Think your wireless service contract ties you down?

More than 500 Canadians filed comments about their wireless service with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as the telecom regulator wrestles with a proposed code of conduct for Canada’s wireless industry and the contracts they hand customers. Why? Because of language like this from a typical contract with Rogers Communications:

Device Savings Recovery Fee (applicable to term commitment customers only for any new term entered into on or after January 22, 2012): A Device Savings Recovery Fee (DSRF) applies if you have been granted an Economic Inducement (as defined below) upon entering your new term, and if, for any reason, your wireless service or your new term is terminated prior to the end of the term of your Service Agreement (Service Agreement Term). The DSRF is the amount of the economic inducement (which may take the form of a discount, rebate or other benefit granted on the price of your Equipment), as stated in your Service Agreement (Economic Inducement), less the amount obtained by multiplying such Economic Inducement by a fraction representing the number of months elapsed in your Service Agreement Term as compared to the total number of months of your Service Agreement Term (plus applicable taxes). In other words, DSRF = Economic Inducement [Economic Inducement × (# months elapsed in your Service Agreement Term ÷ Total # months in your Service Agreement Term)] + applicable taxes. An Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee (ADSRF) also applies if, for any reason, your wireless data service, or your data plans commitment term (Data Term), is terminated prior to the end of your Data Term. An Additional Device Savings Recovery Fee (ADSRF) also applies if, for any reason, your wireless data service, or your data plans commitment term (Data Term), is terminated prior to the end of your Data Term. The ADSRF is the additional Economic Inducement you received for subscribing to your wireless data service, less the amount obtained by multiplying such Economic Inducement by a fraction representing the number of months elapsed in your Data Term as compared to the total number of months of your Data Term (plus applicable taxes), and applies in addition to the DSRF for termination of your Service Agreement. If you subscribe to a plan combining both voice and data services, both the DSRF and the ADSRF apply, up to the total Economic Inducement.

Despite contract confusion being an issue in the eyes of the CRTC, the overwhelming majority of comments focused on something else that irks Canadians above all else: being held hostage by the industry’s traditional 36-month wireless contract, one year longer than consumers in the United States find common.

“Get rid of the 36 months contract,” wrote one Canadian, noting contract creep is all the rage. “It first started with 12 months, then 24 months, now the standard is 36 months, which is ridiculous!”

Most of the comments came from customers of the chief three providers: Bell, Rogers, and Telus. All three received scorn from customers for uncompetitive, expensive service.

The state of competition in Canada:

Roger offers new plans:
– $55 1000min local, unlimited text, 200MB
– $65 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $75 unlimited local/text, 2GB
– $95 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Then Bell offers their new competitive plans:
– $55 1000 min local, unlimited text, 200MB
– $65 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $75 unlimited local/text, 2GB
– $95 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Then Telus offers their competitive plans:
– $70 unlimited local/text, 1GB
– $80 unlimited local/text, 3GB
– $100 unlimited canada/text, 5GB

Where is the competition? These plans are all the same.

Also unfamiliar to Americans, the automatically-renewing contract that snags Canadians that forget to cancel with a brand new service commitment complete with a cancellation penalty. Perhaps the most consumer-friendly provinces in Canada are Quebec and Manitoba, which ban certain kinds of termination fees and auto-renewing contracts. Canadians want these bans extended nationwide. The European Union already bans 36 month contracts and made 24 months the maximum. One former resident of the United Kingdom noted the EU also compels providers to offer 12 month contracts for those who want them.

The CRTC may not provide much relief if it remains convinced the marketplace remains competitive.

The agency points out under the Telecommunications Act, the CRTC will only intervene in a market if there is insufficient competition to protect the interests of users.  In the 1990s the CRTC decided to allow market forces to guide the growth of the mobile wireless industry.

The CRTC seems to have already made up its mind on this issue when it announced its proceeding:

In the decision issued on 11 October 2012, the CRTC found that there was competition sufficient to protect the interests of consumers and it did not need to regulate rates.  Although many consumers indicated concerns about wireless rates and the competitiveness of the wireless market, a number of market indicators demonstrate that consumers have a choice of competitive service providers and a range of rates and payment options for mobile wireless services. According to the CRTC’s 2012 Communications Monitoring Report, new entrants in the mobile wireless market continue to increase their market share and coverage. Companies continue to invest in new infrastructure to bring new innovative services to more Canadians. Moreover, the average cost per month for mobile wireless services has remained relatively stable.

The CRTC concluded that competition in the mobile wireless market continues to be sufficient to protect the interests of users with respect to rates and choice of competitive service provider.

That makes it more likely than not the agency will limit itself to ordering wireless carriers to better explain their wireless policies, not force them to change them.

The only relief potentially available outside of canceling service is considering one of several new competitors which offer relaxed terms and better prices to attract customers. So far, only 4% of Canadians have switched to WIND, Mobilicity, Vidéotron, or Public Mobile. Some may be trapped in current contracts with larger companies or are discouraged having to buy new equipment to switch providers. Most providers in Canada, like in the United States, lock phones so they cannot be easily used on another company’s network.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CRTC Cell Phone Contracts 12-12.flv[/flv]

The CRTC used this video to invite consumers to share comments about confusing wireless service contracts. Instead, criticism of tricky term contracts that auto-renew and last three years arrived in buckets. (2 minutes)

Bell has the perfect gift for themselves this holiday season: significant rate increases on phone, broadband and television service that will leave some customers paying at least $120 more a year for service.

Stop the Cap! reader Alex Perrier shared the bad news with us:

“What a great Christmas gift,” Perrier writes. “With few exceptions, all Bell home services get a ‘price update.'”

Home phone customers may be in for some bill shock if they happen to use on-demand calling features or directory assistance. Some of those rates are increasing by more than 500%.

Home phone packages

The monthly fee for all Bell Home phone packages (Home phone Lite, Home phone Basic, Home phone Choice, Home phone Complete) are increasing by $2.03 effective January 1, 2013.

Long distance plans

Features

Effective January 1, 2013, the price of Home phone pay-per-use calling features (Last Call Return, Busy Call Return and Three-Way Calling) will increase by $0.45 to $2.95 per use. The monthly cap on Home phone pay-per-use calling features will also increase to $29.50

Effective January 1, 2013, Directory Assistance will increase by $0.50 to $3.00 per use.

Bell TV

Bell Internet

Note: Bell Internet 5 and Bell Internet 5 Plus are excluded from the price increase.

Earlier this year, Bell Canada announced a blockbuster $3.38 billion offer to buy Astral Media, Inc. It is just the latest rush towards media concentration in Canada as the country’s largest cable and phone companies acquire a growing number of television networks, cable services, radio and broadcast television outlets, magazines, and other media.

Bell Canada already owns CTV – a major broadcast network, and TSN sports. Now it is back for more — Astral Media, the company that owns HBO Canada, The Movie Network, Family, Viewers Choice and lots more.

If this deal wins approval, one company will control 37.6% of TV viewing in Canada, more than twice the amount of its largest competitor. It means Bell will be able to set rates for some of Canada’s most popular cable networks and shows — putting competitors at a major disadvantage and forcing you to pay more to watch.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Say No to Bell Canada.flv[/flv]

Say No to Bell’s ad campaign fighting Bell Canada’s attempt to buy Astral Media.  (1 minute)

The federal government has to approve this deal, and a growing number of competing media companies, consumer groups, and politicians are coming together to oppose it.

Stop the Cap! believes Bell Canada owns too much already, and has repeatedly demonstrated that when it flexes its marketplace muscle, consumers pay more for less service. Add your voice against this deal by submitting a letter to Canada’s Ministers of Heritage and Industry, the Competition Bureau, the CRTC and your Member of Parliament and visiting the other opposition websites noted below.

No company needs to own and control 79 TV channels, 107 radio stations and more than 100 major Canadian news, entertainment, and cultural websites.

Even smaller Canadian cable companies fear this deal. Cogeco Cable, Eastlink, and Quebecor (parent company of Vidéotron), have joined forces to launch saynotobell.ca, a website to help consumers fight back. Quebec-based consumer group Option consommateurs has its own online petition in French, and Openmedia’s Stop the Takeover Coalition includes a range of pro-consumer forces opposed to the deal:

• OpenMedia.ca
• the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
• the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
• Canada Without Poverty and the CWP Advocacy Network,
• the Canadian Media Guild (which represents over 6,000 media workers, including those from CBC, Reuters, the Canadian Press, and Shaw Media),
• the Consumers’ Association of Canada,
• the Council of Canadians (Canada’s largest citizens’ group),
• the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia (COSCO),
• Union des consommateurs.

Some of the arguments against the deal to consider:

• Bell Canada’s TV audience share would be 50% greater than the share of any TV network in the US, Japan, UK, Australia, France, and Russia. It would allow one corporation to control the programming (including news) on a scale not seen outside of countries like Italy, Brazil, and Mexico. When politicians have that much control of the media, they use it to influence viewers. Would Bell do any different?
• Bell can set the rates, terms, and bundling requirements for popular cable programming and services. They have already shown a willingness to tell independent ISPs they must set usage limits on their customers just as Bell does already. What would stop them from insisting you subscribe to more services in order to watch the programming you want?
• Mergers=job losses and cost cutting to pay for inflated bonuses and “cost savings” to help finance these blockbuster deals. Without competition, original Canadian productions can be slashed to the bone or canceled altogether. Why deliver quality when you can limit viewers’ alternative choices instead?
• America allowed media consolidation in radio and television and turned vibrant local stations into corporate money-machines at the expense of local news, original shows, and local content. How many radio stations in the United States now operate like automated electronic jukeboxes? How many local TV newscasts signed off for good to “save money.” Can Canadian local news, weather, and informational programming survive Bell’s ax? If it happened in the United States, it can happen in Canada too.

Ensure diversity by disconnecting this Bell deal permanently, and tell your elected leaders to stop allowing endless media consolidation.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Globe and Mail How much of a competition threat is Bells Astral deal 8-24-12.flv[/flv]

The Globe and Mail considers the issue of Bell’s takeover bid for Astral Media. How will it affect Canadian consumers? (2 minutes)

While Verizon and AT&T have increasingly given up on their legacy landline networks, Bell Canada is showing that investment in their network to keep up with the times can make all the difference.

Ten years ago, Bell was hemorrhaging customers with the advent of cable “digital phone” service and the growing number of Canadians turning to cell phone service. Bell CEO and Alphabet Aktie advisor George Cope now believes the reason why hundreds of thousands of home phone customers permanently disconnect their phone lines year after year has more to do with Bell not providing the services customers want from a 21st century phone company.

Cope believes the key to turning around the landline business is to invest in it. Bell has spent hundreds of millions overhauling its phone network for the Internet era — replacing copper phone wires with fiber optics to enhance reliability and, more importantly, sell broadband service at speeds customers demand.

“I’ve never felt more positive about our consumer land line business than I do right now,” Cope told investors on a recent conference call.

Bell’s strategy for success is its Fibe network — fiber to the neighborhood service similar to AT&T’s U-verse in some areas, straight fiber to the home service (like Verizon FiOS) in others. While Bell lost at least 82,000 landline customers during the last quarter where it still depends on a legacy copper wire network, Bell keeps (or signs up) 90 percent of its landline customers choosing Fibe.

At least 2.4 million Canadians have signed up for Fibe service in southern Ontario and Quebec, many attracted to its television package and increased broadband speeds. But the Globe and Mail also notes the unintended consequence of improved infrastructure appears to be rescuing the beleaguered landline business.

So far Wall Street appears skeptical, however. Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Glen Campbell believes the network upgrades have little to do with Bell keeping landline customers — reduced marketing by its competitors is behind improved numbers.

Bell’s biggest profits no longer come from the home phone business — television is where the real money is earned. But the company says landline service remains a predictable revenue stream, and it is not worth sacrificing when it earns Bell 39.9 percent profit margins.

Bell’s Fibe network is already common in Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec City, and the company intends to push the service into suburban and smaller cities across the two provinces to cover an additional million households by the end of this year. Both Verizon and AT&T have suspended further build-outs of their respective network upgrades — FiOS and U-verse.

It’s back to school season and Bell is teaching Canadian students a lesson in “bait and switch” broadband — pitching attractive broadband offers with generous usage allowances that evaporate when the school year ends.

Our regular Canadian reader Alex fills us in on the fine print (underlining ours):

The main lure is an extra 250GB of usage per month, but only for the first eight months. The activation fee and part of the monthly fee is also waived for the same amount of time.

Unfortunately, once the promotion expires (timed precisely after two college/university semesters are over), the price can increase by as much as $14 while the usage caps will be decreased by as much as 94%. Bell currently has a $25/month option to add 125GB. With or without it, the limit for usage based billing overlimit fees is $80.

Rogers usually launches a similar promotion for students, at similar prices. Back-to-school is also a competitive market for Canada’s cell phone companies.

Upon closer examination, we found the devil is indeed in the details:

• Internet 5: After eight months, your Internet usage allowance takes five, dropping like a rock from 265GB to 15GB per month. Your overlimit fee is $2.50/GB, up to $80.
• Fibe 5/1: After school is out, you’ll wonder why you took this deal when your 265GB allowance gets slashed to 15GB per month. Same overlimit fee as above.
• Fibe 15/10: You better have a long summer vacation planned when your 325GB usage cap falls to 75GB a month. That’s speed you can’t really use with an overlimit fee of $2/GB, up to $80.
• Fibe 25/10: $50 a month should buy a lot, but after eight months your 375GB shrinks more than half — to 125GB a month with an overlimit fee of $1.50/GB, up to $80.

Openmedia.ca is recommending Canadians take their own permanent vacation from cable and phone company Internet Overcharging schemes and consider switching to one of several independent ISPs offering far better usage allowances or unlimited use plans. The consumer group has a website to help direct you to the providers serving your province. In their view, not doing business with the bait and switch providers will send them a message they have to do better to compete for your business.