Carriers ask CRTC to scrap several consumer protections

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is currently looking at ways to harmonize and improve the various consumer protection codes governing wireless and internet services. But some of Canada’s largest carriers are using the process to push for changes that could hurt consumers in the long run.

In interventions filed in mid-August and reviewed by MobileSyrup, Rogers, Bell, and Telus responded to various proposed changes to the Wireless and Internet codes, and added their own requests as well. However, some of the proposed alterations would see existing consumer protections gutted or removed. Proposals include removing caps on roaming overage charges, bringing back phone locking, extending financing terms, and more. We highlight some of the biggest ones below:

Clawbacks for sign-up benefits

Telus stood alone with this one. It suggested to the CRTC that economic inducements, such as “gift cards, retail
credits, promotional gifts, discounts or other financial benefits,” should be paid back if customers cancel early:

“These should all be treated consistently: regardless of form, if a customer receives a financial benefit in exchange for a term service commitment, early cancellation should trigger an obligation to repay the unamortized portion of that benefit.”

Further, Telus suggested that the CRTC should lump these economic inducements in with device subsidies in the Wireless Code. Specifically, Telus said it should “replace ‘subsidized device’ with the more inclusive and technologically-neutral term ‘economic inducement'” to “reflect modern retail realities.”

Removing roaming caps

Telus and Rogers both proposed changes to roaming fees, though with some subtle differences. Telus asked the CRTC to eliminate the $100 roaming cap entirely, while Rogers suggested limiting the cap to pay-per-use roaming. Rogers also asked the CRTC to remove the $50 roaming usage notification.

Notably, roaming costs are quite expensive, and these caps were introduced to prevent bill shock from people inadvertently racking up hundreds of dollars in roaming charges. With roaming being something of a cash cow for carriers, it’s hardly a surprise to see them advocate for removing caps.

Phone locking

Rogers, Bell, and Telus all proposed that the CRTC add a 60-day phone-locking rule instead of the current rules that prohibit locking phones entirely.

Phone locking, as a reminder, locks phones to a carrier’s network, preventing use on other networks. For context, the CRTC banned locking phones back in 2017 and eliminated unlocking fees, which enabled Canadians to more easily switch between carriers.

The phone locking push shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone who’s been following Canadian telecom. Both Bell and Telus have previously called on the CRTC to change its stance on locking phones over theft concerns, with both carriers pushing ahead with implementing 60-day locks despite rules prohibiting the practice. Telus also previously claimed Bell’s 60-day phone lock made its unlocked phones a bigger target for theft.

Extended financing periods

Another request made by all three providers was to extend device financing beyond the current 24-month limit. Rogers, Bell, and Telus all argued that customers are seeking longer financing terms because of factors like rising device costs and improved durability.

Rogers wrote that the 24-month limit “has a direct impact on affordability for consumers” by restricting carriers’ ability to spread the cost of a device over a longer period. Further, Rogers noted that because “device durability and functionality has improved, many consumers are retaining their devices for longer and are therefore interested in options that would allow longer-term financing.”

On one hand, I actually kind of agree with the carriers on this one, at least to the extent that longer terms should be available for customers who want one. Part of the reasoning behind the 24-month limit was to prevent people from being trapped into lengthy phone contracts, so I think as long as the spirit of that is preserved, I don’t see a major issue with allowing people to choose longer contracts if they want.

At the same time, several providers have come up with ways to work around the 24-month rule. Rogers, Bell, and Telus all offer device return options, which discount the monthly financing costs if customers agree to return their phone or pay the difference after 24 months. Notably, Bell has started offering customers a second 24-month financing term as another way to spread out the cost of phones.

Other suggested changes

The carriers’ interventions contained a handful of other smaller requests, some of which have to do with the CRTC’s proposed changes to the codes. These include: