after no more than 30 days of service, at the rate specified in the contract and personalized information summary.

should be:
Option 2: The conditions under which a wireless device may be unlocked depend on whether the wireless device provided was subsidized or not. Subsidized wireless device: Where the service provider has provided a subsidized wireless device to a consumer, the service provider must provide the consumer with the means to unlock the device after no more than 30 days of service, at the rate specified in the contract or the amount left on the hardware subsidy, whichever is less.

As I don't understand that if I sign up for a one year contract and the one year contract is over, why cant I use the phone I paid for(via the hardware subsidy) on another network? Seems ridiculous. Or at least cap the unlock fee to $15. Otherwise the telcomm companies will put in some obscene amount to unlock the phone. And please force that the unlocking must be done at place of purchase. Otherwise they will make the consumer 'mail' the device to them. And then the consumer will be without a phone for weeks

Issue 3
Although implied in your COC, I do not see where the telecomm company must provide the service at the same rate without the hardware subsidy.
There are two case here: My parents signed up for a 3 year contract 5 years ago which included a 'free phone'. They love the phone. We all know this monthly fee includes the costs of hardware for the duration on the 3 year contract. But after the 3 years are up, they did not upgrade, nor did they want a new phone, but the telecomm company still charges them the same monthly fee which includes the hardware subsidy. This is pure profit for the telecomm company. The telecomm company should be charging my parents only the wireless fee after the contract ends

The second case is I should be able to bring my own device and pay the EXACT same wireless charge (without the subsidy rider) as someone who pays the subsidy rider. And the telcomm companies should not be able to charge a 'bring your own device' upfront or reoccuring monthly fee. Please enforce this, otherwise the telecomm companies will continue to alter the hardware price depending on the term of the contract simply to entice consumers to sign up for 3 years. How can a $800 phone be free on a 3 yr plan, but be $700 on a one year plan? Because they are inflating the cost of the hardware.

The Telco companies should not be in the device selling business, or at a minimum be hardware independent. This needs to be done carefully, otherwise, there is no stopping the telco from selling the iphone for $1 on a $100 a month plan, but giving a 'bundle rebate' of $50 per month. In this case the bring your own device customer is still paying $100 per month.

Issue 4:
D2.1
Option 2: Service providers may change contract terms and conditions on the condition that (1) the elements of the contract that may be changed are specified in the contract; and (2) the service provider sends the consumer, at least 30 days before the change comes into force, a clear written notice of the change and when it will occur. If the change would increase the consumer's obligations or reduce the service provider’s obligations, the consumer may refuse the change or cancel the contract without cost or monetary penalty by sending the service provider written notice to that effect no later than 30 days after the change comes into force.

If I were a telecomm company and this was the rule, I'd just make the whole contract changeable. But if you are to go with this option please change the time frame to 30 days or the length of the contract, whichever is longer. Many of us only notice a change because the amount of our bill has changed, and this could be more than 30 days.

Issue 5: This seems contradictory:
D2.2
Changes to privacy policies, fair use policies, etc. Service providers must disclose, and notify consumers of, changes to their privacy policies and other polices that apply to the contracts (e.g. fair use policies). Service providers must make these policies available in a manner that is accessible, and must provide consumers notice of any changes to these policies at least 30 days in advance of the changes coming into force.
If the unlimited plan is stipulated in the contract, then section D2.1 would be in force. And D2.1 says I can terminate my contract. As such, D2.2 should have the same provision. Ultimately if the telco changes an unlimited plan to a cap, and then I go over the cap, because I based my decision to buy this plan based on a certain usage, I should not be penalized simply because the telco decides to change the plan.

Issue 6:
D3.3 I would recommend option 1. the telcos should not be providing cash incentives.

Issue 7:
D3.4 I would recommend option 1 with a change. The contract should autorenew month to month with the same terms, unless the account is in arrears. I would fear some dead person is still being charged

Issue 8:
D4.1
Please have the telcos advertise the wireless charge separately from the device subsidy. But please do not allow the telco to provide any other monthly fee(other than govt fees): wireless services and device subsidy only. No access fee, no tower fee, no fuel surcharge, etc.

Issue 9:
D10.1 disconnection. Today, the telcos will disconnect you for non payment or a disputed bill and still charge you a monthly amount, but put the contract term on hold. If you are disconnected, the telco's should be forced to continue the term of the contract

On D7.1 - Option 2 makes the most sense here - carriers should *never* be allowed to lock an unsubsidized phone in the first place, as the only justification for doing so is anti-competitive by nature. For a subsidized phone, it is certainly understandable as long as unlocking is free at either the end of the contract or after an ETF has been paid.

I've made it a point to never purchase a locked or subsidized phone before, but unfortunately that typically means having to buy them in other countries as, aside from the iPhone, it is nearly impossible to buy a factory unlocked phone domestically.

Carriers should not be allowed to ask for 30 days notice to cancel services. This isn't a suite to rent that they need 30 days to find a new occupant / customer.
This may be already taken care of in the new code. But something that I am curretntly in dispute with Fido.
We should follow EU in putting caps on roaming charges and also put deadlines for these charges to drop to below certain levels.
To protect the public, and help the Canadian economy please don't be easy on these firms that have enjoyed a smooth ride for a very long time.
Thanks,

On D5.3 - the ability to subscribe Mobile Premium Services should be disabled by default on all starting contracts and then be explicitly opted into after.

On D7.1:

My employer purchased multiple full price / non-subsidized iPhones from Bell and they were NOT informed they were SIM locked and were NOT able to unlock them at any price. To describe this as unacceptable is a major understatement.

Option 1 offers no protection from this situation, the carrier can set prohibitive pricing on non-subsidized phones if they desire. Non-subsidzed phones should either be mandated as sold unlocked or be unlock-able at no charge to the consumer within 30 days. Option 1 does not protect consumers at all and should be discarded.

Get rid of the provider's ability to lock in the phone unless it is subsidized. Better yet, the providers should not be allowed to subsidize cell phones.
Once we buy a phone, we should be free to change provider as we see fit.

I don't like your treatment of "Unlimited" plans, your draft says:

"Service providers that offer “unlimited” plans must explain at the time of sale and in the personalized information summary whether there are limits to the “unlimited” plan and whether the service provider retains the discretion to move the consumer to a “limited” plan if these usage limits are exceeded."

If a plan is advertised as "Unlimited" it must be unlimited. No "Limits" can exist when something is "Unlimited". Please strictly enforce that "Unlimited" must mean "Unlimited" with no limits, or the term must not be used. I've heard of examples in the US of "Unlimited" plans that are not unlimited and people getting into trouble. This is blatant false advertising / lying and must be banned.

Get rid of three year contract. It is unfair to consumers to lock them in for such a long time. Other countries don't allow it; why does Canada?

Prepaid needs a better definition. All cellular service is prepaid. Customers under contract are billed one month in advance. The carrier makes money on "breakage" (failure of the customer to use the full package of services". There also needs to be a family of price plans available to consumers who have already paid for their phones instead of plans that assume the embedded cost of phones.

What does paying a subsidy have to do with unlocking? All phones should be unlocked at time of sale.

If I leave your network and cancel our contract, I still have to pay the cancellation fee. By the CRTC allowing the phones locked to the network at all,all they are doing is preventing me from using the hardware I purchased on the network I choose.

PROHIBIT STEALTHILY RE-STARTING MULT-YEAR CONTRACTS FOR CONTINUING CUSTOMERS

I was a Bell Mobility customer without interruption for six years. After about five years I was forced to buy a new basic cell phone from Bell because it did not stock batteries for the unit it originally sold me. I was NOT told that they placed me on a new 36-month contract at that point, probably because I was already upset with them about the battery issue. When I cancelled I was stunned to be charged $290 for early termination. When I complained the Bell representative instantly shot back with a carefully-crafted response: "YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW." Nobody ever could. Clever lawyered trick.

The proposed improvements in customer protection in the Wireless Code are an absolutely essential minimum to curb such abuses and should not be relaxed in any way.

I don't believe penalizing users for unlocking phones is a good for consumers. There needs to be definitions in place whereby a phone is either purchased and owned by the consumer or a phone is leased by the consumer. If a consumer purchases a phone, even at a subsidized price, they should retain ownership of that phone and be allowed to do with that phone what they wish. Companies already make their money back through 3-year contracts that have to be paid out if leaving the company. Other companies have estabished "tabs" or credit that must be paid back if the customer leaves the company prematurely. This is sufficient protection for business.

D3.3 Calculation of early termination fees. Option 2 should be selected as it makes it very clear what economic incentive is being paid after termination.

However, there should be a separate (lower) contract rate for those providing their own device, as they are receiving no economic incentive.

D3.1 Effective date of cancellation. Option 1 (with modification) should be selected. If the customer cancells by phone or email, that should be the date at which the contract is terminated. If they send it by mail, the effective date would be the receipt date.

Regarding D2.1 Changes to contracts by service providers. Option 1 should be selected. The client should have the option to terminate the contract without penalty if the terms and conditions are unilaterally changed by the service provider. This is also an incentive for providers to have contracts of shorter term than 3 years.

You are correct, the Google Nexus 4 is one example of an unlocked phone that you can purchase outright, however it's a bad example as it is nearly impossible to get. Stock shortages has made the phone unavailable for purchase for several months. As a consumer I want to have choices and the Nexus 4 is only one choice. What if I want a Nokia, Samsung, Apple, HTC, etc device unlocked? Why can't I have these without jumping through hoops to get them unlocked?

There are many reasons why people would buy a phone outright from a carrier. The main reason is to not be under contract. When you are not under contract you can pick and choose which carrier you want when you want. You can choose "pay as you go" as an option. If you are unhappy with one carrier you can simply go to another. No Contract = Consumer Freedom.

Also, just to comment on you last sentence. If you truely believed that it's just better to give-in to business, you wouldn't be posting here. ;)

Regarding section "D7. Unlocking wireless devices," under "option 2", section "Mobile wireless device not subsidized:", clause "(2) is no longer on contract" -- I assume that the intent is for devices that are no longer on contract by virtue of the consumer having completed the full term of the contract, or the consumer having paid all applicable termination charges in the case of a cancelled contract. I strongly support the stipulation of no fees for unlocking phones that are fully paid for.

Under advertising guidelines in the draft code, wireless providers would still be able to advertise plans with some limits as "unlimited". Since when did unlimited = limited ? This is counter productive and does nothing to stop the false advertising that is rampant. It is worse than raising the price of an item by 10% on Monday and advertising it on 'sale' at 10% off the following day for a sale that has no expiry date. Further, is the currently hidden cost of a 'free device on a 3 year term' going to be clearly detailed so providers can't find a way to circumvent the regulations and still charge customers who opt out early ? WHY does CRTC permit 3 year contracts in the first place ?

get rid of the 3 year contract

Please consider:
1. Inclusion in a standard contract of coverage map with guaranteed, as a minimum, in the defined fraction of time, such as 99% - power density levels, bandwidths and latencies. After this requirement will be in effect, I believe that many apps will appear on the market to monitor these parameters.

2. Change of pricing model for airtime from "receiver pays" to "transmitter pays". This model is being used in Europe. It limits unwanted marketing calls, and does not penalize a receiving party for stray or erroneous calls.

3. Creating incentives to consolidate backbone wireless infrastructure, WAN WiFi, WiMAX, etc., in a similar way how this is done by the Australian government. The cell transceivers should be run by a consortium with pooled capital and pooled R&D budgets. So far, we (Canadians) are behind with the implementation of new technologies. In Kansas City Google runs 1GB internet connectivity pilot. With balkanized ISPs we will always stay behind. Recent studies conducted in UK show that improved bandwidth causes 45% decline in preventable mortality (for example with increased bandwidth health professionals can access and transmit high res xrays in real time). I understand that this issue may be directly related to the discussion on consumer wireless contracts, but who is going to handle catching up with modern technologies in a systematic manner?

Regards

Under advertising guidelines in the draft code, wireless providers would still be able to advertise plans with some limits as "unlimited," but would have to explain "whether there are limits to the 'unlimited' plan and whether the service provider retains the discretion to move the consumer to a 'limited ' plan if usage limits are exceeded. Really?

So carriers can say their plans are 'unlimited' but then redefine the English language to explain that 'unlimited' is actually limited according to the carriers discretion? to move the consumer to a 'limited ' plan if usage limits are exceeded. 'Un-Limited' - No Limits!

No 3-Year Contracts! Do that. Do it now. Consumers want that overwhelmingly but where is it in your Draft Document? Where? Why isn't it there? Do you want consumer input or is this all just for show. Do the right thing and ban 3-Year contracts.

please force the carriers to email a copy of your entire service agreement every time it's changed!

That would significantly reduce the B.S. and protect the consumer as it should be.

Under the current model we are contractually obliged to something that is often adjusted over the phone and consumers deserve a copy in writing if they are legally committed to a service agreement.

A wireless provider must transmit in writing (email) when any contractual changes are made to an account, the full details of the changes made by the representative of all parts of the agreement
in an easy to understand format.

Currently you can negotiate with the customer service agents either on the phone or in person, but they are never able to send you a copy of your "new plan" and thus opening the door to all kinds of charges when the customer can never actually prove what their agreement is. (Unless they record the conversations that is....)

A few amendments:

D1.3 Pre-paid services, Option 2:

- [...] Any "unlimited" features (texting, incoming calls, etc) that are pre-paid on a monthly or 30-day basis should be usable for the entire length of the pre-paid period regardless of the pre-paid balance.

D2.1 Changes to contracts, Option 2:

- [... If the change would increase the consumer's obligations or reduce the service provider’s obligations,] a lack of response from the consumer should be treated as a refusal of the changes proposed by the carrier. A lack of action should never be interpreted as agreement. In addition, if a carrier proposes a change to the terms of the contract the consumer should be allowed to make a counter-proposal like any other legal contract. If neither party accepts the proposals of the other then no contract changes shall be made.

D3.3 Calculation of fees/credits, Option 1:

- [...] If a consumer pays for their monthly services in advance, the consumer shall be entitled to a credit equal to a prorated amount of their monthly fee.

D4.1 Advertised prices:

- [...] Any advertised prices for devices must indicate if it is a subsidized price and the amount of the subsidy being offered in a font no less than half the size of the advertised price and at a distance of no more than one line-height from the advertised price. The full price of the device must also be shown so that the consumer understands the full value of the advertised device.

D4.3 Unlimited plans:

- Any "unlimited" services are to be exactly that: Unlimited. Carriers are not to abuse the definition of the word "unlimited" as part of their advertising. Carriers may impose restrictions on consumers found to be using the network excessively if there is overwhelming evidence, which must be produced by the carrier on demand, that said excessive use is inhibiting the use of the network by other consumers. These restrictions are to be time-limited to a period less than 24 hours and are not to affect the usability of the network. If the restrictions are applied during a period that the carrier considers to be "peak hours" for the network then the restrictions are to be lifted at the end of said "peak hours" and that said "peak hours" are to last no more that 6 hours. Consumers will also be able to request, no less than 24 hours in advance and at no additional charge, a period of higher-than-expected usage without restrictions.

D5.1 Notification of additional fees:

- [... When hardware connects to a network outside of Canada. The notification will include the roaming rates for voice, data, and text messaging.] The consumer will be able to reply to the notification to either turn off service within the selected country or to opt-in to roaming packages to be presented in further notifications. [...]

D5.2 Tools to monitor and manage usage:

- [The service provider will provide the consumer with an online tool that allows the consumer to monitor the balance of included usage allowances and any additional fees incurred within a billing cycle.] The carrier will make available offline tools to monitor and manage usage for those who do not have internet access. These tools may include contacting customer service by phone or in person at the carrier's retail and dealer locations. [...]

D6.2 Services charges during repair:

- [... 4. the] repair [is covered under warranty. ...]

D7.1 Unlocking phones:

- Option 3: Carriers are to provide consumers with unlocked devices. Device locking is an artificial restriction requested by the carrier to the manufacturer that hinders consumers' freedom.

D10.1 Disconnection, Option 1:

- [... Consumers can only be disconnected] during a carrier's Customer Service Department's operating hours, at least 1 hour before the department closes. [...]

you should be able to have notifications if you go over data or roaming cap.If every country lets visitors use their networks then there would might not be any roaming charges.

I agree.

I agree we need 2 year contracts and cheaper plans.there is no competetion unless you go with wind or mobilicity.

Good point glister. In some ways the current scheme is an admission that you've paid off your subsidy after 2 (or 2.5) years. They will happily give you a new contract and a new phone at that point - as long as you stick with them. The extra year is just to stifle competition.

The draft code addresses many issues with the Wireless industry in Canada and is a big boost to consumers if the enforcement is strong. While 3 year contracts are an issue, having the option seems to be a good route. I found the unlocking mechanisms particularly useful but worry that the economic intensives can be abused without strengthening the wording.

Three year contracts should not be allowed to be sold to consumers. This option should not even be available to cellphone companies otherwise they will always provide heavy discount to the consumers and entice them to sign up 3 year contracts.

Cellphone companies should provide warranty for phones for free if they are forcing customers to sign up for 3 years contract. I had my phone stopped working after year and 1 month and my manufacturer warranty expired just a month ago. But I was still stuck with the contract for another 2 years. There were no physical damage to the phone.

Why prepaid account have monthly expiration of balance
It should stop right away. Customers should not be forced to recharge their phones every month. customers who want flexibility of not paying monthly bills go with prepaid accounts. If they have not used up their dollars within a month it should not expire.

PAY AS YOU GO - It would be nice to see that pay as you go is pay as you go. no extra charges or need to top up your account every month regardless if you use your minutes or not. Also will the CRTC regulate the cost per minute?

A phone should be unlocked at no charge once the phone is paid for, or at the end of the contract for a subsided phone. The lock is a benefit for the carrier and a restriction for the subscriber.

i agree phones should be sold unlocked

i want all phones to be sold unlocked ,further more i do not want providers to sell mobile phone

I especially agree with D1.3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO PRE-PAID SERVICES) Option 2 ("... The service provider may not apply an expiry date to credits purchased for the use of pre-paid service."). The credits purchased should be owned by the subscribers and cannot be confiscated by the service providers.

I am pleased to see article D7.1. I have always been perplexed by the fact that a phone cannot be unlocked, even after I have rightfully paid for it. The cost of a phone is related to the contract term, which leads to believe that the phone is subsidized based on the profit made over that same period. It stands to reason that the plan subscriber is the rightful owner of the phone, at the end of the contract, and he/she should receive the unlock code at no charge.

Yeah, it's possible to buy some devices that are unlocked and unbranded, but the vast majority of devices are sold locked and branded, especially ones purchased from mobile service providers.

But the point of the second paragraph is to help circumvent the exclusivity of a handset to a particular carrier. For example, you can only purchase the HTC One X+ on Telus (or iirc, the Lumia 920 is Rogers only) at this moment, but you want to continue with your awesome plan you negotiated with another carrier. To some degree, I actually want to side with the carriers on this one - they spent extra money ensuring that they have access to that particular phone, and mandating 30 days of service before unlock helps to ensure this.

Three year contracts:

There are some OK additions in D3.3 for penalties for cancelling service. However, there are no additions regarding an issue many Canadians have with their current service providers. Canada is the exception rather than the rule in that three year contracts are pretty much the mandatory contract. If you choose to opt for a 1 or 2 year contract, you must be prepared to cover a huge upfront cost + activation fees for a phone. Many phones are not designed to last three years with moderate to heavy use (battery/charger problems, screen problems, speakers break, etc). With cell phones receiving so much heavy use in our everyday life, why can companies lock consumers into three year contracts that likely won't last the life of the phone. For example, I have already spent $200 on hardware problems on my 1.5 year old phone (issues that arose 2 months after the initial 1 year warranty ended). I am not looking forward to doing another 1.5 years and whatever costs it may bring. However, in 6 months the company can lock me into another 3 year contract to upgrade an already unreliable phone. Please consider making 2 year contracts the maximum allowable contract.

Consumers can already purchase devices that are not locked and not branded: google's nexus phones. The last one - the galaxy nexus - was available on pretty much every carrier but few people bought it. The current edition - the nexus 4 - is available from the Google Play store.

Regarding your second paragraph - why would anyone buy a phone outright from their carrier? If you don't buy into a 3 year contract the carrier will penalize you with expensive plans - unless you are buying elsewhere to avoid the carriers' inflated phone prices, you are better to just give-in and buy your phone from the carrier.

D4.2 must include "Premium Texting" - I recently spent an hour on the phone attempting to reverse charges for a premium texting service that I had never subscribed to. What I have learned from this experience is that the so called "services" sending premium texts appear to be mostly scam operations that are not based in Canada and are completely unreachable and untouchable. My contract is with the wireless carrier. It is their responsibility not to charge me for services I have not purchased. Additionally, the wireless carrier claimed they could not turn off premium texting services (something I now know is untrue). It should be possible for customers to turn off regular and premium texting without charge if they don't want the service.

Net Neutrality Not Guaranteed - For many Canadians, wireless providers are the primary or only internet service provider. Yet there is no mention in the draft of guaranteeing net neutrality, i.e. wireless carriers cannot favour their own commercial interests by restricting or shaping how their customers use data. Blocking VOIP, tethering fees, and selling "tablet tv" for 1/4 of the cost of the bandwidth of other content are all examples of current unacceptable practices.

I would like to comment on the unlocking portion of the code. Unlocking of a device should occur within 30 days of service as long as the account remains in good standing. This should be provide for FREE. There is no reason for a carrier to charge for an unlocking service when a customer continues to pay their monthly fees. Once the subsidy has been paid off there is again no reason for a carrier to charge for providing the unlock codes.

My second critique is of the 3 year contract length. They should be reduced to a maximum for two years. The USA carriers have been doing this for years now and so has the rest of the world in fact. Two years is long enough for canadian carriers to recover their subsidy costs along with a decent profit.

This code needs to address the length of contracts in Canada. While nearly all contracts are three years here, they are, in reality, 2.5+.5 contracts. Almost every carrier allows you to stick with them and get a new phone once you have six months left on your contract, some are as liberal as up to a year.

This stifles competition. Cell phone users—tied down to long term contracts—are reluctant wait out their one year option. Three years ago everyone had a blackberry. Today, RIM is dead. This is not the PC market, or cameras, or a vacuum cleaner. This is a technology that changes significantly within a year, dramatically in two years and industry-changing in three. Consumers are going to take that one year option every time, and with only three major competitors essentially offering the same thing, why bother?

This is the competitive climate that the 2+1 contract breeds. Get rid of it. Canada protects its national carriers with strict foreign ownership rules. It needs stricter regulation for consumers to match what it gives to big business.

I would like to see added that owners should have the right to refuse to accept any text messages. Currently, I am being charged for (supposed) text messages sent by "unknown" people that the carrier refuses to identify. I never receive these messages. I don't want text messages sent to me via my mobile phone, from anyone. The carrier refuses to put this type of block on my phone and consequently, as I am on a pay-by-use plan, I am forced to pay for what the carrier says are text messages (I never see them), and "wrong number" text messages (usually long distance), when I don't want any text messages.

I am in support of any requirement that forces Carriers to unlock phones at no additional cost to the consumer once that consumer has met the conditions of the contract (Either 1, 2, or 3 years). Once the contract period is over and there is no longer a subsidy on that device it becomes the property of the consumer and should not be locked to the carrier.

The same logic needs to be applied to any device that is purchased outright with no contract. If A consumer purchases a device for full price it should be immediately unlocked at no additional cost to the consumer. There is no reason why ortright puchased devices should be locked at all.

Additionally I believe that consumers should have a right to puchase devices that have not been "Branded" by carriers or preloaded with carrier software. This should be especially true for any device that is not subsidised and bought outright.

The option to purchase factory unlocked devices needs to be available.

A few concerns,
D3.3 There should be a cap on the charges imposed on cancelling a contract. As it reads, if I, as a consumer, have a 3 year contract with my provider and I am not happy with my service after the first year, the provider can opt to amend the contract to satisfy the customer. If, after six more months, I wish to cancel, the provider resets the contract to 6 months prior and charges a cancellation fee equal to 30 months, instead of 18. This makes the cancelation fee on a basic data plan $2098.5 at that time. I feel that if the Provider is offering a change in a contract as an incentive the contract start date should not change.

D3.4 There should not be any automatic renewal of a 3 year contract. This would result in a customer finding themselves in a situation where they are automatically renewed and if they wanted to change providers they would be levied with outrageous cancellation charges.

D4.3 Cell phone companies should not be allowed to use the word "Unlimited" unless the plan, contract or service described is truly unlimited. I would also like to mention, as a side note, that this needs to apply to internet service providers as well.

There is no mention of a contract cap. Canada is the only Country where all of the major providers have a mandatory 3 year contract. This is unacceptable.

I also have a personal note. My work takes me to different countries, I have my smart phone for use at home and a cheap one for travelling. When I call "Long Distance" (by which I mean Toronto to Hamilton) here in Ontario I pay $0.60 in Long Distance charges. When I was working in Sri Lanka with a pay as you go plan from Dialog my long distance rates to call home in Toronto was $0.06.

It is well documented that Canada has the highest Cell Phone Plan and Long Distance rates in the world.

There should be something in the code to limit the exorbitant rates we as consumers have to pay. As well as the length of time we have to pay it.

Get rid of three year contracts!
Cell phone charges are way toooo high in Canada!!!

I am in agreement with the following options
A3 #1, B1#1, B2#1, D1.3 #2, D2.1 #1, D3.1 #1, D3.3 #1, D3.4 #1, D7.1 #1, D10.1 #1

D4.2
Unsolicited wireless services and charges

There is a significant issue with network service providers loading devices with their own software so as to direct network clients to additional paid or unpaid services offered by the network provider. This is a form of lock-in. There was a significant court case in the US in which IBM was prohibited from using such a tactic to obtain customer lock in as it was deemed to be in restraint of trade.

Mobile technology is advancing very quickly. I am involved in development for mobile devices and believe that permitting the network owner to install his own software constitutes restraint of trade and greatly narrows the market for 3rd party innovation.

This hurts the opportunity space for Canadian developers and results in a slow pace of CDN innovation in a very fast moving marketplace. Ultimately this hurts all Canadians as development and development jobs and revenue will move elsewhere and Canadians will be left with wealthy network merchants but remain well bend the innovation curve. And it is expected that mobile will usher in changes equal or greater than those introduced by the PC era.

The secondary issue is that network owners have no incentive to make new firmware available for older devices even if such firmware is available in foreign jurisdictions. They would prefer the customer purchase a new device rather than upgrade a still capable older device.

The device vendor should be required to clearly indicate when the device being sold departs from the accepted publicly referenced standard. As an example Samsung makes devices described as "Galaxy S II" but these devices are actually built to different specifications. It is possible to read about a Galaxy S II and its capabilties and then purchase an offering for a Galaxy S II and only later determining that it is not the same device as the Galaxy S II made available but is in fact a model specific to a certain network provider. This is aking to buying a car and then finding that while you thought you were buying a Honda Civic you have actually purchased a Honda Civic Joe's Garage sub-model Xv2. If vendors want to sell expensive devices they should be required to explicitly state that this device is a Vendor specific device and not the generic device reported on elsewhere.

3-year contracts were the most 'liked' comments during the consultation process.

I wasn't expecting you to ban them, but I'm surprised there is nothing in the contract to somehow empower consumers to be able to get 1 or 2 year contracts (or bring their own phone) at reasonable rates.

I guess the closest thing is D3.3 which addresses the penalty for someone who cancel early, but even that includes an option (#2) which renders it completely meaningless.

In ignoring this issue (3 year contracts) the CRTC gives the impression that the consultation process was just for show. After reading the draft code, and seeing options such as "D3.3 option 2", I'm further convinced that this entire exercise is just politics and is not meant to really change anything.

Regarding "D3.3 Calculation of early termination fees"

Option 1 - in which the consumer must pay back the outstanding hardware subsidy could be effective if there were some controls on how the carriers calculates that subsidy. For example, how do you prevent the carriers from further inflating the list price of their phones to artificially increase the subsidy amount?

Option 2 - this option makes the whole thing meaningless! The incumbent carriers have two tiers of pricing: the 'list' prices and the 'real' prices. Few consumers go for full-list price, so the carriers can claim that most consumers got an 'economic incentive', and this option would allow them to add that to the termination fee. That would be effectively the same as things are now.

The carriers already use their strange pricing scheme to protect themselves on a variety of fronts (e.g. if you want to bring your own phone you don't get the 'real' prices). Whether you allow them to use it to get around the new wireless code will be an important test of the code.

The automatic contract renewal section should completely remove Option 1. Contracts should not be automatically renewed without the consumer's consent. Should the consumer refuse to renew a contract, he/she should be switched to "month-to-month" but the pricing of the plans and other options added to it should all remain the same.

B1: Option 1. Too complicated to phase in.
B2: OPtion 1. Although the industry has always tried to get customers to take out new contracts, it should be applied to all customers without forcing customer to take new contracts.

I fully support B1 variant two (2) and B2 variant one (1).

(B1;2)

To be fair to wireless service providers, and to enable an opportunity for public education, I believe the wireless code should be rolled out gradually over a specific period of time. This would also after maximum protection for customers; enabling them to reap the benefits asserted to them by the wireless code.

(B2;1)

I don't believe it is at all fair that existing customers who have built up loyalty with any one provider should not be entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to new customers. This wireless code should be universal; affording equal protection to new and existing customers.

I would support a variant of B2 Option 1. The Wireless Code should come into force within 6 months, and apply to new contracts and existing contracts that ARE 18 MONTHS PAST from the date of the Code coming into force. This would minimize the inconvenience for consumers locked into existing contracts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this.

Providers claimed it is impossible to cap the service charges because of disability of implemented billing system to calculate service charges "on-the fly". Yes, canadian providers are using a "stone age" billing systems. I know for sure, about 10 year ago some kind of "hot billing" was implemented in Kazakhstan, in K-Cell company. I am sure, providers know about so called "hot billing" very well. They know, there is no any "impossibility" to implement it. Of course, it would take some time and money. And willingness! And the claim of "impossibility" of quazi-real-time calculations of service charges is just additional bright illustration of how greedy canadian cellular providers are.

For B1, option 2 is preferable if the sections included are reasonable. Otherwise, the 6 month target is acceptable.
For B2, option 1 is many times more helpful to consumers. Many consumers are locked in to three-year contracts that may have started soon before the code comes into effect. All consumers should be protected by the Wireless Code, not only new ones.

I read your article on cell phones.

Can you tell me where to send this complaint.

I was with Rogers for 10yrs+ they were always paid and they billed in advance. My contract ended with them 3 or 4 years before I cancelled service.

I went with a new carrier.After cancelling Rogers sent me a bill for an additional 30 days (even though I had no contract with them)I told them I could cancel any other bill without 30 days notice-power -water-phone etc.I argued with them they sent the account for collection,rather than ruine my credit I paid them.I contacted Consumer affairs before paying them and I was told even though I had no contract with Rogers I had to give them 30 days notice to cancel meaning I had to pay 2 phone bill's for the first month.????

Thanks

I am currently needlessly tied to a contract with Bell. 4 months ago, I was shopping for a plan for my fully owned phone which I had purchased though a 3 year contract with Bell. I love my phone, but because it does not have a sim card, my options in terms of carriers were limited. I approached Bell retention center because at the time Koodo was offering a good package for 40.00 per month. Bell offered me a similar package, without nationwide calling and free evenings only started at 6 rather than 5(in the Koodo plan). Since I really couldn't switch to Looks, I decided to take the retention plan from Bell. Then came the kicker. In order for them to give me this plan, I had to agree to a full 3 year contract. I asked why, siting that my phone is paid for. But they insisted. I agreed to the contract provided I could freely upgrade to a new phone on the same plan. I knew my phone was unlikely to last another 3 years. They agreed. So last week I asked about upgrading my phone, and I was told that I would need a new contract, and that it would require a minimum 50 plan for yet another 3 years. The was considering switching to the new Blackberry Z10. They did offer other phone to which I might upgrade and keep my existing plan, but the 3 year term would have to be restarted. So what happened to the equity i should have gained in the 4 months I was in the contract with my existing phone?

My point is that the implementation of the new code must be retroactive. The carriers have forced us into unfair situations against our better judgement and we need a way out. Why should those in existing contracts not be able to benefit from the new code. I believe you would see competitive forces come into play much sooner.

A1 Application of the Wireless Code to wireless providers
I believe it is essential for consumers that the draft code be mandatory through legislation or regulation. Such federal legislation should SUPERSEDE any provincial legislation in this area. Even the CWTA supports an overarching federal code. Have the CRTC wireless code, whether voluntary or mandatory, simply "coexist" with provincial legislation is simply a recipe for confusion. Consumers will not know where to turn. Additionally, the higher cost of compliance for the wireless operators will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Please BOTH the industry and consumers through a SINGLE code or single piece of legislation that applies to wireless services.

The question of unlocking does not go far enough. Carriers hold users hostage by voiding the device's warrantee once it is unlocked

I think that a phased-in approach is reasonable and will give wireless companies a chance to ensure that their policies are in line with new regulations.
With regards to B2, I am strongly in favour of Option 1. This code is meant to protect consumers. Unless the CRTC wishes to protect new consumers only and has no concern for Canadians with existing contracts, this code should be applicable retroactively. They cannot be penalized for signing contracts before regulation was in place, as there was no alternative.

Given that this process has now been going on for some time, implementation 3 months after the code is adopted would be reasnable.

The enforcement is way too weak.

C2 indicates that CCTS will be able to order ceasing acivity with respect to "the consumer", meaning the one who complained. CCTS should be able to order a cellphone company to cease a practice that violates the Code for all customers not just ones who complain.

CCTS should also not have to wait for a complaint to order a practice that violates the Code to cease, however it finds out it should act.

Combined with the moneytary consequence being compensation to the customer this is weak as well in that a cellphone company that violates the rules for 100,000 customers making $10 from each, then has 200 complain, at most is ordered to give the 200 back the $10. The rest who did not know to complain are left in the cold? The company keeps all that money it ripped off? That is hardly going to make a company try to comply.

The CCTS should be able to fine companies that do not comply with the Code, particularly if they are repeat offenders.

C1 - A report demonstrating compliance should not only be required after the implementation of the code, but on a continuous basis
C2 - These requirements should not be either/or. If a service provider contravenes the code, they must
1. Cease specific activities that are in violation of the code and/or its spirit (not undertake to cease, but actually cease!) AND
2. Reimburse/cancel any charges incurred by these activities AND
3. Apologize
C3 - It would be helpful to create a database where complainants can log on to check the status of their dispute. This could be facilitated by assigning each dispute with an identication number that users could enter into the database. The database could provide information such as the name of the CCTS representative who is attempting to resolve their dispute; how they can be contacted (if necessary); any recent activity.

In the insurance business, companies are required to hire an ombudsman who is required receive complaints against the company, resolve disputes and to monitor the corporations adhearance to the insurance act.

I would recommend that service providers be required to hire an ombudsman of complaints for the purpose of compliance with the Wireless Code. Where the Ombudsman cannot resolve the complaint to the consumers satisfaction within 14 days, the complaint would automatically be forwarded to CCTV for resolution.

In Section C2, it states that "The CCTS can require a service provider to provide a consumer with an explanation or apology, an undertaking to do or cease doing specific activities with respect to the consumer, or monetary compensation up to $5,000."

The CCTS should not only allow them to apologize or act, the code should state that the service provider must apologize AND act in order to resolve any outstanding issues. If not, companies should expect to pay $5000 in compensation to the consumer. With the current wording, it can be interpreted that the act of an apology is enough, they do it all the time and consumers always loses.

This wireless code MUST require service providers to actively fix an issue within 30 days and must provide the consumer in writing if it cannot be fixed within the 30 day window and set a solid date as to when they expect to have it resolved or allow the option to cancel their service without penalties. Failure to do so can also incur that $5000 in monetary compensation to the consumer.

The 2 greedy companies, Bell and rogers Rogers must be transparent. Enforce the bill and let them give easy access to unlock the phone. Mobilicity does not give their customers that kind of access even though all of their phones are being bought outright. That's too much greed

Billing - One of the most annoying, frustrating and otherwise theivery is the billing due dates. The due date for payments should not fall on non business days. In the old days, we used to write a cheque with the payment date and the funds were withdrawn on that date. With electronic payment, the bill has to be paid minimum 2 days in advance (someone is making money on the float) and if the payment date falls on a statury holiday, saturday or sunday, it must be paid 3-4 days ahead of time - again free interest for someone. And God forbid, that by mistake you make Saturday or Sunday the payment date, interest charges are applied since the bank does not execute the transaction until the next business day.

I would be happy to walk in the carrier's office on non-business days and pay my bill if their offices were open for bill payment on those days. Due dates should be mandatory to occur on business days.

A1, A2, and A5 are all acceptable, and A4 and A6 are very important. The consumer is the one at the mercy of the service providers, and the consumer must be protected.
For A3, option 1 is preferable. The service providers must be held to the same standards for all services related to the Wireless Code for all consumers.

A1 Application of the Wireless Code to wireless providers
I believe it is essential for consumers that the draft code be mandatory through legislation or regulation. Such federal legislation should SUPERSEDE any provincial legislation in this area. Even the CWTA supports an overarching federal code. Have the CRTC wireless code, whether voluntary or mandatory, simply "coexist" with provincial legislation is simply a recipe for confusion. Consumers will not know where to turn. Additionally, the higher cost of compliance for the wireless operators will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Please BOTH the industry and consumers through a SINGLE code or single piece of legislation that applies to wireless services.

B1: Option 1 - six months is plenty of time
B2: Option 1 - people unfairly treated shouldn't have to wait 3 years for an above board contract
D2.1: Option 1 - if the consumer can't make changes to the contract why should the provider
D3.3: Option 1 - its fair and Option 2 is too complicated for consumers to understand
D3.4: Option 1 - its fair
D7,1: Option 1 - its the only fair option. They don't "lock" a car, house, etc when you finance it. Your phone should really never be locked. You are bound by the terms of your contract regardless. This also limits your freedom to use the device abroad.

B1. OPTION 2-PHASED IN APPROACH. Fairer for service providers. It will also give them time to properly re-train their customer service personnel.
B2. OPTION 1 Apply to contracts signed on or after date of implementation.

D1.3 OPTION 2.Why should pre-paid services purchased expire ? Money is not just good for a certain period.

D2.1 OPTION 2 SOMETIMES modifcations improve the contract terms. Advanced notice with a no-fee cancellation for the consumer is fair.

D3.1: OPTION 2 SOMETIMES it is easier to calculate the exact final payments if you terminate your contract on the exact billing day date (a later date). No "pro-rata" calculations have to be made.

D3.3 OPTION 1 Much easier to calculate for the average consumer. Some people are "mathematically challenged". Think of seniors especially. Not all benefited from a secondary or graduate eduction. Use the KISS principle.

d3.4 OPTION 2 Advanced notice is better. Gives the time for the consumer to "shop" for the better deals. With option 1 you always have the possibility the consumer will nor remember his contract is expiring soon and he'll be locked in for at least a month at his old contract conditions. Not all of us have secretaries, administrative assistants or Outlook calendars that give us advance warnings.

D7.1 OPTION 2 We must be fair to the providers. A subsidized phone on a 3 year contract is like a credit purchase. The provider has to expend the financial support for the consumer. If the phone is fully paid by the consumer, there's no reason why it should be loked in the fiorst ^place. All IPHONES purchased at Apple Stores are "Hardware" unlocked. This means they can function on all North American networks and with the majority of European an Asian service providers.

D10.1 OPTION 1 NO excuse for not paying your bills! There should be a reasonable reconnection charge implemented, if only to remind the faulty consuer to pay his bills on time.

D1.1 - Define "appropriate." For example, font should be no less than 3/4 the size of the font used to advertise the actual plans.
D1.14 - Summary should include warranty end date.
D2.1 - I support Option 2
D3.1 - I support Option 1
D3.3 - I support Option 1. There is no reason that the consumer should be required to pay an additional cancellation fee ($50 or 10%...) after the economic incentive has been recovered. This would just be payment for service that was not provided, which is unreasonable.
D3.4 - I support Option 1. It is not wrong to renew the contract on a month-to-month basis after expiry, and the notice requirement outlined in Option 1 is reasonable.
D4.3 - This should include a stipulation that if the consumer is moved to a "limited" plan due to exceeding the limits of their "unlimited" plan, this move is not permanent and the consumer can revert to their "unlimited" plan providing that they remain within its limits.
D5.1 - This clause should clarify that these notifications should be sent for voice AND data usage separately.
D6.2 - This should differentiate between voice and data services. For example, when Rogers sends a smartphone away for repair, "loaner phones" are available to the customer for use while their device is being repaired. However, the loaner phone is often a simple phone not capable of data usage, meaning that the customer cannot use data services that they are still paying for. Therefore, this clause should specify that if the replacement hardware provided during the repair period is not capable of accessing the services paid for by the consumer, then charges for those services not accessible must be suspended. Without this clarification, service providers are given the opportunity to continue charging consumers for all services while only some services are capable of being used.
D7 - Please specify a maximum amount that service providers may charge to unlock a consumer's phone. Consumers can usually unlock their phone online for $5, however this will void their warranty. If a service provider is allowed to charge $50 (for example) to unlock a consumer's phone without voiding their warranty, the consumer is effectively being forced to pay more. The service provider should be expected to charge a reasonable amount for this service, and that amount should be clearly defined to avoid abuse.
D10.1 - I support Option 1 with the following comments:
-A $50 limit is unreasonable, as most monthly fees exceed that amount. Rather, disconnection should be allowed if the amount due exceeds the sum of two months of monthly service fees, or has been past due for at least two months.
-The service provider must notify the consumer by text message and/or email. Notification by mail would be unreasonable given the timeline.
-Service providers must restrict hours of disconnection (i.e. by 9pm on a weeknight or by 5pm on a weekend) based on the hours they are available to be contacted. For example, if a consumer is cut off at 9pm but the service provider's customer contact line closes at 9pm, that would be unreasonable. Disconnection should be limited to at least 1 hour prior to the time that the call centre would close. This should also take into account the time difference in the user's location (as identified by their billing address).

D1.3 Pre-paid Services
Option 2 is preferred as the money paid fro the pre-paid cards never expires. Why should the card expire.

D2.1 - Chnages to Contracts by Service Providers
Option 1 would be consumers better protection by allowing them to concel a contract where the services provider wished to change the terms. If the can come to an agreement so be it but the consumer should be in the drivers seat in this insistance.

D3.3 Calculation of Early Termination Fee

To begin with, I beleive all contracts should be month to month. The only contract sshould be concerning the services to be provided. Having said that, Option 1 would give a more clear provision to the consumer without having a complicated formula to worry about.

D7.1 Unlocked Phones

All cell phones should be required to be sold as "UNLOCKED DEVICES". Early cancellation fees on phones that are subsidized take care of the proprietory issue. The issue of a fee to unlock a phone is meerly a cash grab by the service provider. Unless I'm loosing sight of the purpose of this exersice, it is to protect the consumer of unnecessary and unreasonable fees.

D.10.1 Disconnection

Option 1 is fair to both parties and clearifies the terms under which disconnection is appropriate.

D5.2 TOOLS TO MONITOR AND MANAGE USAGE

Capping monthly bills -

I would expect to have access to a portal where I can restrict the following
1. overage on minutes
2. overage on text
3. overage on data
4. overage on roaming minutes
5. overage on roaming text
6. overage on roaming data
7. Automatic contract renewal preference - on/off.

I would like to be able to enter the amounts or tell the portal that no overages are allowed except for emergency calls.

This would also be in accordance with D4.2
UNSOLICITED WIRELESS SERVICES AND CHARGES, where I agree to pay for x minutes/texts/mb data but don't want to be charged for overages because I want to be cut off.

I also expect to be able to fully filter incoming and outgoing calls and texts - the portal should allow me to set white or black lists!

D1.3 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO PRE-PAID SERVICES
"Option 2:The service provider may not apply an expiry date to credits purchased for the use of pre-paid service." This is unclear - no expiry on activating credits or no expiry on available credits meaning roll over what's not used..? Prepaid minutes, data and text should roll over.

D4.1 ADVERTISED PRICES - Sim cards should be free, on activationd and replacement.

D7.1 UNLOCKING PHONES - This is lacking. When a contract has been fulfilled, the phone subsidy is to be considered complete and the phone needs to be unlocked for free.

PERSONAL INFORMATION - additional charges may apply - this needs examples for long distance and roaming, similar to the CANCELLATION AND RENEWAL SECTION. ie
You have 500mb/month data. If you roam 500mb in the USA, @ 5c/MB you are paying $25 in extra charges.
You have 100min/month talk. If you roam 100min in the USA @ 50c/min, you are paying $50 in extra charges.

Devices should most certainly be unlocked for free regardless of whether or not a contract is active. The provider should not have the right to restrict my ability to switch to a different provider's SIM card when I travel in order to avoid their exhorbitant roaming rates.

F! -- review the effectiveness of the code EVERY THREE YEARS
The marketplace and technology is simply changing to quickly for a 5-year wait before a review of the code's effectiveness. A review of the Wireless Code should be undertaken within 3 years of the implementation of the final code. So the review would consider a full three years of actual industry and consumer experience with the Code.

I read your article on cell phones.

Can you tell me where to send this complaint.

I was with Rogers for 10yrs+ they were always paid and they billed in advance. My contract ended with them 3 or 4 years before I cancelled service.

I went with a new carrier.After cancelling Rogers sent me a bill for an additional 30 days (even though I had no contract with them)I told them I could cancel any other bill without 30 days notice-power -water-phone etc.I argued with them they sent the account for collection,rather than ruine my credit I paid them.I contacted Consumer affairs before paying them and I was told even though I had no contract with Rogers I had to give them 30 days notice to cancel meaning I had to pay 2 phone bill's for the first month.????

Thanks

I read your article on cell phones.

Can you tell me where to send this complaint.

I was with Rogers for 10yrs+ they were always paid and they billed in advance. My contract ended with them 3 or 4 years before I cancelled service.

I went with a new carrier.After cancelling Rogers sent me a bill for an additional 30 days (even though I had no contract with them)I told them I could cancel any other bill without 30 days notice-power -water-phone etc.I argued with them they sent the account for collection,rather than ruine my credit I paid them.I contacted Consumer affairs before paying them and I was told even though I had no contract with Rogers I had to give them 30 days notice to cancel meaning I had to pay 2 phone bill's for the first month.????

Thanks

This comment relates to the format of the request for "Comment on specific topics in the Draft Code". If you wish to have consistent and organized comments on parts of the code, PLEASE list the specific topics with the SAME TEXT and ORDER of the topics in the Draft Code. In other words:
A. Appllication of the Wireless Code
B. Implementation of the Wireless Code
C. Administration and Enforcement of the Wireless Code
D. Content of the Wireless Code
E. Promotion of the Wireless Code
F. Measuring and reviewing the effectiveness of the Wireless Code

Because you used a DIFFERENT order in listing the sections, and slightly different wording, I inadvertently placed some comments in the wrong sections. For clarity, please make it easy to comment by using a CONSISTENT approach.

F. Measuring and reviewing the effectiveness of the Wireless Code
Given how long it's taken to finally address issues with the wireless carrier marketplace, and the speed with which both handsets and services are evolving, I believe it is critical to review the Wireless Code in THREE (3) years. Five years is simply to long to wait to ensure a competitive marketplace and consumer protection.

I saw a discussion from section D8 about stolen phone/devices: I understand there will be a database to prevent activation of stolen phone in the future (2014?). However, I'd like to see carriers to deactivate, trace stolen phones if the proper own files a complain (with proper proof of ownership of the wireless device). For example, if the carrier receives a written complain about stolen device's IMEI, then all the carriers must trace that device using the IMEI, find out who is using that device, deactivate the device. The current user of the device may or may not know the device was stolen. Therefore, the current user has to be informed by the carrier. If the current owner wants to dispute then the carrier has to act as a mediator as the initial owner and current owner don't need to know each other

Dear Commissioners,

Contract changes:

1. Bell, Telus, Rogers, and their lip-service group the CWTA want to be able to make "material changes in service" or "material changes" to a contract and still hold a customer to the originating contract.

2. This should be a banned practice, as it is in Quebec.

3. 30-days notice should be given to the beloved customer prior to any material changes in both service and the contract (including, but not limited to ToS, Privacy policy, ToU, fair use practices, etc).

4. What use is taking a contract then being told they are changing it on you and then forcing you to stay within that contract? I can't recall the last time I leased a car and the manufacturer lowered the allowable millage I could use, then forcing me to stay in that same contract. There would be a class action.

5. Bell, Rogers, Telus and their mouth-piece, the CWTA, are just shoving their anti-consumer garbage upon you. As the CRTC Chair even realised and stated.

6. In addition to the above, no one is stating that the original contract should be enforced regardless of any "material changes". Again, if I leased a Honda and Honda then tells me they are lower the millage I can use, but gave me the option to leave the contract I would again be mad. I signed a contract. They must honour that contract w/ no changes. Again this would be class action material.

7. Yet somehow Bell, Rogers, videotron and Telus think they should be able to do any of the above.

8. I used to be a Videotron unlimited user. I bought it and had it for exactly 3 months while in that contract, then they told me I would now only have 100-gigs of data per month for a family of 4. They let me know I could leave the contract w/o penalty but I would lose any bundle pricing. Again, who cares. That is not what I bought, nor the contract I engaged in with the company. I should have been able to stay as I was w/o the need of a class action that takes years.

9. Bell, Rogers, Videotron, Telus, and their lobby group, the CWTA, are playing god. Putting people into contracts that they claim they can change at any time, yet not allowing people to make any changes with-out finacial or contractual recourse.

10. Does the CRTC want to be seen as the puppets of the CWTA, Bell, Rogers, Telus and Videotron?

11. The new code has to be on par with Quebecs and be even tougher. With any "material change" in service or any "material change" in the wording of the contract must come with the provision of the consumer first (which is what the CRTC stated).

A) 30-days prior notice and an option to get out of the contract with zero obligation or financial penalty, and,

B) The Company *must* honour the original contract in its entirety for the duration, if the customer so wishes. Otherwise there never was a contract to begin with, just lies!

12. Allowing Bell, Rogers, Videotron, and Telus to treat their beloved customer in this fasion is very anti-consumer. I urge you to do what is right and to put an end to the madness of one-way-contracts that serve *only* the companies and no one else.

13. Or maybe the CRTC and the commissioners think people are just tools for these corporations to exploit at will as well?

Thank you.

TAP and chat online on mobile apps.

After reading all of transcripts from this meetings, I'm strongly suggestion for all wireless carriers to provide Data & Internet Usage Tools in apps same way that I have with AT&T myAT&T apps. It show on my billing cycle amount of data usage and voice time. (There is no voice time on my apps)

myAT&T have direct chat online on this apps. It is very helpful for all of us to make some request or change of plan. It is a must for all wireless carriers to provide iOS or Android apps. This is our communication accessibility. I never like using their voice call numbers at all. With chat in apps is very effective way for us to chat reps online. As far as I know that there is none of our wireless carriers provide chat online in apps at all. That is one of the biggest barriers for us.

I would recommend for all wireless carrier to establish "Text Accessiablity Plan" (TAP) format similar to AT&T for smartphone to reduce rate without voice plan for all deaf and hard of hearing people. We only need text message and data only.

Use gigabyte as unit to start with. We must make sure that the rate for data must be lower over the period of time.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

It costs according over $100 for Bell's data hub 20 GB plan (biggest data bucket they offer) while the average user (according to cisco tracking data) already consumes 28.7 GB.

The Big three cannot offer their 3G/4G service as a realistic alternative for rural home owners. While the new entrants offer better rates ($20 for 20GB mobilicity) their rollouts have been restricted mainly to densely populated areas.

The following questions need to be asked of the ISP’s

• Which ISP-offered services are excluded from the cap
This should include reporting on those services, such as voice telephony and video programming, which compete with internet-delivered non-ISP controlled offerings.

Why for example is Bell Mobile TV Addon data, excluded from end-users mobile data plans while Netflix’s is not?

• How often the cap is enforced
This should include the absolute number of customers who exceed the cap as well as the percentage of customers who run afoul of the limit. Additionally, it should include amount by which the customers exceeded the cap and how many of those customers are repeat cap exceeders.

• Steps taken to warn customers
This should include the steps taken to warn customers, and when those steps are taken. Additionally, the reporting should include data on the effectiveness of these warnings in preventing overages.

• Average penalty incurred by customers
Caps charge additional fees based on how significantly the cap is exceeded. Reporting should include data on the size of the penalties incurred by customers.

• When and how often a penalty is waived
In addition to the publicly announced grace periods, the public would be well served by understanding how often and under what circumstances reporting ISPs grant additional waivers.

• The relationship of enforcement to times of network congestion.
If used properly, theoretically data caps can be a tool in easing network congestion. However, instead of restricting caps to peak times, ISPs have begun to employ blanket caps on a per month basis and charge overage fees.

This has led to the widespread belief that ISPs are using data caps and usage based billing as a pretext to protect legacy services such as cable television and satellite TV from online competition like Netflix.

The CRTC needs to investigate the effectiveness of the current caps on reducing network congestion and if such caps are anti-competitive.

• How data caps are set
What criteria are used to arrive at the cap for various offerings? What criteria are used to determine appropriate overage fees?

This is probably the most important issue for consumers as the link between what the experts theorize the cost of delivery being and what consumers are actually getting charged is quite large.

• How data caps are evaluated on an ongoing basis
Data caps are often defended as necessary to address current network congestion issues. However, network technology is constantly being modernized and made more efficient, resulting in a lower cost of delivery.

Conversely, data usage among consumers has been on the increase. For example, a study commissioned by Cisco systems maintains that the average household worldwide used 26.2 GB of data per month in 2011, and by 2016, more than 84 GB a month will be consumed by an average family.

In light of this pattern, caps that are appropriate for today’s network (in terms of cost and effectiveness) may be inappropriate in the future. How do ISPs evaluate their existing caps, and what are the conditions under which caps are either raised and/or eliminated?

In the world of broadband data caps, the caps recently implemented by Rogers and Bell are particularly aggressive. Unlike most of their wholesale competitors, Rogers and Bell seek to convert caps into a profit by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap.

In addition, the CRTC needs to study the impact of such practices and whether or not they produce an incentive for Bell and Rogers to avoid raising their caps even as its own capacity expands and cost of delivery decreases.

The CRTC needs to investigate the effectiveness of the current caps on reducing network congestion and if such caps are anti-competitive.

Seems like Bell wants to stay in its own world.

Why Canadians don't have the options to choose the length of the contract.
Why Cosumers need to pay early temination fee if they only have a month or 2 remain

Personally I only have 2 weeks remain in my contract. I cannot just pay off remaining monthly charge for my plan; Bell wants me to pay 300 early temination fee if I switch my mobile phone provider today.

CRTC please listen to consumers

Most importantly, for Bell: if Bell doesn't want to make their customer satisfied, you are always welcome to leave the market

I have managed to watch or read most of the proceedings this week. With a few exceptions like comments by Minister Bhullar and MTS, I did not identify much testimony or questioning about how the proposed code would impact wireless service in rural areas, especially where wireless data hubs are the primary means of accessing broadband (high speed) Internet service. Indeed, one could easily leave the panel discussions believing the only items under discussion were smartphones and iPhones.

As a so-called IT Champion for a rural and semi-remote area, I have noted three major areas of consumer dissatisfaction with data hub based service worthy of being addressed by the code: a) a consistent, and accurate standard for identifying the speed of service, often expressed as honesty in advertising, a user can expect from what is in effect a shared service; b) ability to cancel a contact at no charge if the service becomes unusable due to network congestion c) realistic usage data caps based on what the average Internet usage as stated by the CRTC in its annual report at a cost compatible with what a wireline user would pay.

With regard to a) above, users are upset about an advertising policy that expresses speeds as being up to 7.2 or 21 Mbps while in the fine print, it is noted a realistic speed, due to understandable propagation impacts, that is often 25 – 40 percent of the advertised speed. WSP's should only be allowed to advertise the average speed a consumer might expect.

Item b) above is closely connected to a) above. Experience has taught us that early adopters will receive acceptable speeds over data hub circuits. As more subscribers sign on to the service, the speeds individuals receive slow down, especially during peak hours. On many occasions, the download speed became lower than that available over dial-up. Under these circumstances, consumers should have a procedure to cancel the service at little or no costs or the WSP's should be compelled to provide better service. The coverage maps are of limited value in this regard as they are usually based on voice call coverage which has different criteria than data hub service.

In the case of c) there is universal disdain for the current data caps and the associated overage charges. Most WSP's offer a flexible rate plan but it is capped at 15 to 20 GB range before per mega-byte rates kick-in. Under the current price structure, for 65 GB of data WSP's would charge in the order of $800.00 while their wireline counterparts would provide the same amount of access for around $50.00. To complicate matters, WSP's express overages in different ways: - so much a MB, or so much per GB or some combination such as so much per 500 MB. It is seldom clear how the overage is calculated. For example, under the GB structure, if a consumer goes over by 200 MB, is the charge for the basic GB or is the overage pro-rated? The code should clarify how overages are calculated.

To make matters even worse, the sponsors of the WSP solution to the Deferral Account roll out have committed to charging consumers in order of $65.00 in the Deferral Account areas.

Mind you, while representative appearing before this hearing sang their own praises about how quickly and efficiently they rolled out HSPA across the whole country, it has taken over nine years, to date, to get Deferral Account service into 112 designated areas across the country. Even allowing for the legal delays and appeals, this is ridiculous.

Refering to Rogers claiming the reason why they have 3 year contracts, as opposed to Europe and the US and most of the world having 2 year, is that Canadian wireless companies pay 15-20% more for phones than their American counterparts. I like how the US was singled out, and any other examples ignored. Serbia, for example, is a market of 10 million people, and 2 year contracts are the maximum. The UK regularly has electronics that are much more expensive than the norm in Canada, and yet 2 year contracts are the maximum. Verizon Wireless reported a profit margin of approximately 41% last quarter; Rogers for example, posted closer to 48% for their wireless division. It is evident that any potential loss to profit margins would be minimal. What's more, is there a reason why the Big 3 simply do not make contracts 15% longer? Or charge 15% more? You also see that the no term price, in comparison to the new entrants, or to the American carriers are usually already 15-20% more. The 9810, for example, while everyone sold it, was 479 on Wind, and 600 on the Big 3. Then on a one year term, it's 50 CAD off, two year 100CAD off, and three year suddenly you're looking at a 400 CAD off. It is obvious that the intention is to force a three year term in order to maximise profit margins. That there is a lower population density than in the US, and that phones cost more than in the US, and that minimum wages are higher than in the US, the Big 3 still have higher profit margins than in the US, shows that it is all one big lie to attempt to continue this highway robbery of Canadians.

I would also like to highlight the comment made by Rogers that customers prefer 3 years to 2 years for the Z10 with Rogers to Fido, as Fido only offers 2 year contracts. I love how it is not mentioned that Rogers has 4x the customers, and there are bundling options for discounts, and maybe people would be more likely to opt for 2 years on Rogers if there was more than a 100 dollar discount for 2 years, and less than a 450 dollar discount on 3 years. Looking at the Big 3's flanker brands, the no-term prices are usually 50-100 less than the Big 3. It is obvious that even if it's true that it's 15-20% more than in the US, on the wholesale no middle man price, not the MSRP on the end of the chain: the retailer. So to extend the contract length is 15% more based on say, 300 dollars being paid, rather than 600 that consumers see for no term pricing.

Never have we been offered a contract term less than 3 years by Bell . I've asked about shorter terms and they discouraged it. No term should should be longer than 2 years.

Thank-you Wind for bringing to the CRTC Panel's attention that unlocking a device doesn't take hours or manual labour and what the Rogers/Bell/Telus are charging to unlock is robbery.

Wireless services and handset should be SEPARATED, period. This allows the consumer to pick any devices which they can afford and get the same services as anyone else regardless of the handset they choose. The handset can bought outright or financed as needed. This will be same as buying own my land line phone or buying my own TV set of my choice, without locking myself with the service phone/internet/cable service provider as part of the service. I wonder why this model can’t be forced. None of the big 3 wireless providers MAKE the cell phone themselves, they why am I being forced to buy from them? ON top, they lock it and ask for $$$ for unlocking it later.

If CRTC enforces this rule, the contract existence and length of the contract becomes irrelevant from purely services perspective. Today, all 3 bug providers, bundle handset and services as one package and sell it as 3 years as most lucrative contract and make millions of $$$

I think during Thursday's discussion, Chairman Blais should be congratulated on identifying a key characteristic of the Canadian Wireless Industry. It has become all about the handset and nothing to do with the services. As he mentioned, carriers had full page advertisments in newspapers across Canada advertising the new Blackberry device, will little or no reference to the service that went with it. Its all about selling the "bling" and nothing about selling service.
I think one of the most important parts of the new Wireless Code should be to separate the handset and the service. The same thing happened many years ago when the CRTC forced the landline carriers to give up their monopoly on telephones.
The way the market appears to work, everyone pays the approximate same amount for device and service, regardless of whether they choose a $300 handset or a $700 handset. This means that those with lower price handsets are subsidizing those with a higher price handset. Those who arrive with their own handset subsidize everyone.
If you want to empower the consumer, and make it easier for lower income individuals to afford service, then the handset price must be separated from the service price. It should become a user pay system - you want a higher price handset - you pay more.
Also on Thursday one of the presenters made the exact same point I have mentioned in my comments on the code. We have to stop calling the acquisition of the handset a subsidy from the carrier. It is a loan, plain and simple. The only subsidizing going on in the Wireless Industry is between consumers.

Regarding service providers' claims that they lock phones to prevent fraud, isn't it true that a fraudster can easily unlock a phone using a third party?

1. What really infuriating to Bell Mobility is charging me for changing my cellphone within 10 days to a less expensive type, and it is not in the contract, I thought one can return goods as is without question within 10 days in Canada?

2. In my contract cancelling my commitment will cost me $400.00 and I was only 5-weeks member, requesting to unlock or transfer my number to another provider will cost me $200.00 and that is $600.00 total. These are in the contract which I found only after I made a complaint, because as a busy person I just signed and not bother to read the fine prints. Another is they did not tell me to read the contract, they were pushing me to sign right away to get my cellphone at time of purchase.

3. If I did not check my billing I won't be able to know Bell was charging me on local calls to be Long Distance, thanks to somebody's note. Bell made corrections only after I complained.

Bell Mobility is a big corporation with big-time Lawyers, I hope something will come out of this hearing that will be good for everyone, good for the economy, and good for the Our Country Canada, or for that matter for the whole world.

Thanks for the opportunity,
Avel

Why doesn't the cost go down after 3 years? LOL this is market manipulation! Fraud, and theft, they should not be given any quarter on cost. If it costs millions to implement rules using databases and manpower that would only be returning the money they absconded with over decades.

It's probably billions of dollars of extorted money due to this.

Ok I am putting the breaks on this. These carriers are in a reality distortion field. They have manipulated the market so much that their data relating to consumers, is more of data related captured consumption entities. You cannot even call them normal consumers in the pure sense of the term. It would be like doing market research on selling water to people in the desert.

CRTC Grow some stones and cut off the Carriers in these hearings when the bull starts flying. I am tired of seeing these hearing floors go to bold faced company liars.

I Cannot Effectively Consume The Hearings!

Dear CRTC,

Unfortunately, I am an English-only speaker who works during the day.

The written transcripts, which I would otherwise read, contain a mix of both English and French which means I cannot read them completely.

Though they are voluminous, I would have attempted to read them so that I could offer feedback on their content. However I am quite reluctant to offer comments if I cannot first read the transcripts in their entirety. For that reason I will not be commenting.

(The relevance of my being at work during the day is that there is an English-only version of the hearings available, however it is the real-time CPAC broadcast. So though I could consume an all-English version there, being at work precludes that.)

I wish that you provided all-English (and also all-French) transcripts.

Maybe next time?

And thanks for soliciting our involvement and feedback nonetheless!

If you want to confuse and bafle CTRC - BS them like Bell and Rogers do.
Phones worn out, damaged or so out of date by end of 3 year terms. New phone new 3 year contracts.
Unlimited talk but $0.07 cent texting charges 400 per cent increase. not hard to see where profits come from to pay for the latest greatest toys.
Roaming charges - leaving contract early charges all beyond reasonable
CRTC do your work for Canadians not for the conglamorates

There shouldn't be any fee associated with unlocking the phone. I think are just trying to keep that money making idea open. Because even if they keep the phone locked for short period of time there will always be someone wants to get it unlocked sooner than that. These carriers have nothing to lose in keeping the phone locked even if its temporary. It's a win win situation for them, the way I see it.

haha so trure... they are just BS-ing...

Unlocking the phone is basically free money for them that is why they're insisting hard on locking the phone even if it has to be for a short period of time. All they want is to get more money out of the consumers pocket to get their phone unlocked. They just want to keep that money making idea open.

CBC reported today that Bell stated that discount for phone cost is not paid back at end of 3 years. When is it paid back then? If a person has their own phone, Bell and others offer 10% discount to monthly fees since they are not providing the phone. If a person terminates a 3 year contract before the end of the term, the contract provides that as part of termination fee, they need to repay the remaining value of the phone (which value was set out in the contract and amortized over 3 years).

So, my comment and question is: Why do the rates charged to a customer not drop by 10% on the first month of the fourth year given that the phone has been effectively paid off? Does that not amount to a discriminatory rate between customers --- those who have their own phone and those that get a phone and pay for it by means of the three year term.

Are the service providers pulling a fast one and trying to argue that the discount is actually amortized over a much longer period.... ?

Any practices which result in discriminatory rate treatment between like customers (and I am assuming a person who brings their own phone and person who continues to use the service after their 3 year contract expires are the same) should be prohibited. If however, there are differences then those differences and their impact on rates should be made absolutely clear at the front end.

BELL insists on LOCKING "because it lowers the cost for Canadian consumers"! They must be comedians. There is no "security/fraud" reason for Bell to insist on locking. Any wireless phone can be traced through its built in IMEI. What other product is LOCKED to a service? Bell's arguments are specious and untruthful....

Why doesn't BELL advocate that the telephone services provider be the SOLE vendor for landline phones in the home?! And turn the clock back half a century. That's what they're arguing for wireless! "The device and network are inextricably linked" -- this statement by Bell is nonsense!

Please separate HANDSET charges from wireless service charge...

Please separate charges from wireless service charges! The $75 "unlocking" fee by Bell is simply an uncompetitive measure to keep a CAPTIVE consumer. Mandate NO "locking". A term contract for services is sufficient.

Of course 1 and 2 year contracts are not seeked by consumers because price for the phone for 1 and 2 year contracts are not proportional to that of a 3 year contract. And it costs more to support multiple plans and grandfathered plans? Really? Are we still living in the stone age where everything's computerized?

The issue of contract length is circular. Bell keeps talking about higher monthly cost for one- and two-year contracts. This is largely an issue because of the "bundled in" cost of the handset. SEPARATE the handset amortization cost from the monthly cost for services !!

Hahah. Bell said we shouldn't look at how cheap we make service. Of courrrrse. The more expensive they better right?

Compete on a global scale? Really? If Bell expands to Europe but treat customers over there like they treat us there is no way they will succeed. That's why you don't see Bell operating anywhere in the world other than Canada, which is a total opposite of Vodafone, Orange, Wind and T-Mobile.

Bell is trying steer the chairman's attention away from pricing and customer service but focus on technology. Bell is one of the worst when it comes to billing and customer service. My girlfriend, every time she upgrades her device she has to go through customer service because they always bill her wrong.

some of the lowest rate in the world? Really?

3 year terms must be an option and there must be unsubsidized plans available.
It is my experience that cell phones don't last 3 years.
I took a 3 year term with Bell in May 0f 2011. The phone I selected is a Motorola Atrix 4G which was the top of the line smartphone at the time. It is now February 2013 and Bell has abandoned the phone, won't allow software upgrades, wants to charge me $225.00 plus the cost of a new phone to upgrade, and if I accept their trade-in program will generously give me $11.00 for the phone if it is in pristine, as new condition with the original packaging and all the optional accessories included.
This is rediculous. Phones depreciate in value faster than a car. In addition the phone is starting to fail, the battery pack will no longer accept a full charge.

The ministers need to be tougher on the incumbents. I'd question why it costs consumers $75 to unlock the device if they've already paid for the device in full.

5 years is the time that Bell thinks it should take to implement the code. Gee I wonder why.

$75 for unlocking a device after a customer has fully paid for the device during the terms of their contract is highway robbery. It should be FREE. If I walk into an Apple store and get an iPhone, it is unlocked and I don't pay $75 on top of the price because it is unlock. After my 3 years term with Bell, I should have paid fully for the hardware and it should be unlock at no charge.

BELL PRETENDS TO OFFER DISCOUNTS !
10% off if one owns the device is in no way a reasonable stance. Bell is struggling to ensure that the handset cost and service cost are not separated. Only so they can hide the true cost. Ditto for their adamant defence of their own "format" for the minimum disclosure requirements on their contract. They do NOT want the consumer to be able to compare service costs across carriers.

So Bell doesn't want the Wireless Code to be amended to existing contracts and their reason is, they don't have records of what customers paid and what they paid for subsidies when customers signed up. Come on, you can't tell me they don't have records going back at least 3 years.

Wireless Service versus Handset Sale
Bell is simply misleading in its caginess on device prices. Simply separate purchase of the device from purchase of services, period. Then provinces can apply consumer protection legislation to the device sale and any associated loan for that purchase.

The CRTC can then get on with regulating wireless services, which is their mandate. No more debate about federal versus provincial codes and regulation. Federal regulation will apply and should supersede any provincial regulation with respect to the sale of wireless services. Provincial legislation can apply to the device sale and loan, if any.

Addressing the issue of term contracts, there is no question the wireless companies are not supporting their products for the life of three year contracts. As an example, two years ago I acquired a HTC Surround (a Windows 7 phone) on a three year contract from Telus. Microsoft published release of a current OS update last September. When I recently asked Telus technical support why this update is not available for my phone, the agent said it was not possible for Telus to keep up with all the updates, and I had to live with the last version (for another year!). This latest update greatly enhances the phone operation, and I am VERY ANNOYED at the position these yahoos are taking. Replacing this phone with one of their current offerings is a total waste, and will lock me into another long term contract unless I go with an unlocked phone, and that is another problem. In order to find out if a phone is compatible with their network, they need the IMEI number, which is not available until you buy the phone - a catch-22.

Just heard this too. Can't believe how they try and make it sound like we choose this because it's the best option and we prefer it. When the subsidies offered are $50 on a 1 year, $100 on a 2 year, or $500 on a 3 year, I wonder what consumers are going to take! I have faith that the CRTC will see through this and understand that if phones are amortized on a similar basis and the amortization schedule does not favour 3 year contracts, Canadians will exercise their right and choose a 2 year term.

Why didn't Canadians choose 1 or 2 year contracts when carriers offered them?
Watching this consultation is driving me crazy with the misinformation the carriers are using as a rebuttal to Canadians wanting 2 year contracts. They (particularly Bell) stated that when they offered 1 or 2 year contracts, the vast majority of their clients chose 3 year terms. Wake up Bell! Amortize your phones on a similar basis over a 1 or 2 year term and clients will sign up for them! The practice of offering only $50 off a phone on a 1 year, $100 off a phone on a 2 year, or $500 off a phone on a 3 year (Telus was especially bad for this) was used to persuade the market to take 3 year contracts. Who wouldn't take a 3 year!? So these "stats" that the carriers have showing why we choose 3 year contracts are really just representative of how distorted carriers have made the market. Bottom line, offer fair subsidies on 2 year contracts and Canadians will take them! (Of course, the carriers don't want this).

So according to Bell over 70% of customers have 3 years contract. Wake up, that's the only option that is offered if you want to upgrade your hardware or become a new customer.

I can't believe that BELL said our wireless industry is the envious of the world, what are they smoking???

I understand that Bell stated that they offer "end of contract" customers with a reduced (10%) month by month rate, no contract. So why was I forced into a 3 year contract? I had a 30.00 plan, granted I wanted to add unlimited texting to my account, but to get that I was told I would need a minimum 50.00 plan. I had to contact the retention department and site a Koodo Ad in order to get a 40.00 plan (which is actually inferior to the Koodo plan, but I took it because my phone was locked to Bell). So I ended up paying 10.00 more per month tied into a new 3 year contract. I was never offered a month by month option even though I specifically requested one. Please make the new code retroactive. We have been forced into long term plans we just don't want, but we didn't have much choice.

I find the practice of charging a one month fee when one terminates his service usurous. I cancelled a month to month service I had with FIDO after some 16 years as a client. I was told they had the right to charge me for a month of service even though they cut off my number from service.
I think all carriers, not just some, should eliminate this cash grab.

As a senior with a wired home phone I have little use for most of the bells and whistles of the "devices" offered by the providers. I simply want a cell phone for safety while on the road and for the times I visit the grand children and have a phone that I can use (they have no home phone). Maybe every two years we might drive to the States, so we need to have roaming. Presently, the pay-as-you-go plans accumulate money that disappears if we do not use it up. Why can we not pay a flat fee for the number (service) and pay for the calls we make?

SEPARATE HANDSET COSTS FROM THE COST OF SERVICES!
Simply SEPARATE the monthly device charge from the monthly charge for services ! No other industry hides their actual service charges this way. Eg. Would a gas utility provide "free" furnaces by charging ALL its customers the same monthly rate, regardless of whether or not they already owned their own furnace !

The issue of the length of contract may simply disappear once the device cost is shown separately. Different consumers will wish to pay for their devices quickly, or more slowly depending on the monthly device cost they wish to bear, and how frequently they replace their smart phones.

Charging the consumers to unlock the phone is BS. Why lock the phone on the first place? People can't buy non apple phones outright unless they order it online. Locking the phone is just not acceptable.

You have to be lucky even if they let you buy a phone on month to month plan. Usually they don't entertain your request if you want to buy the phone outright. They are supposed to promote contracts.

While agreeing with the Consumers Council generally, they are completely misguided regarding an "applications solution" to alert the consumer of charges. As others have mentioned, any software imposed on the phone by the carriers will "brand" the devices to the carrier -- exactly what the carriers want. A 2nd best for them to unlocking. Most phones track data usage with their own software. Carriers can easily inform consumers of charges incurred to date via text, email and with real-time activity data on their websites. In fact, many carriers in the EU already provide such alerts or easily accessible "charges to date" information.

Ok so we heard Telus comment on how they give 10% discount to customers (who do not want to perform a hardware upgrade and continue on a month-month basis) after their contract expires because the cost no longer subsidize the hardware. Hope it's not only me that sees that 10% is awfully low. What we need wireless carriers to do is, when we sign a contract we need a break down of cost, how much of the cost is towards the subsidy of the hardware and at the end of the term when we do not want to upgrade, our monthly fee should be reduced by that subsidy cost. 10% is a joke. Let say a phone cost $700 outright, and by agreeing to a 36 months contract, we pay $200 for the hardware, meaning the carrier is subsidizing $500 of the cost. To determine how much of the monthly fee is towards the hardware, we should take $500/36 = $13.89 (13.90 with penny rounding :). So if I am paying $60 a month to the carrier under my 36 months contract, after 36 months, my monthly fee should be $60-$13.90 = $46.10, that's work out to a 23% saving NOT 10%.

Simply, I would like to see the end of three year contracts and for us to have the ability to have unlocked phones.

I apologize in advance as this will likely be lengthy. I'd like to start by asking a couple of questions.

1. How did this discussion start?

2. What is the point of the code?

I just found out about all of this today so forgive me if I'm wrong but I believe the conversation started because of unhappy consumers. If that's the case then the point of the code is to make them happy. Obviously there are those that complain in the hopes of getting a free Ferrari but we wouldn't be at this point if none of the claims were legitimate. Most importantly, I'd like to stress that the frustration with the cell phone companies stems from a feeling of unfair treatment and gouging. They don't play nice and don't meet our expectations of what a service provider should be/do. If the big three was a friend, they'd be the friend that borrows your car and gives it back with an empty tank and without a thank you. Customers have come to expect this unfortunate level of service.

I start with that to outline the problem that frustrates customers and to provide reason for some of the following solutions. I must say I've heard much of the discussion today and would like to thank the commissioners for their time and progress in the matter. A lot has been said to improve the current state of things but I refer back to my first paragraph and how customers need to feel like they're being treated fairly in order for satisfaction to improve. Here are
some of the areas that need more work:

-Opt in/out, Notifications, Caps

I'm very much in line with what Daniel Sokolov had stated in regards to the above issues and believe he said it perfectly. Customers should be able to enable/disable any extra cost options quickly and easily through a web page or app and on the same page have settings for notifications and caps. This puts control back in the users hands and really leaves no excuse for the customer. If the user still had issues after this, it would be their own doing as they have fair warning options available to them. An example I'd like to touch on is that currently notifications are too slow to be of use in a lot of cases. I was at work one day when (while on break) I found out a popular game was free for a limited time. The game typically cost around $7. I began to download the game only to realize later I was not on wi-fi. I cancelled the download but this was after downloading 800MB of it (my plan included 500MB at the time). When I got home, some 3-4 hours later, I received 2 consecutive texts stating I had reached a certain percentage (75%?) and then that I had gone over my limit. These kind of notifications are pointless in this case. Even if I had received the 75% notification on time, that doesn't tell me when to stop. There needs to be another notification that warns you just before 100% (95%?) so that you can choose to throttle yourself. At 100% it's too late. What are the chances of hitting 0KB without going over? Needless to say, my free $7 game became a not so free $40 game thanks to data overages. This was at a time when they had introduced auto tier boosting (bumping your data to a higher tier to keep overages in check). Unfortunately my plan was a grandfathered plan and this tier bumping conveniently only applied to current plans.

-Unlocked Phones and Bloatware

Here's another one where headway has been made which is great, but I don't think it addresses the feeling of getting ripped off. It's nice to see there's an option to unlock after 3 months but it's wrong to charge for it. A locked phone has NO benefits for the customer over an unlocked phone. Only the provider benefits from this. Charging the customer $50 to remove something that was put in place for the provider makes no sense. As far as I know and I may be wrong, the carrier has the unlock codes (just a number you enter into the phone to unlock) for just about every phone they sell with iPhones being the exception. In the case of the iPhone, I believe they call Apple to get the code (a process which takes all of 5 mins). Entering the code into the phone for a true factory-like unlock is a much simpler approach than grey market offerings that usually charge under $20 for a similar result but after much more toil. Surely reading a number to a customer can’t cost $50.

The ninety day period also doesn't address travel within the first three months. My car is financed but it is no different to me than if I had bought it outright. There's no added cost for using a different brand of gas. I choose the gas I like and I drive. This is expected as it is MY car. The bank doesn't have the keys to my car, in fact, I've never spoken to the bank. This of course would change if payments were not made but that is not the issue here.

Locking phones benefits the providers in a couple of different ways. Referring to the example discussed in the hearing where locking is "necessary" to ensure product supply, I don't understand how the argument turned that into a good thing. It was mentioned that this will effectively kill competition on rate plans as buyers are stuck with choosing the carrier that has stock. For example, if Fido is the only carrier with stock left for the latest iPhone, and all their plans don't suit the buyer, the buyer is forced to go with their plan as the phone is locked. In contrast, if the phones were all unlocked and SIM activation carried a discount equal to a new phone subsidy, this wouldn't be an issue. I'd buy the phone outright and choose the plan + discount I like from the carrier I like. I think it was the Rogers VP that said they're not in the business to sell phones, they're a service provider. If that were the case, they wouldn't need to depend so heavily on having phone stock and they'd compete at the rate plan level.

Finally, I heard one of the Rogers representatives actually promote their included software and customizations as something customers value. This couldn't be further from the truth. A majority of customers find this phone branding annoying bloatware that they'd much rather do away with. Apple has been pushing their unmodified iPhones to carriers because they don't want their phone tainted with the carrier's “tweaks”. Apple was the only company capable of doing this until recently with the Samsung's Galaxy S3 phone. Being able to deliver the same un-tweaked phone across carriers was seen as a huge victory for Samsung. A lot of techy people go out out of their way to overwrite their stock firmware with custom firmware that does away with all the carrier's "goodies". This is not something that is easy for the average user to accomplish and I'm sure the providers would consider the warranty voided (even though the modification is harmless and reversible).

-Negotiations and Grandfathered Plans

I'd like to focus on a point that I think President Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais made perfectly. When finding out there were over 11,000 different grandfathered plans out there, he asked, isn't that confusing? I think that figure tells a deeper story. I find it hard to believe that carriers are in a hurry to get customers onto their latest plans. Unlike cable plans that keep the same name while changing included channels and pricing automatically, carriers throw out their old plans in favor of the new ones and they do us a great service in allowing us to keep our now extinct plans. I would go so far as to say that grandfathered plans are one of the ultimate ways to bully a customer into staying with the provider. I myself would love nothing more than to leave my provider, even while fully aware of how "great" the other options that await me are, just as a matter of principle. This has not happened because of the leash they have me on with their grandfathered plan. New plans are not good. Ever. The only way to be partially gouged rather than being full on gang stabbed is to work your way through the system of complaining/negotiating and getting a semi-decent rate. The plan that you end up with is inevitably a conglomerate of old features/prices and random thrown in discounts that if you were ever to lose it (like in the case where you are out of town for an extended period and would like to
lower your plan to the cheapest thing) you'd have to start from scratch. The provider wins with grandfathered plans in 2 ways. The plan locks you to the carrier for fear of losing a "great deal" and if you somehow do lose the plan, the carrier won't be in tears as you'll now have to pay the same rate as the poor sucker that just joined with them. I think the negotiations should stop and fair plans need to be made available from the get-go. I know of many customers still paying their initial plan rate not knowing just how many dollars they're throwing down the drain. I think a survey of "retention plans" should be made so we have a baseline of what the carrier is capable of offering the customer and then expect to see new plans from carriers that can compete and challenge even their retention plans. That way folks like myself don't need to pay the full $90 monthly bill when I'm out of town, just to save a dead plan. Plans should be getting better, not worse.

The last point I'd like to make is on SIM only activation discounts. I heard the 10% figure floating around. Without digging deeper to find out about this option, I guarantee you this 10% discount will only apply to current (over-inflated) plans. They will NOT give me (Mr. grandfathered plan) another 10% discount on my plan. This is all working on assumption but I think I know my car borrowing buddy pretty well by now. Anyone wanna do the research to prove me wrong? Good luck :)

To sum up, I hope all your decisions going forward will be made with the thought of "will the customer feel they are being treated fairly?" Realistically, things don't even need to be fair for customer satisfaction to rise. Customers just need to feel that things are fair, and happiness will abound.

P.S. - Roaming packages don't need to be an all or nothing sort of fair. Either 3 bucks a day for practically nothing or 8 bucks a day for more than I need. If I were going to the states for a day, 8 dollars to tag on for one day of use doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. It's the same cold knife in my back. If you'd like to see truly fair maybe even amazing prices for roaming packages, take a look at Roam Mobility. Their one month prepaid plan is literally better/cheaper than my impossible to get grandfathered plan. (http://www.roammobility.com/talk-text-data) No I don't work for them. Never even tried their service but I hear they piggyback T-Mobile so it shouldn't be half-bad.

After a few google searches I was finally able to find this 10% promo. Nonetheless, if Telus (or other carriers) offer it, it should be automatic upon the subsidy expiring. Negative belling whereby consumers must call in and have this "discount" added (or rather, this over charge removed, really) shouldn't occur.

RE: Charging customers for phone subsidies once the contracts expire.

I sincerely hope that the CRTC solicits and listens to responses from consumers regarding the hearings that are currently taking place. For example, it seems the comments made by the executives at Telus regarding the 10% discount once a contract expires are incorrect.

1. As stated by the executives, Telus claims to provide a 10% discount after a contract expires. However, it is not advertised or published anywhere, yet Telus requires consumers to specifically ask for it to access it. This clearly will prevent the overwhelming vast majority of consumers to take advantage of this discount.
2. Insofar as this discount exists, Telus employees themselves are NOT at all informed about it. After reading online forums on this matter in response to these hearings, numerous Telus consumers are complaining that they have asked for this discount (AFTER the hearing, no less, where the found out about it's existence) only to be refused by Telus employees, who state that they have never heard of such a discount, and that such a discount does not exist.

This suggests to me that not only is Telus not advertising this, it is also not training it's employees about it. Thus, it appears that Telus is being very disingenuous at best, or outright lieing to the commission at worst - I sincerely hope the commission investigates this further.

I listened to part of the hearing this afternoon. Jean-Pierre Blais asked why customers continue to pay just as much each month for their wireless service after their three-year contract is up. I would like to add to that while Bell does offer a SIM card only option they still charge the same monthly fees that they charge to cell phone purchasers under contract. If the contract includes recovery of the "financial incentive" of a subsidized device, why does my husband pay the same monthly amount when he purchased his SIM unlocked phone elsewhere? Shouldn't his monthly fee be lower since there was never any phone to subsidize? You can check http://www.bell.ca site. Select a SIM card for purchase and your monthly fee will not decrease.

Btw I'm adding this comment using the Rogers LTE Rocket Hub service which is the only service we have available for home internet service (no wired access available where I live). It has disconnected 3 times during the length of time it has taken me to write this. Will there be any discussion about carriers actually providing the data rates and access that the claim? Make that 4 times. Obvious tower overloading issues.

The Bell Contract Model

Ever trying buying a Phone @ a Bell store outright? Here's the breakdown:

600$ For the Device
50$ (forced 1 month of service)
35$ Activation Fee
50$ To unlock the device, if offered.

This is something that Commission should consider when it believes that customers "choose" 3 year contracts instead of outright or 2 year terms, which offer almost no benefits and are rigged to push customers in a longer term deal.

As stated by presentations made by those not associated with the Telcos, there is NO reason for phone locking. It is simply an anti-competitive strategy to prevent switching carriers in Canada, and prevent consumers from using other carriers abroad (so that they end up paying exorbitant and outrageous roaming costs to use their phone outside the country). Security reasons for phone "locking" are bunk. Every phone has an IMEI code embedded in the handset that can be traced. Every handset can be identified, from the inception of cell phones. There is NO security rationale for phone locking.

Carriers engage and deceptive practices in PRICING their services. Although the Telcos have now suggested that they are open to permitting prepayment of handset subsidies embedded in their monthly bills, they have laughably suggested they will provide a "discount" to consumers who have paid off their phone or have their own unlocked handset.

Why should those who have FULLY PAID for their phones (15% to 20% of customers according to Telus) pay the SAME monthly cost for the SAME service as other customers who are also receiving a phone subsidy?? Why is the handset subsidy hidden in the monthly service charges? For transparency and competition to prevail, consumers should know what they are paying for. As has been suggested, the answer is to UNBUNDLE the handset subsidy from the cost of the service.

Once the handset is paid for (or if one already has one's own phone), only the SERVICE cost should shown on the monthly bill. Can the Telcos provide ANY rationale for hiding the handset subsidy by bundling it with the charge for services? Other than to hide the fact that they gain a revenue windfall from those who have already paid for their phones?

I've been reading about the hearings and I can't help but notice how jittery the providers seam to be getting. Perhaps they see there cash cow starting to disappear. We've been ripped off for too long. We need to get competitive services at rates comparable to the U.S. It's about time someone is looking at the consumer and not the cash rich providers. Cell rates in this country are way too high. New competition will help bring them down.

As I'm sitting here listening/ watching the hearing during Rogers trying to blow smoke up the boards a**. Do they actually think that people actually care about them and what they may have to spend when they are already making millions??? In all hosnesty why are they even geting the chance the speak, cell phone carriers does the same to canadians. One question for the carriers, I HOPE THERE IS ONE OF YOU WITH A GRAIN OF SENSE THAT IS READING THIS. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO RIP OFF PEOPLE??? I WOULD LOVE TO TURN THE TABLE ON YOU.

It's a amazing that Rogers just read off all of there agreements with the CRTC Draft code. They just admitted, that the only change is the unlocking feature. I told you, they are blowing smoke up people's ass. Let's not be fooled by these personnel again.

I agree with Tom, it seems like the BIG 3 has some price fix going on because all the providers have similar price on their plans. Sounds like an oligopoly to me. I don't see competition. Similarly with their secondary network such as Roger's Fido, Bell's Virgin and Telus' Koodo, they have similar price on their plans. Where is the competition?

I agree with Bhawan. There shouldn't be any unlocking fee. And what for? We have paid for the device, it's our phone.

If this is true then its a lie. Unlocking a phone doesn't require it to be opening up the phone. Also, phones are not locked when they are manufactured. These providers need to ask the manufacturer to lock the device for them. I believe if you pay for the phone then its your phone and it shouldn't be locked.

The whole cell phone business is shrouded in mystery and smoke and mirrors to keep consumers from getting the product they need. Thanks to the CRTC for asking questions and making a move to change this practice. I still believe that contract lengths need attention. 3 year contract almost guarantees that your device will be obsolete forcing user to pay fees and get a new 3 year contract in order to have a device that will serve their needs. We need to reduce contract lengths, possibly by keeping the cost of device separate from cost of service contract.

Our family has been happy with Telus, they allow us to ask many questions and have reversed charges when there was a misunderstanding. This type of service will go a long way to keeping our business.

Cell Phones should not be carrier locked either you buy it outright or on a contract. If these companies think it is necessary to lock the phones, then they should unlock it for free once the contract is over/canceled. To buy phones outright, the phones shouldn't be locked at all.

Discrimination between phones is not acceptable. If you look at the plans for Fido, if you sign up a 3 year contract for iPhones or Samsung S3, which they call superphones, you go into a different tier and you have to subscribe to a plan which is between $60 and $80 for unlimited local minutes. However, if you have a different smartphone such as galaxy nexus or HTC or samsung ACE, you can sign up for a 2 year contract and you are eligible to subscribe to a plan which is $60 max for unlimited 'canada-wide'. Why this discrimination among smartphones and superphones? What's the difference?

I am tired of feeling screwed over by Rogers. I ended up with a plan with 2 phones and 3 year contracts after a relationship ended and pleaded with Rogers to let me out of one of the plans. I only work part time, sometimes only clearing $1100 a month and out of that I have to pay them $160-$170 per month. You would think a bit they might help out here after being a customer since 1998. Instead they hide behind faceless customer "loyalty and retention" reps on the phone and say there is nothing they can do! As soon as I can get out of this contract they will lose me as a customer forever. Also why sell 3 year contracts on phones that crap out half way through the contract. I feel like I have been taken hostage by this. I am so tired of their scams and their bullying by using the threat of wrecking my credit rating if I don't pay up money I cannot afford. I know they could help me out, they just won't.

Good post. Let's remember, though, that the CWTA is going to do everything it can to pull the wool over the eyes of the CRTC just like it's done with the majority of consumers in Canada.

I didn't listen in yesterday but can't believe that they would suggest that unlocking phones involves opening them up and voiding warranty! That's just outright lying. I've never even heard of any phone needing to be opened up to be unlocked. It's all software based.

The sleaziness of telecommunication companies never ceases to amaze me.

During hearing, Telus seemed to suggest that the minutes on their prepaid top-up cards expire after 90 days. However, that is untrue. Their $10 cards have an expiry of 30 days, and $25 and $50 cards have an expiry of 60 days. It's on their website here:

http://www.telusmobility.com/en/ON/prepaid/top-up-details.shtml

On the topic of 2-year contracts leading to higher upfront costs due to a shorter subsidy length, I'm surprised that a comparison to the USA wasn't brought up for easy clarification.

Canada:
16GB iPhone 5 - 3-yr term - $179 up front

USA:
16GB iPhone 5 - 2-yr term - $199 up front

Why is it that an American carrier will subsidize almost the same dollar amount over two years that a Canadian carrier will only subsidize over three?

Something I noticed that hasn't be discussed yet is the topic of net neutrality. I would like to see this brought up at some point. Often a carriers own services will have precedent over competing services, this should be looked into. Also the inconsistency of data measurements needs to be addressed. For example, It is $10/GB for data on Bells network, but for their mobile TV addon, it is $3/hour. So if I were to stream youtube or netflix, it would be $10/GB, but if I were to stream their service, it would be $3/hour.
Please bring this up with the carriers.

When Telus was asked if there was a need for limiting an account for a young person it was a joke. If we have a 50 dollar plan we should be able to have it stopped for the month if we reach 50 dollars in charges. I tried to get Telus to do that with my son and the only choice i was given was to limit it to 250 dollars. They danced around and dodged the question and no one on the CRTC panel said a word. It was a joke just like the Wirelss Code. If there was competition why do the big 3 all have the same plans for the same price and 3 year contracts ? That is price fixing not competition. When asked why phones are locked Telus said it was to stop fraud lol. It's to stop me from getting another sim card to stop roaming charges when traveling. 15-20 dollars for a gig of data now thats price gouging and guess what the big 3 all charge the same. It costs them almost nothing...we are being ripped off....WAKE UP CRTC AND HELP US, stop being puppets.

3 MAJOR Errors in reasoning on Day 1 by the CWTA!

While the dialog was overall positive in this first day, there are some major misleading areas that need to be outlined.

//////////////
1) Limits & Notifications

While the 50$ default cap is not appropriate for reasons mentioned by Mr. Lord, (loss of service) He makes several omissions that jeopardize the spirit of this proposition. His position is that carriers should not be forced to allow customers set billing caps. He suggests prepaid services offer these options – he could not be more incorrect!

Prepaid is unsuitable for this – prepaid offers less roaming coverage and sometimes even lacks US roaming options entirely, especially with regard to data. Why should someone who wants to prevent a 1,000$ data roaming bill have to use prepaid with another phone number? That’s ridiculous!

Best Solution:
Consumers should be able to set Data spending caps that leave Voice & Text Services uninterrupted. As such, when they reach the spending cap on data, they can continue to use voice and text service, which accrues overage much more slowly and is more critical for travelers. (only data is suspended)

Customers should receive only 2 notices when 50% of the spending cap has been reached, and then finally when they have reached 95%. 2 notifications is sufficient, and does not place “notification fatigue” as suggested by Mr. Lord. Customers will appreciate these 2 notices, especially when roaming. Data roaming can cost TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in pay peruse chargers. Why would we prevent customers who want to protect themselves from this?

////////////////////////////
2) Unlocking Devices

On Day 1, CWTA as said that unlocking voids the warranty and is like opening modifying a blender or other appliance.

This is completely incorrect. Unlocking means entering a code which “unlocks” the software to use other sim cards. This function is built-in by the manufacture, does not make changes to the internals of the phone, and does not affect the warranty in any way. This is how it works today already.

The carrier may choose to defect unlocked phone warranty to the manufacturer, but the warranty doesn’t go away, and the phone is not altered as CWTA would suggest.

////////////////////////
3) Contracts.
“Just pay the subsidy and leave!” Is what CWTA suggests. This is a major error in reasoning. Customers will not pay significantly more when limited to 2yr contracts. The American example is a good one – 99$ vs 199$ for Galaxy 3. Does the CWTA really think that saving 100$ is worth an extra year of contract? They are calling 3 year contracts wonderful because they allow saving 100$?!

If someone wants to pay off a 500$ phone subsidy after 24 months , he still has 166$ left to pay off. That’s more than 100$. The “SUBSIDY SLOPE” is much slower on a 3 year contract.

Even more misleading is the suggestion that 2 year contracts exist in Canada. Currently, all 2 year contracts in Canada are so poor in subsidy value that they force everyone to take a 3 year contract.

Thank you.

Had to go thru the added expense of "BUYING" a unlocked phone from Apple a iphone 5 ( had been on a Rogers plan) so that I could use different "sim cards" without a contract. Travel in USA and wanted to avoid exhorbitant ROAMING charges so bought a AT&T sim card. On the Canadian plan the Roaming charges are $1.50/minute. On the AT&T sim card if I should use it in Canada without putting the Rogers sim card back into the phone when in Canada, the ROAMING charges are only .39c's/minute. WHY THE DIFFERENCE ??

American carriers are allowed to operate in Canada. They choose not to. Country is small in comparison to the US market.

NO More Handset Subsidy! Please eliminate handset subsidies. So often consumers are tied to the a contract because they do not want ot pay full price for handset.

Device unlocking fee

Most of the Canadian wireless operators subsidize the devices with multi year contracts and in turn put device locking in place. When subscriber want to disconnect the service he is left with portion of subsidies of remaining term, which is completely understandable that has to be paid. What I don’t understand is that wireless operators charge fee something like $50 for providing unlocking password for device.
To start with subscriber already signs the contract for multi years, then why to lock the device. I would say keep device unlocked, incase of locking then operator should provide unlocking key after 90 days for no cost. By charging for unlocking, wireless operators are adding to price of already expensive smartphones.

I would like to suggest that in the code it should be clearly specified that unlocking of devices should be done after minimum period of time and at no cost.

Thanks.

Allow American cell phone providers into Canada to allow for more competition. Also in rural Alberta landline wire is aging and are not being replaced causing outages for weeks. With no cell receptin in many places and no lnad lines we have no access to 911 or other emergency services. If phone companys do not want to replace land line wire please make cell phones readily available. It is also business communication that is interuppted, not just emergency.

I request you that I would like to make our communication access fair for deaf community in Canada. It is what we want to add Text Accessibility Plan (TAP) for our smartphone to reduce rate. We do not require to use voice plan because we are unable to speak or hear over phone BUT we require to use text message and data only.

Most resident of USA use Text Accessibility Plan that it is special reduce rate to let them to use long time ago. It is not fair for us to pay high cost in Canada because we never use voice plan. We would like to use Text Accessibility Plan for our community in Canada.