10+ YEARS ANNUAL REPORT

Transcription

1 Helping Canadians for 10+ YEARS ANNUAL REPORT I was very impressed with your services L.T., wireless customer in BC I was very satisfied with the process. H.R., internet customer in ON Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution. G.C., phone customer in NS My agent was nice and super understanding D.W., TV customer in NB I was very impressed with your services L.T., wireless customer in BC I was very satisfied with the process. H.R., internet customer in ON Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution. G.C., phone customer in NS My agent was nice and super understanding D.W., TV customer in NB I was very impressed with your services L.T., wireless customer in BC I was very satisfied with the process. H.R., internet customer in ON Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution. G.C., phone customer in NS My agent was nice and super understanding D.W., TV customer in NB I was very impressed with your services L.T., wireless customer in BC I was very satisfied with the process. H.R., internet customer in ON Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution. G.C., phone customer in NS My agent was nice and super understanding D.W., TV customer in NB I was very impressed with your services L.T., wireless customer in BC P.O. Box Minto Place RO, Ottawa, ON K1R 7Z1 response@ccts-cprst.ca TTY: Fax:

2 CONTENTS HIGHLIGHTS 2 CHAIR S MESSAGE 3 COMMISSIONER S MESSAGE WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO Our mandate Our complaints process Year in review COMPLAINTS 7 About our data Operational statistics operational statistics overview CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING Introduction Resolving complaints and analyzing code compliance Wireless Code Deposit and Disconnection Code Television Service Provider Code TOPICS AND TRENDS 15 Overview Internet Internet service delivery issues Wireless: Overview of issues Wireless non-disclosure issues Non-disclosure issues for all types of service Incorrect charges: monthly price plan WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS Top 10 PSP profiles Compliance Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS Introduction Website Accessibility Customer survey results STATISTICAL REPORTS 42 Contact Centre activities Out-of-mandate issues Small business Analysis of closed complaints Compensation analysis Performance standards Regional analysis GOVERNANCE 49 Board of Directors Director biographies Board changes Meetings and director attendance Committee meetings CCTS budget Strategic and operational initiatives for APPENDICES 52 Appendix A Complaints by service provider Appendix B Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints Appendix C Financial statements Appendix D Definitions CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 1

3 HIGHLIGHTS 92% of concluded complaints successfully resolved COMPLAINTS UP 57% 98% of complaints resolved at the first stage of our process were concluded within 40 days 172 service providers had ZERO complaints another 111 had 3 or less 360 brands operated by 242 service providers Over 17% of complaints accepted included a TV problem, under 5% were about TV alone, 1 TVSP Code confirmed breach CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2

4 Message from the Chair of the Board of Directors CATHERINE ACZEL BOIVIE CHAIR S MESSAGE This is my second message as Chair of the CCTS Board of Directors. Last year I wrote about many of the initiatives being undertaken in, including the expansion of our mandate to include complaints about subscription TV services and the development of a service provider compliance monitoring program. I am pleased to report that these were successfully implemented. The results can be found in this Annual Report. The CCTS celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2017, and I am very proud of the work completed on behalf of Canadian consumers and service providers. Looking ahead, we have identified a number of projects that we intend to undertake in to provide better service to our customers. We have begun the process of developing a new strategic plan to guide the priorities of the organization in the years ahead. This is a challenging undertaking in an organization established to allow for diverse stakeholder representation on the Board as well as to respond to continuous change, such as the CRTC s sales practice review, planned to start in late October of I am confident that the Board and the CCTS staff will complete the new strategic plan successfully, working in the cooperative manner that has become the hallmark of our governance of the CCTS. As we continue to position ourselves for future success, we intend in to conduct a review of the processes used to deliver our primary service helping telecom and TV customers and their service providers resolve their disputes efficiently and effectively. Despite our past success in fulfilling this objective, we must always be open to exploring new approaches. For this reason, we intend to carry out a detailed examination of the way in which we deliver our service as well as gather and analyze information. As part of this initiative, we will review the technologies we use to facilitate access to our service, to determine how we can make it more accessible for customers, service providers and staff. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we intend to explore the approaches taken by organizations similar to ours worldwide, and the tools they use in a rapidly changing digital world. In this way, we can ensure that we remain among the leaders in delivering the best service we can to our customers. At the beginning of our fiscal year, Dennis Béland, the director appointed by the cable companies, retired from the Board after nearly ten years of service. I would like to thank him for his dedication and invaluable contribution to the organization throughout his tenure. In his place, we welcomed Dean Shaikh as the newest member of the Board. My message would not be complete without a word of sincere thanks to the Commissioner, Howard Maker, and to all the CCTS staff for their dedication and hard work. Thanks to their ongoing efforts to meet stakeholder needs, I believe we are well-positioned to undertake the new initiatives mentioned above. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 3

5 Message from the Commissioner HOWARD MAKER COMMISSIONER S MESSAGE The big story for the CCTS in was the rapid and significant increase in complaints received from Canadian telecom and TV customers. With the addition of TV complaints to our mandate in September of 2017, we did anticipate an increase but not the 57% that we received. And our data shows that it was not TV complaints that pushed up the numbers. Complaints about TV alone accounted for less than 5% of all complaints accepted. The increase was in the same types of issues that Canadians have complained about historically: sales transactions that go wrong, service that doesn t work as expected, and billing problems. The number of complaints we accepted this year might have been even greater but for our proactive approach to an unusual situation. Earlier this year a wireless provider decided to remove a particular plan from the market. Customers were outraged, claiming that when they signed up the provider had promised to never retire the plan. In the next 36 hours, customers took to social media to express their outrage. Also, 1,600 Canadians filled out our online interactive questionnaire to complain. We spoke to the provider and informed it of the large number of dissatisfied customers. It promptly reversed the change. The large increase in complaints this year did have an effect on our operations, and it has taken us somewhat longer to handle those complaints that reach our investigation level. However, our operational results continue to be good. We concluded almost 4,600 more complaints than last year. Our focus on efficiently resolving complaints resulted in the successful resolution of almost 92% of all the complaints we handled this year. Of the complaints resolved, 84% were resolved at the pre-investigation stage, usually within 30 days of the complaint being received. And our customer survey continues to show high levels of satisfaction with various aspects of our process, including the timeliness of our work. You may notice a change this year in the way we report the complaint results for our Participating Service Providers (PSPs) in the Top 10 profiles and in Appendix A. Some service providers have commented that simply describing the number of complaints we receive from their customers is misleading because this implies that all complaints have merit. For many reasons, we have never tracked complaint outcomes (wins and losses). However, to provide more insight into the breakdown of how complaints are concluded, we have revised our reporting to show in a more detailed way exactly how complaints are concluded. We hope you will find this helpful, and we welcome your feedback as we continue to consider the best way to report our statistics. The CCTS is continuing to grow: more complaints, more demands, more staff, higher expectations, and a larger budget. The CCTS has been successful and will continue to be so only through the efforts of our dedicated staff. This year they have worked tirelessly to ensure that we deliver the best possible service to customers and service providers, all to accomplish our mission of providing outstanding dispute resolution services. To all of you I offer my most sincere thanks. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 4

6 WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO Our mandate The CCTS is Canada s national and independent organization dedicated to resolving customer complaints about telecommunications (telecom) and TV services. We work with consumers, small businesses and participating Canadian service providers to resolve disputes about most telecom and subscription TV services after direct communications between a customer and a service provider have proven ineffective. We can help with most types of problems between a customer and service provider, including disputes about contracts, billing, service delivery and credit management. INTERNET WIRELESS 1 Services in our mandate For full details, see our Mandate web page. For an overview of who we are and what we do, watch this video. 1 Including voice, data and text. 2 For residential customers only. 3 For home and small business, including long distance, white page directories, directory assistance and operator services. PHONE 3 TV 2 Our complaints process We regularly examine our complaint-handling process to ensure that it is thorough, fair, effective and efficient. The steps in the process are: 1 ASSESSMENT 2COMPLAINT ACCEPTED (or out of mandate) 3INFORMAL RESOLUTION 4 5 INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATION 6DECISION For an overview of our complaint resolution process, watch this video. For a detailed explanation of the steps in the process, see our Complaints process explained web page.

7 YEAR IN REVIEW AUGUST 2017 CCTS approves amendments to its Public Awareness Plan, effective February OCTOBER 2017 Canadian cable companies elect Dean Shaikh to represent them on the CCTS Board for a three-year term. DECEMBER 2017 CRTC s revised Wireless Code comes into effect. FEBRUARY 2018 CCTS participates in CRTC proceeding reviewing wireless phone unlocking rules. CCTS Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program comes into effect. SEPTEMBER 2017 CCTS expands its mandate to begin accepting complaints about TV issues and administering the CRTC Television Service Provider Code (TVSP). CCTS launches new online Submit a Complaint interactive questionnaire on newly-redesigned website. NOVEMBER 2017 CCTS issues Annual Report. JANUARY 2018 CRTC initiates a proceeding against six service providers who had refused to participate in the CCTS. All six later joined. APRIL 2018 CCTS issues Mid-year Report. JUNE 2018 CCTS publishes its first two videos: What is the CCTS? and This is how our complaint process works. AUGUST 2018 CCTS terminates participation of AllCore Communications for non-compliance and refers AllCore to CRTC for action. JULY 2018 CRTC launches inquiry into use of misleading or aggressive sales practices by large telecom service providers. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 6

8 COMPLAINTS This section provides a broad overview of this year s complaint data. Additional detailed analysis follows throughout the report. For definitions of the terms used in this section, see Appendix D. About our data We report on the complaints that were accepted between August 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018 (our fiscal year) as well as on the complaints that were concluded between those dates. Operational statistics The complaints we receive and investigate after July 31, 2018 will be in next year s Annual Report. Included in this report are all telecom complaints accepted during the fiscal year and all TV complaints accepted on or after the September 1, 2017 effective date. It s important to note that a single complaint may raise more than one issue for wireless, internet, phone and TV services. A portion of our concluded complaints are audited throughout the year for quality assurance. TABLE 1: THREE-YEAR SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL STATISTICS Number YoY change Number YoY change Number YoY change Complaints accepted 14,272 57% 9,097 11% 8,197-18% Complaints concluded 13,224 53% 8,641 4% 8,323-19% COMPLAINTS RESOLVED 12,149 55% 7,846 6% 7,431-16% Complaints resolved at pre-investigation 10,214 57% 6,510 9% 5,979-14% Complaints resolved at investigation 1,935 45% 1,336-8% 1,452-25% COMPLAINTS CLOSED 1,068 35% 791-9% % Complaints closed at pre-investigation % 297-5% % Complaints closed at investigation % % % Recommendations accepted 5 67% 3-84% 19-47% Decisions issued 2 100% 1-67% 3-63% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 7

9 COMPLAINTS operational statistics overview 13,224 Complaints concluded 12,149 COMPLAINTS RESOLVED 10,214 complaints resolved at pre-investigation 1,935 complaints resolved at investigation 1,068 COMPLAINTS CLOSED 337 complaints closed at pre-investigation 731 complaints closed at investigation 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED 2 DECISIONS ISSUED CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 8

10 COMPLAINTS TABLE 2 : LEADING COMPLAINT ISSUES, BROKEN DOWN BY SERVICE TYPE Service Billing Contract dispute Service delivery Credit management Total Wireless 5,393 4,880 1, ,757 Internet 3,223 2,909 2, ,987 Local phone 2,034 1,933 1, ,354 TV 1,448 1, , Directory assistance White page directories Operator services ,306 10,980 6,410 1,038 30,734 Long distance TOTAL The largest number of complaint issues related to wireless services, including the largest number of issues with billing and contract disputes. However, internet service had the largest number of service delivery issues. FIGURE 1 : COMPLAINT ISSUES BY SERVICE TYPE FIGURE 2 : MAIN COMPLAINT ISSUES 60% 60% 50% 50% 41.5% 40% 40% 29.2% 30% 20% 35.7% 30% 20.9% 20% 17.4% 10.6% 10% 40.0% 0% 10% 1.2% 3.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Wireless Long distance Billing Internet Operator services Contract dispute Local phone Directory assistance Service delivery TV White page directories Credit management Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. CCTS A NNUA L R EPO R T 9

11 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING Introduction As the CCTS investigates customer complaints about telecom and TV services, we try to determine if the service provider has reasonably met its responsibilities to its customer. We use three CRTC codes of conduct as yardsticks against which we measure service provider conduct: Wireless Code: For consumer and small business (mobile) wireless services Deposit & Disconnection (D&D) Code: For home phone services Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code: For subscription TV services (residential customers only) For more detailed information about the preceding codes, see: CCTS Annotated Guide to the Wireless Code CCTS Annotated Guide to the Deposit & Disconnection Code CRTC Television Service Provider Code Resolving complaints and analyzing code compliance When we accept a customer complaint we record and track all of the issues raised in the complaint. Some complaints raise questions about whether a service provider has complied with a code of conduct. We call these alleged breaches. Wireless Code In developing the Wireless Code, the CRTC sought to ensure that consumers of voice and data services are better informed of the rights and obligations contained in their contracts. The Wireless Code applies to individual and small business consumers, and all wireless service providers must follow its guidelines. A revised Wireless Code came into effect on December 1, 2017 (Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC ). As part of that decision, the CRTC clarified a number of provisions in the original Wireless Code, based on many of the CCTS previous interpretations. FIGURE 3: SUMMARY OF WIRELESS CODE BREACHES 3,539 ALLEGED BREACHES 3,172 ALLEGED BREACHES NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION 367 BREACHES INVESTIGATED The vast majority of complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of the customer and the service provider at an early stage of our process. When complaints are resolved, there is no need for us to investigate the underlying issues, including to determine if there have been any violations of a code of conduct. Therefore, these issues remain characterized as alleged breaches. 111 CONFIRMED BREACHES 256 NO BREACH In the cases that we do investigate, we can determine whether there has been a violation. We categorize proven violations as confirmed breaches. When we investigate and determine that there has not been a violation, we categorize this as no breach. In this section, we present statistical reports on breaches of the three applicable codes using the preceding terminology. A rep from the service provider contacted me after I filed my complaint with the CCTS and resolved my issue. T.C., a wireless customer from BC CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 10

12 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING TABLE 3: WIRELESS CODE CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SECTION Code section Number of confirmed breaches % of total confirmed breaches YoY change A. Clarity 6 5.4% 20.0% A.1. Plain language 5 4.5% 25.0% A.2. Prices 0 0.0% A.3. Unlimited services 1 0.9% B. Contracts and related documents % 12.0% B.1.(i-ii) Permanent copy of the contract and related documents % -26.7% B.1.(iii) a-e Key contract terms and conditions % 114.3% B.1.(iii) f-m Other aspects of the contract % % B.2. Prepaid service contracts 2 1.8% C. Critical Information Summary 1 0.9% -66.7% C.1. Critical Information Summary 1 0.9% -66.7% D. Changes to contracts and related documents 2 1.8% -33.3% D.1. Changes to key contract terms and conditions 2 0.0% -33.3% D.2. Changes to other contract terms and conditions or related documents 0 1.8% E. Bill management % 115.8% E.1. International roaming notification 2 1.8% 100.0% E.2. Cap on data roaming charges 2 1.8% E.3. Cap on data overage charges % 120.0% E.4. Unsolicited wireless services 4 3.6% F. Mobile device issues % 233.3% F.1.(i) Unlocking Locked phone sold 1 0.9% F.1.(ii) Unlocking means to unlock not provided % 200.0% G. Contract cancellation and extension 8 7.2% -20.0% G.1. Early cancellation fees General 3 2.7% -62.5% G.2. Early cancellation fees Calculation Subsidized device 0 0.0% % G.3. Early cancellation fees No subsidized device 0 0.0% G.4. Trial period 1 0.9% G.5. Cancellation date 4 3.6% 300.0% H. Security deposits 1 0.9% -50.0% H.1. Requesting, reviewing, and returning a security deposit 1 0.9% -50.0% I. Disconnection % -12.5% I.1. When disconnection may occur 0 0.0% % I.2. Notice before disconnection % 7.7% I.3. Disputing disconnection charges 0 0.0% TOTAL % 1 This subsection was B.1.(i-iii) in the pre-december 1, 2017 version of the Code. 2 This subsection was B.1.(iv) a-e in the pre-december 1, 2017 version of the Code. 3 This subsection was B.1.(iv) f-m in the pre-december 1, 2017 version of the Code. 4 This subsection was F.1.(i) in the pre-december 1, 2017 version of the Code. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 11

13 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING Section E of the Code (bill management) was the most breached section (almost 37%) of all issues, and a 115% increase over last year. TABLE 4: WIRELESS CODE CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SERVICE PROVIDER Service provider Number of confirmed breaches % of all confirmed breaches Section A. Clarity Section B. Contracts and related documents Section C. Critical Information Summary Section D. Changes to contracts and related documents Section E. Bill Management Section F. Mobile device issues Section G. Contract cancellation and extension Section H. Security deposits Section I. Disconnection YoY change Rogers % 3.6% 7.2% 0.9% 0.9% 22.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 3.6% 76.0% Bell Canada % 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 21.1% Virgin Mobile % 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 233.3% TELUS % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% 1.8% 2.7% 0.0% 1.8% -41.2% Fido 9 8.1% 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 200.0% Freedom Mobile Inc % 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8% 16.7% Videotron 3 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% PC Mobile 2 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Speak Out Wireless 2 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SaskTel 1 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL % Rogers had almost 40% of all confirmed breaches and showed a 76% increase in the number of confirmed breaches over last year, when it also had the highest percentage of all Wireless Code breaches. Bell Canada had almost 21% of confirmed breaches, a 21.1% increase over last year. The next three service providers, Virgin, TELUS and Fido, together accounted for over 26% of confirmed breaches. Virgin showed a 233% increase in breaches over last year while Fido showed a 200% increase. By contrast, TELUS had a 41% decrease in breaches from last year. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 12

14 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING Deposit and Disconnection Code The D&D Code is a mandatory CRTC code of conduct that provides home phone customers with protection in some cases when they re required to provide a deposit as a condition of obtaining home phone service or when a service provider intends to disconnect the customer s home phone service. FIGURE 4: SUMMARY OF D&D CODE BREACHES 95 ALLEGED BREACHES 70 ALLEGED BREACHES NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION 25 BREACHES INVESTIGATED TABLE 5: D&D CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SECTION Code section 3.1 Improper disconnection / No grounds Number of confirmed breaches % of total confirmed breaches 0 0.0% 3.2 Notice at least 14 days prior % 3.3 Advise customer 24 hours prior % TOTAL 6 100% 6 CONFIRMED BREACHES 19 NO BREACH Confirmed breaches of the D&D Code continue to decline, with just under half as many breaches (6) this year as last year (13). TABLE 6: D&D CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SERVICE PROVIDER Service provider Number of confirmed breaches % of all confirmed breaches YoY change Section 3.2 Notice at least 14 days prior Section 3.3 Advise customer 24 hours prior Bell Canada % -50.0% 16.7% 16.7% Vonage % 16.7% 16.7% Bell Aliant % -75.0% 16.7% Primus % 16.7% TOTAL 6 100% -53.8% Bell Canada accounted for over one-third of all confirmed breaches, the exact same percentage as Vonage. Together, Bell Aliant and Primus accounted for another third. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 13

15 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING Television Service Provider Code As of September 1, 2017, the CCTS administers the CRTC Television Service Provider Code (TVSP Code). The Code is intended to make it easier for Canadians to understand their television service agreements and empowers residential customers in their relationships with TVSPs. The TVSP Code applies only to consumers (not small businesses), and all licensed TV service providers must follow its guidelines. We address complaints about subscription TV services provided by cable, Internet Protocol television (IPTV) and national satellite direct-to-home (DTH) TV service providers. Our authority to deal with these complaints is limited to events that occurred on or after September 1, FIGURE 5: SUMMARY OF TVSP CODE BREACHES 431 ALLEGED BREACHES 420 ALLEGED BREACHES NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION 11 BREACHES INVESTIGATED For more details about the TVSP Code, see our TVSP Code web page. 1 CONFIRMED BREACH 10 NO BREACH The only confirmed breach was to Section XI (Changes to programming options) by Bell. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 14

16 TOPICS AND TRENDS Overview In, Canadians filed over 14,000 complaints about their service providers, an increase of 57% over last year. We are proud to have been able to successfully resolve almost 92% of these complaints. Along with an increase in complaints, there has been an increase in the number of individual issues. Consumers raised a total of 30,734 individual issues that fell within the CCTS mandate, an increase of 67% over last year. Issues relating to wireless services continue to be raised the most often, representing over 41% of all issues raised, followed by problems with internet service, which account for another 29% of issues. There were 111 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code in, a 29% increase from last year, largely driven by increases in confirmed breaches of Section B (contracts and related documents) and Section E (bill management). Confirmed breaches of the Deposit and Disconnection (D&D) Code continue to decline, with only six this year: less than half the number from last year. We confirmed only one breach of the new Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code since we began accepting complaints in September TABLE 7: NUMBER OF ISSUES BY TYPE OF SERVICE, YoY CHANGE Service # of issues in % of all issues in # of issues in YoY change in # of issues raised Wireless 12,757 42% 8,543 49% Internet 8,987 29% 5,763 56% Local phone 5,354 17% 3,766 42% TV* 3,248 11% Other 388 1% 376 3% TOTAL 30, % 18,448 67% *TV was added to the CCTS mandate in September of I tried on my own to resolve my problems for months. You resolved it in one week. I got exactly what I wanted, thank you. M.H., an internet customer from AB CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 15

17 TOPICS AND TRENDS In this section we discuss some of the most common types of complaint and code issues we saw in and what we believe may be causing them. We do this to provide consumers with important information about service provider conduct and to give service providers the feedback they need to address these problems. We also highlight issues and practices about which all interested parties should be aware. TABLE 8: TOP 10 ISSUES RAISED IN COMPLAINTS Issue 1 Non-disclosure of terms/ Misleading information about terms Number of issues % of total issues Number of issues % of total issues YoY change 4, % 2, % 125.3% 2 Incorrect charge 4, % 2, % 87.3% 3 Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service 2, % 1, % 82.1% 4 Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fees 1, % 1, % 46.4% 5 Breach of contract 1, % % 111.1% 6 30-day cancellation policy/charges for services not received after cancellation 1, % % 93.1% 7 Credit/refund not received 1, % % 97.6% 8 Material contract change % % 20.0% 9 Material contract change without notice % % 14.4% 10 Credit reporting % % 52.0% For a detailed breakdown of all issues raised in complaints, see Appendix B. As soon as the CCTS contacted my service provider they immediately refunded me and cancelled my account. That is what I wanted. Thank you CCTS. L.L., a wireless customer from ON CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 16

18 TOPICS AND TRENDS Internet In customers raised almost 9,000 internet issues, representing over 29% of all issues raised with the CCTS during the year. In addition, internet issues were raised 56% more often than last year. We are concerned about the pace at which internet issues are increasingly being raised with the CCTS. We discussed this trend in last year s Annual Report. This year, the number of internet issues continues to increase. Over the last five years, they have increased by more than 170%. By contrast, wireless issues have increased by only 25% during the same period. TABLE 9: INTERNET AND WIRELESS ISSUES OVER LAST 5 YEARS Service Change over last 5 years Internet 3,315 5,045 4,177 5,763 8, % Wireless 10,167 10,214 7,931 8,543 12,757 25% FIGURE 6: INTERNET AND WIRELESS ISSUES OVER LAST 5 YEARS 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% -15% -30% -12% -13% 52% 0% -17% -22% 38% % 56% 49% Internet service delivery issues The number of all issues related to the delivery of internet service increased this year by 77%. Customers continue to raise concerns about the quality of their internet service, such as slow speeds or intermittent outages. Additionally, customers tell us that they experience difficulties cancelling service or changing providers, also contributing to the overall increase in internet issues. The top ten service providers with internet service delivery issues accounted for almost 80% of all internet service delivery issues. Also, some of them had an increase of 100% or more since last year, with one showing an increase of almost 300%. TABLE 10: PERCENTAGE OF INTERNET SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES AND YoY CHANGE TOP 10 SERVICE PROVIDERS Service provider Internet service delivery issues Internet service delivery issues YoY change Bell Canada % Xplornet % Rogers % Cogeco Connexion % Comwave % TekSavvy % TELUS % Shaw % Primus % Internet Wireless Bell Aliant % The top five internet issues were: 1. Intermittent and complete loss of service: 18.3% 2. Incorrect billing: 15.5% 3. Non-disclosure of information/misleading information: 12.8% 4. Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fee: 6.5% 5. Charges for services not received after cancellation/30 cancellation policy: 5.9% Cogeco and TekSavvy had the largest percentage increases in internet service delivery complaints: 255% for Cogeco and 293% for TekSavvy. We reached out to each of Cogeco and TekSavvy to highlight these concerns so they may address them. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 17

19 TOPICS AND TRENDS CASE STUDY #1 A customer from Chesterville, ON subscribed to unlimited internet service which required the use of an antenna. During this time, she experienced numerous intermittent internet service issues, which the service provider was not able to resolve despite attempts to fix the problem and make adjustments to her antenna. She was also advised that her specific service was limited to 4 GB of usage per day. After the 4 GB was used, the provider s Traffic Management Policy specified that internet speed be reduced to 50%. We investigated the matter and reviewed the applicable terms of service. We found that these indeed permitted the provider to reduce the internet speeds by 50% after a customer had used 4 GB of data in a 24-hour period. We also reviewed the customer s usage records provided by the provider for an 18- month period and found that the customer was regularly exceeding the 4 GB daily usage threshold. Nonetheless, the provider offered the customer a credit of $220, representing three months of service. The customer accepted the provider s explanation and offer to apply a credit, and the complaint was resolved. CASE STUDY #2 A customer from south-east SK subscribed to internet service delivered through a satellite system. The service functioned properly for a few days until the internet speed decreased, particularly when used for gaming or watching Netflix, two of the customer s primary uses of the service. During the course of our investigation, the service provider explained that the customer s internet service would not be suitable for gaming but that it could provide the customer with a different plan that would increase her bandwidth and also help alleviate some of the issues experienced when streaming Netflix. The provider also informed her that it was planning to install new infrastructure soon that would also make gaming possible. When we further discussed this matter with the provider, it also agreed to provide the customer with a credit of $130, covering all installation fees incurred, as well as an additional $100 credit on the account. The provider further offered to allow the customer to convert to the new infrastructure, once it was ready, without needing to pay additional installation fees. Nonetheless, should the customer decide to cancel the service, it would not charge her the early cancellation fees that would normally be billed. The customer decided to retain her service with her provider, accepted the credits offered, and the complaint was resolved. CASE STUDY #3 A customer in suburban Montreal, QC complained that, although he signed up for an internet service including a download speed of 5 Mbps, he had been only receiving around Mbps. He indicated that the service provider s technicians attempted several times to resolve the issue, without success: they were only able to increase the speed to 4 Mbps for a couple of hours, after which it decreased again. As a resolution, the customer requested that the provider deliver the speed he was paying for and provide a 12-month credit of his monthly fees to compensate for the inadequate quality of his internet service. The provider determined that, given its infrastructure and considering the location of the customer s residence, it had provided him with the best possible speed it could provide to him. The provider also pointed out that the customer was not under a contract and that he could cancel at any time without any penalty. In response to the customer s requested resolution, the provider offered to provide the customer with a $10 credit for 12 months to address the inadequate quality of service. We investigated the complaint, reviewed the provider s terms of service, confirmed that the provider had attempted several times to resolve the technical issues the customer was experiencing and determined that, in this context, the resolution offered by the provider was reasonable. The complaint was closed under Section 9.1.f of our Procedural Code. KEY MESSAGE With the popularity of online streaming and internet gaming, internet service demands have never been greater. Customers should ensure that they are subscribing for a service that will meet their usage needs. We encourage internet providers to ensure that they fully canvass user needs before recommending the appropriate package of speeds and usage limits. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 18

20 TOPICS AND TRENDS The number of issues related to the loss of internet service increased by over 83% compared to last year. These issues were raised more often than any other issue. We noted a large variety of factors contributing to intermittent and complete loss of service issues that translated into slow speeds: inefficient temporary towers; congestion during peak hours; improper installation; faulty equipment; timeouts; one internet service provider buying out another provider s customers, thereby generating more congestion; traffic management policy restrictions; technology not accommodating a customer s needs (e.g., higher speeds required for gaming); and service throttling allegations). TABLE 11: PERCENTAGE OF LOSS OF SERVICE INTERNET ISSUES TOP 10 SERVICE PROVIDERS Service provider Intermittent and complete loss of internet service issues % of all intermittent and complete loss of internet service issues Bell Canada % Xplornet % Rogers % Comwave % Shaw % Cogeco Connexion % TekSavvy % TELUS % Primus % Bell Aliant % All intermittent and complete loss of internet service issues 1,645 Wireless: Overview of issues In customers raised almost 13,000 wireless issues, an increase of 49% compared to last year. Customers continue to raise more issues about wireless service than any other type of service. This year, wireless service accounted for over 41% of all issues raised. The top three wireless issues were: 1. Non-disclosure: 17.7% 2. Monthly price plan incorrect charge: 9.4% 3. Breach of contract: 6.8% Wireless non-disclosure issues Almost 18% of all issues raised by wireless customers related to concerns about misleading information or non-disclosure of key terms by a service provider to its customer. Many customers tell us that they were expecting to pay a certain price for their services only to be billed at a higher rate than agreed. In other cases, customers seemingly were not informed that a price discount offered to them was subject to change or conditional on retaining certain other services, resulting in the customer having to pay a higher price than expected. The issue of non-disclosure seems to be a more common problem for wireless customers than for other customers. Of all the non-disclosure issues raised across all types of services, half came from wireless customers. We find this troubling given the myriad requirements contained in the Wireless Code aimed at ensuring clear and disclosure of information by service providers to their customers. One Wireless Code section, B1(iii)(a-e), requires service providers to ensure that key contract terms and conditions are disclosed to customers clearly. This section is important because it is designed to ensure that clear and accurate information is provided to customers. It also helps customers to understand the services they have agreed to purchase and clarifies which terms are key contract terms, and therefore protected from unilateral change by the service provider. Unfortunately, this year there was a 114% increase in the number of confirmed breaches of section B1(iii)(a-e) of the Wireless Code. Moreover, this was the second most breached section of the Wireless Code in, accounting for over 13% of all confirmed breaches. The only section of the Wireless Code that was breached more often was section E3 (cap on overage charges), which was largely the result of Rogers challenges in adapting its systems to the requirements of the Wireless Code. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 19

21 TOPICS AND TRENDS CASE STUDY #5 A wireless customer from Winnipeg, MB was approached by a customer service representative of a competitor with an offer to switch wireless providers. Before signing up with the new provider, the customer stressed that in future she would likely need to change her monthly wireless plan to one that included unlimited data. The customer service representative stated that all the customer needed to do was contact them to make the proper change when she was ready to upgrade her plan. However, when the customer called to make the change five months later, she was informed there was no plan that included unlimited data. The customer then requested to cancel her service so she could return the device and return to her former provider, but she was advised she would need to pay $600 to be released from her contract, which she refused to do. CASE STUDY #4 A customer from Langley, BC received an offer from her service provider of a new mobile device which included a device protection plan. The customer paid $280 for the device and believed she was on a month-to-month agreement. As part of the device protection plan, the customer said that she was supposed to receive a new device if her device needed repair or replacement. However, upon experiencing a problem with her device, she received a refurbished device. She then tried to cancel her service but was advised she would incur a $500 early termination fee because she was ending her 24-month agreement early. She complained to the CCTS, informing us that she did not agree to a 24-month agreement. She wanted her provider to waive the outstanding balance on her account and let her keep the device. She also wanted to be reimbursed the money she had paid to obtain the device protection plan because it did not provide her with a new device, as she was led to believe it would. During our investigation, the provider submitted copies of the customer s account notes to demonstrate what had transpired during the phone call in which the customer agreed to the accept the new device. We found that the provider had failed to inform the customer that by accepting the new device she was consenting to a 24-month service agreement. The provider also acknowledged that it had failed to provide the customer with a permanent copy of the contract and related documents within 15 calendar days of the customer agreeing to the contract, as required by the Wireless Code. We therefore found that the provider had failed to disclose to the customer that she was bound to a 24-month agreement, that early cancellation fees would be applicable if the service was cancelled early, and that the provider was in breach of the requirements of the Wireless Code. The provider offered to cancel the customer s agreement without charge and to reimburse her for the cost of the device protection plan in the amount of $99.99, an offer that the CCTS felt was reasonable to resolve the complaint. The customer filed a complaint with the CCTS, asking to be released from the contract so she could return to her previous wireless provider. During our investigation, we asked the current provider to give us a copy of the customer s contract. While reviewing the contract, we found that the provider failed to include the details of the customer s commitment period and the early cancellation fees, as is required by the Wireless Code. We therefore asked the provider to release the customer from her contract without penalty, which it agreed to do, and the complaint was resolved. CASE STUDY #6 A customer from Kelowna, BC signed up for a two-year contract for wireless service. He explained to his service provider that he would need data to use while abroad in Germany and said he was assured he could use his 10 GB data feature in Europe for $10/day. However, he subsequently was billed $800 in data charges. When he disputed the charges, a customer service representative advised him to cancel his account to avoid incurring other charges, which he did. The customer then found out that he was also billed early termination charges for having cancelled the service. When he later tried to dispute the data charges and the early cancellation fees, he was told they were valid, and his provider refused to credit them. During our investigation, we discussed the matter with the provider and could not determine whether the customer had in fact been told that he could use his data while in Germany for $10/day. However, when we reviewed the account notes we found that the customer was notified that he was incurring extra data charges and that he had agreed to purchase more data and incur additional charges, as required by the Wireless Code. Nonetheless, in an effort to resolve the complaint, the provider agreed to credit the customer for the early termination and late payment fees of approximately $685. The customer agreed to accept the credit, and the complaint was resolved. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 20

22 TOPICS AND TRENDS Non-disclosure issues for all types of service The increase in the number of non-disclosure issues is not just an issue for wireless customers. Internet, phone and TV customers report that they are also experiencing significant challenges in obtaining clear, accurate and timely information about their services. Concerns about service providers failure to disclose important information was the top issue raised by customers across all types of service in, accounting for almost 15% of all issues raised. Also, the number of non-disclosure issues raised (4,543) was 125% more than last year. TABLE 12: NON-DISCLOSURE ISSUES BY TYPE OF SERVICE AND YoY CHANGES TOP 5 SERVICE PROVIDERS Bell Canada Rogers Videotron Virgin Mobile TELUS Service Number of non-disclosure issues % of all non-disclosure issues YoY change Number of non-disclosure issues % of all non-disclosure issues YoY change Number of non-disclosure issues % of all non-disclosure issues YoY change Number of non-disclosure issues % of all non-disclosure issues YoY change Number of non-disclosure issues % of all non-disclosure issues YoY change Wireless % 82.0% % 74.4% % 182.0% % 88.5% % 81.9% Internet % 97.2% % 29.9% % 200.0% % 150.0% % 125.9% Local phone % 107.4% % 70.0% % 216.7% 0 0.0% % 16.7% Long distance % 144.4% 2 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% TV* % % % 0 0.0% % TOTAL 1, % 124.4% % 71.3% % 246.5% % 90.7% % 105.5% *TV was added to the CCTS mandate in September of Bell Canada accounts for 38% of all nondisclosure issues raised, followed by Rogers at just under 10%. CASE STUDY #7 A customer from Saint-Charles-Borromée, QC agreed to a bundle of services for home phone, internet and TV. A service provider representative told him the price of the package would never increase. A few months later, the customer received a notice that the price would increase by $4 per month. During the CCTS investigation, we obtained a chat log between the customer and his provider, and confirmed that the agent had clearly promised the customer he would have this rate forever. This information was clearly wrong because the provider s terms of service allow for it to increase its monthly prices. Based on these findings, the CCTS informed the provider that we expected it to maintain the price quoted to the customer ($ per month) for 24 months because this is what the customer would have obtained had he been under a fixed 2-year term contract. We advised the customer about these findings and informed him that the provider had offered to apply a one-time credit of $360, covering a maximum price increase for two years. However, the customer rejected the offer and withdrew the complaint, with the intent to explore other options. KEY MESSAGE The mismatch between what a customer is expecting from their service subscription, and what they actually receive, is a frequent cause of complaints. In some cases, we see a conflict between what an agreement or contract actually says and what the customer believes they were told and agreed to. In other cases, the mismatch is caused by non-disclosure (or ineffective disclosure) of important contractual terms, particularly on issues such as the provider s right to make unilateral changes to an aspect of the service or the price, including time limits associated with offers and promotions. We hope that increased focus, on the disclosure requirements of the Wireless Code and the TVSP Code (and better recordkeeping) as well as other similar requirements imposed by the CRTC to ensure clear and timely disclosure of key information to customers will help to reduce the number of non-disclosure issues raised by customers. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 21

23 TOPICS AND TRENDS Incorrect charges: monthly price plan Another trend in was a large increase in the number of times customers raised concerns about being incorrectly charged for their monthly price plan. A total of 4,370 such issues were raised, representing an 87% YoY increase. This is the second-most raised issue in our complaints, accounting for 14% of all issues raised, and is increasingly a larger proportion of all issues raised. FIGURE 7: PROPORTION OF MONTHLY PRICE PLAN INCORRECT CHARGE ISSUES, YoY 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 9% These complaints about incorrect charges happen most often when a customer is billed differently from what the customer believes was agreed to at the point of sale, usually in relation to their monthly price plan. There is probably a connection between the challenges we see regarding the accurate and timely disclosure of key information to customers and resulting billing disputes such as these. TABLE 13: MONTHLY PRICE PLAN INCORRECT CHARGE ISSUES TOP 3 SERVICE PROVIDERS Service provider 13% # of incorrect charge issues % of all incorrect charge issues 14% % of all accepted complaints Bell Canada 2, % 33.2% Videotron % 5.2% Rogers % 10.2% Bell accounts for almost half of the monthly price plan incorrect charge issues raised, a disproportionate amount considering that it accounts for only a third of all complaints. Videotron was the second leading service provider about which this issue was raised, accounting for just over 11%, also a disproportionate amount considering that it accounts for only 5% of all complaints. CASE STUDY #8 A customer from Laval, QC agreed to obtain a bundle of services, including home phone, internet and TV, for $111 per month. She called her service provider to complain, informing it that she was being billed $131 per month. The provider informed her that she was not eligible for the offer priced at $111 per month, so she contacted the CCTS, asking us to help ensure that the provider bill her the amount she had agreed to pay or allow her to cancel her services without penalty. We accepted her complaint and asked the provider to take another look at it. The complaint was resolved to the customer s satisfaction when the provider agreed to bill her only $111 per month for the next twelve months and also provided her with an additional credit of $70 as a gesture of goodwill. The customer was satisfied with the resolution, and the complaint was resolved. CASE STUDY #9 A customer in central QC complained to his wireless service provider that he had been billed more for his wireless service than he had agreed to pay. After numerous attempts to fix the problem with his provider, he continued to be incorrectly charged and made a complaint to the CCTS. During our investigation, we found that the customer was supposed to be receiving a discount of 30% from his regular monthly price but that this discount had not been applied, resulting in the customer being billed more than agreed on. In discussing the matter with the provider, it confirmed that the credit had not been properly applied and corrected the matter by adjusting his bills to reflect the correct monthly charge and by providing the customer with an additional credit of $150 in light of the inconvenience this matter caused him. The customer was satisfied with this outcome, and the complaint was resolved. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 22

24 TOPICS AND TRENDS CASE STUDY #10 An internet customer from Pierrefonds, QC complained to the CCTS that she had been billed $12.50 per month for an unlimited internet feature that she never requested. The unlimited internet feature was an add-on that was billed in addition to the cost of the customer s monthly internet service and that increased the customer s data allotment by up to 60 GB per month. The customer requested that her service provider issue a number of credits to her account totaling approximately $600. During our investigation, the provider submitted evidence demonstrating that the customer had indeed requested the unlimited internet add-on feature, which had been on the customer s account since The CCTS also found that the customer s internet usage was high, averaging about 210 GB per month for each of the last three months. We explained to the customer that the information submitted by the provider indicated she had requested this unlimited internet add-on for $12.50 per month. In addition, we informed her that had the unlimited internet feature not been on the account, she would have incurred about $1,800 in internet usage overage charges during the last three months alone. Although disappointed that she did not receive the credits on her account she was seeking, she thanked the CCTS for looking into the matter to ensure she had not been incorrectly billed by her provider, and the complaint was concluded. KEY MESSAGE We see numerous complaints each year in which customers complain that they were promised something by their provider (usually a specific price or service) and are upset when they don t receive it. We investigate and sometimes find evidence that confirms what was promised to them. We urge service providers to ensure careful review of all of the terms of offers they make to their customers, and careful recording of the details, to help alleviate misunderstandings. We also suggest that providers empower their personnel to carefully review their internal records when dealing with customers with this type of complaint. When the provider s account notes confirm that something was offered to a customer, the provider should stand behind its offer and do the right thing for its customer. These customers should not be forced to pursue their complaints with the CCTS in these open and shut cases. And when the records support the service provider s position, it should not hesitate to share them with the customer. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 23

25 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS In this section, we present the results for those service providers that have been the subject of the greatest number of complaints. We also discuss some of the challenges we have faced working with service providers, including those related to compliance with their obligations. TABLE 14: TOP 25 PSPs BY COMPLAINTS ACCEPTED Accepted complaints Percentage of all complaints YoY % change in complaints accepted Service provider Bell Canada 4, % 45.8% 4, % 22.9% 0.1% Rogers 1, % 34.4% 1, % 15.8% 2.2% TELUS % 49.6% % 13.7% 1.6% Freedom Mobile % 185.2% % 24.5% 3.9% Virgin Mobile % 39.3% % 18.4% 0.0% Videotron % 113.9% % 14.5% 3.0% Fido % 42.9% % 15.8% 3.1% Cogeco Connexion % 358.8% % 15.0% 35.3% Xplornet % 47.7% % 19.3% 2.7% Koodo % 36.9% % 15.5% 0.0% Shaw % 111.9% % 14.9% 4.3% Comwave % 34.8% % 7.9% 37.5% Bell Aliant % 77.5% % 15.1% 3.0% Primus % 28.4% % 16.6% 25.0% Chatr % 87.1% % 44.4% 2.9% Public Mobile % 36.5% % 14.9% 0.0% Bell MTS % 95.7% % 6.4% 0.0% Eastlink % 108.1% % 9.6% 0.0% TekSavvy % 103.6% % 12.1% 21.4% Acanac % 61.0% % 39.6% 68.4% ACN Canada % -17.2% % 15.9% 0.0% Distributel % 76.9% % 25.0% 45.5% Speak Out Wireless (7-11) % 37.0% % 63.4% 42.3% Sasktel % 16.1% % 15.8% 0.0% Vonage % -40.0% % 68.4% 84.6% Concluded complaints Resolution rate (% of all resolved complaints vs. all concluded; 92% overall) Escalation rate (% of all escalated complaints vs. all concluded; 20% overall) % of escalations escalated due to 6.6 of Procedural Code (9% overall) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 24

26 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS Top 10 PSP profiles BELL This year, Bell saw a 45.8% increase in the number of complaints accepted. Bell accounted for 33.3% of all accepted complaints, a decrease from last year s 35.7%. The number of issues related to incorrect monthly price plan charges increased by 50%. Bell accounted for 47.8% of all incorrect monthly price plan charge issues, a category that saw the second biggest increase (87.3%) in all the complaints concluded this year. Bell also recorded the second highest YoY increase in the number of non-disclosure issues, up 124.4%. This complaint category had the largest YoY increase overall (125.3%). Bell s confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code (23) increased by 21.1%, representing 20.7% of the total number of the Wireless Code confirmed breaches for all PSPs (i.e., 111). 4,734 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 45.8% 33.2% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Incorrect charge (2,088) Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (1,728 ) 30-day cancellation policy/ Charges billed after cancellation (794) 23 Wireless Code breaches 20.7% of all Wireless Code breaches 4,281 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS 3, resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 373 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (130) Customer not cooperative (102) Service provider offer is reasonable (86) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 25

27 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS ROGERS The number of Rogers complaints accepted increased by 34.4% (YoY). Rogers complaints represent 10.2% of the total number of complaints accepted this year, slightly less than last year s 11.8%. We saw a 76.5% increase in the number of incorrect monthly plan charges (up to 466 this year). Also, mostly driven by a 53.9% increase in the number of intermittent/inadequate quality of service issues, Rogers service delivery issues in general went up to 19.4% (from 16.6% last year). Rogers breaches of the Wireless Code (44) increased by 76%. This accounts for 39.6% of the total number of Wireless Code breaches for all PSPs. We saw an increase (212.5%, from 8 to 25) in the number of confirmed breaches of section E. Bill Management, mainly related to the application of the data cap provisions. 1,449 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 34.4% 10.2% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Incorrect charge (466) Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (454) Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (257) 44 Wireless Code breaches 39.6% of all Wireless Code breaches 1,407 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS 1, resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 154 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Customer not cooperative (52) Further investigation not warranted (35) Service provider offer is reasonable (33) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 26

28 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS TELUS TELUS complaints increased by almost 50% this year (from 631 to 944). TELUS accounted for 6.6% of all accepted complaints, a slight decrease from last year s 6.9%. We noted an increase in the number of contract dispute issues in TELUS complaints (up to 31.9% from 27.2% last year), but a decrease in complaints about billing issues (down to 40.4% from 44.6% last year). With a total of 10 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, TELUS proportion of all Wireless Code breaches declined from almost 20% last year to 9% this year. The most significant decrease (71.4%, from 7 to 2) was related to Section I. Disconnection, involving breaches of the Wireless Code obligations related to 14-day and 24-hour notices prior to disconnection/suspension. 944 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 49.6% 6.6% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (298) Incorrect charge (191) Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (144) 10 Wireless Code breaches 9% of all Wireless Code breaches 901 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 70 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (27) Customer not cooperative (12) Service provider offer is reasonable (11) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 27

29 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS FREEDOM MOBILE Complaints about Freedom increased this year by 185% (from 298 to 850). Freedom accounted for 6% of all accepted complaints, an increase from last year s 3.3%. The proportion of Freedom s issues that related to service delivery declined slightly, from 29.9% last year to 28.4%. Again this year, the most frequently-raised issue by Freedom s customers related to intermittent/inadequate quality of service, a category that increased by 170% this year. Freedom also had an almost 190% YoY increase in contract dispute issues. The number of confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code changed only slightly, from 6 to 7, with only minor changes in the distribution by sections of the Wireless Code. 850 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 185.2% 6.0% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (216) Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (211) Breach of contract (105) 7 Wireless Code breaches 6.3% of all Wireless Code breaches 730 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 32 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (13) Service provider offer is reasonable (9) Customer not cooperative (7) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 28

30 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS VIRGIN MOBILE This year, complaints about Virgin Mobile increased by almost 40%. Virgin Mobile s complaints account for 5.9% of all accepted complaints, a slight decrease compared to 6.7% last year. Virgin Mobile s complaints showed an almost 63% YoY increase in contract dispute issues, though its overall number of billing issues decreased by slightly over 3% this year. Virgin Mobile s number of confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code increased by 233% this year, from 3 to 10, which amounts to 9% of the total number of all Wireless Code breaches. 847 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 39.3% 5.9% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (307) Data charges (164) Incorrect charge (156) 10 Wireless Code breaches 9.0% of all Wireless Code breaches 827 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 35 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (18) Service provider offer is reasonable (7) Customer not cooperative (6) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 29

31 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS VIDEOTRON We accepted nearly 114% more complaints from Videotron customers this year (740). Videotron s complaints account for 5.2% of all accepted complaints, an increase from last year s 3.8%. The most significant increase in the issues identified in Videotron complaints was the contract disputes category, which went up to 40.2%, from 30.4% last year. Videotron s number of incorrect monthly price plan charge issues increased by 11.1%. However, the proportion of billing-related problems in Videotron s complaints went slightly down this year (from 49.5% to 48.3%). We confirmed 3 breaches of the Wireless Code this year (none last year), one in each of the following sections: B. Contracts and related documents, E. Bill management and G. Contract cancellation and extension. 740 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 113.9% 5.2% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Incorrect charge (487) Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (343) Breach of contract (153) 3 Wireless Code breaches 2.7% of all Wireless Code breaches 696 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 46 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (18) Customer not cooperative (12) Service provider offer is reasonable (6) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 30

32 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS FIDO Fido complaints increased by almost 43% this year. Fido accounted for 4.6% of all accepted complaints this year, a slight decrease from last year s 5%. The issue raised most frequently by Fido customers was nondisclosure (up to 17.2%, from 14.2% last year). Billing issues increased somewhat, to 36.6% this year (from 33.3% last year). Service delivery issues declined from 14.9% to 12.9%. Fido complaints disclosed a 200% increase in Wireless Code breaches (9 in total). One-third of Fido s breaches related to the application of the Code s data cap provisions. 650 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 42.9% 4.6% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (209) Incorrect charge (130) Data charges (83) 9 Wireless Code breaches 8.1% of all Wireless Code breaches 619 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 63 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Customer not cooperative (26) Further investigation not warranted (13) Service provider offer is reasonable (12) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 31

33 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS COGECO Complaints about Cogeco increased by over 358% this year, representing 3.8% of all accepted complaints (up from 1.3% last year). Cogeco complaints raising service delivery issues increased by more than 500%, representing 41.2 % of all Cogeco complaint issues (up from 27.6% last year). At the same time, complaints raising billing issues represented a declining portion of Cogeco s issues, down to 31.1% this year (from 44.8%). Although the number of Cogeco complaints about internet declined this year, at the number of internet service delivery issues did increase this year by 255.5% (up to 135 this year). 546 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 358.8% 3.8% of all complaints 340 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED Incorrect charge (109) Complete loss of service (96) Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (87) 18 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Customer not cooperative (11) Service provider offer is reasonable (3) Further investigation not warranted (2) and Withdrawn (2) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 32

34 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS XPLORNET This year, we saw a 47.7% increase in the number of accepted complaints. Xplornet s complaints accounted for 2.6% of all accepted complaints. Service delivery problems were identified in complaints 62% more often this year (up to 343 from 212), mostly driven by an increase in intermittent/inadequate quality of service issues, which went up by 81%. 378 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 47.7% 2.6% of all complaints 379 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (304) Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fees (74) Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (73) 26 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Customer not cooperative (13) Service provider offer is reasonable (5) Further investigation not warranted (4) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 33

35 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS KOODO This year, we accepted nearly 37% more complaints from Koodo customers, accounting for 2.5% of all accepted complaints; this is a slight decrease from last year s 2.9%. Billing issues decreased, representing 43% of all Koodo issues (down from 50.1% last year). Non-disclosure issues in Koodo complaints (96) more than doubled this year. Last year, Koodo had 11 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code; this year it had none. 360 ACCEPTED COMPLAINTS Up by 36.9% 2.5% TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED of all complaints Non-disclosure of terms/misleading information about terms (96) Credit reporting (72) Incorrect charge (50) No Wireless Code breaches 336 CONCLUDED COMPLAINTS resolved at pre-investigation resolved at investigation 38 unresolved/ closed TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (17) Customer not cooperative (15) Service provider offer is reasonable (3) CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 34

36 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS Compliance The CRTC requires companies that provide retail telecommunications services in Canada as well as licensed TV service providers to participate in the CCTS. Some service providers (typically small providers or new entrants to the business) do not currently participate. Their obligation to do so is triggered when one of their customers files a complaint with the CCTS. We do everything in our power to get these service providers to sign up, and we re generally successful. This year it took us, on average, 26 days to locate, contact and sign up a new provider. The CRTC s objective for this process is 30 days, but we re not able to sign up every service provider within 30 days. In we signed up 51 new service providers. However, some providers refuse to join the CCTS. If we re unable to persuade them to follow the rules and become a PSP, we refer the matter to the CRTC for further action. TABLE 15: SERVICE PROVIDERS FAILING TO JOIN THE CCTS WHEN REQUIRED As of July 31, 2018 the following service providers were non-compliant with the regulatory obligation to sign up with the CCTS: Collect To Cell Cybernet Communications Golden Rural High Speed MySignal.ca Pure Channel Communication Redbox Solution Limited SkyNet Data Networks Inc. St-François Telecom Total Cable WISP Inc. We publicize the identities of these providers throughout the year on our Non-compliant Providers web page. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 35

37 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program On February 1, 2018 the CCTS began to monitor and audit PSPs to obtain confirmation of compliance with the requirements of participation: disclosure of their eligible retail revenues; telling their customers about the CCTS (as required by the CCTS Public Awareness Plan); following the rules for investigating complaints; and paying their fees to the CCTS. We did this by requiring them to complete and return our Annual Compliance Certification (ACC) form. ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE OF REVENUES We sent compliance certification forms to each service provider and asked them to return a separate form for each brand under which they offer service to the public. We also required them to provide certification of their revenues because we need this information for the administration of our funding formula. Annual Compliance Certification (ACC) forms are required for each brand. As of July 31, 2018, 245 of 304 forms had been completed and returned to us, a compliance rate of 80.6%. TABLE 16: PSPs NON-COMPLIANT ON JULY 31, 2018 WITH REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT ACC FORMS Accelerated Connections ALO Telecom Inc. Allo Telecom* Avenue BabyTel BlueTone Brightroam Bravo Telecom Cable Cable Inc.* Canada Payphone Canada Relink Canopco CaspianWave TSP Inc. City Wide Communications Inc. CompuXellence Contact Internet Digicom Internet sans fil Digicom Sans Fil* DMTS* Epik Networks G3 Wireless Infosat Communications InnSys Incorporated Internet Papineau Jive Communications* KMTS* My BC Datacom NECC NetReach Netscape Nophone.ca Nor-Del Telecom NorthWind Wireless OneConnect OnStar* Owtel Store Inc. Parolink.net Phonebox Phone Power* PWHR Solutions Quantum Xpress Computers Quinte Long Distance Securenet Information Services Inc. Simcoe County LD SkyChoice Communications Inc. Skydata Smart Telecom Springtel Communications Inc. Switchworks Syban Systems Ltd. Talkit.ca Inc. Tel-Synergy Thinktel* Toronto Telecom* United Online, Inc. VBuzzer VoIP Much Phone Company Inc. Vox Sun Xinflix * These brands submitted the required ACC form after July 31, CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 36

38 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS Certification of retail revenues is required from PSPs (legal entities, not brands), including service providers that were required to join the CCTS during the year but failed to do so. In we sent 231 forms for completion. As of July 31, 2018, 182 forms had been returned, a compliance rate of 78.8%. 49 PSPs failed to provide their Certification of Retail Revenues (CRR) forms. TABLE 17: PSPs NON-COMPLIANT WITH REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT CRR FORMS ON JULY 31, Canada Inc. (o/a Securenet) Ontario Inc. (o/a Smart Telecom) Québec Inc. (o/a Digicom)* Accelerated Connections Inc. AEI Internet Inc. AOL Canada Corp BabyTel BlueTone Bravo Telecom* Cable Cable Inc. Canada Relink CaspianWave TSP Inc. Collect To Cell Connex Global Communications Inc. Cybernet Communications EspaceNet* Falcon Internet Services Inc.* Freedom Phone Lines Gold Leaf Telecom Ltd. Golden Rural High Speed Groupe Negotel Inc. Infosat Communications InnSys Incorporated Jive Communications Technology Canada Ltd. My BC Datacom Ltd. MySignal.ca Solutions Inc. NECC Telecom Nobel Canada Telecom Inc.* Nor-Del Cablevision Limited Primus Management ULC (formerly Primus Telecommunications (Canada) Inc.)* Pure Channel Communication PWHR Solutions Quality Speaks LLC (Phone Power)* Redbox Solution SkyChoice Communications Inc. SkyNet Data Networks Inc. Springtel Communications Inc. St-Francois telecom Switchworks Technologies Inc. Syban Systems Ltd. Talkit.ca Inc. Telizon Inc. Tel-Synergy Total Cable United Online, Inc. VoIP Much Phone Company Inc. Vox Sun Wisp Inc. XinFlix Media Inc. * These PSPs submitted the required CRR form after July 31, I must say that my service provider was a lot more receptive to my problems once the CCTS was involved. Thank you so much. M.H., a home phone customer from NS CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 37

39 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS TELLING THEIR CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE CCTS All service providers are required as part of their internal complainthandling process to make their customers aware of the CCTS impartial and free complaint resolution service. An audit of compliance by select providers is planned and will be reported at a later date. FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS All service providers are bound by the CCTS Procedural Code, which means they are expected to cooperate with the CCTS when customers file complaints. Among the key requirements are: responding to complaints filed with the CCTS within defined time periods and providing information or documentation as requested cooperating in good faith throughout the investigation process carrying out resolutions to which they agreed and any binding remedies imposed by the CCTS Between January and July of 2018 the CCTS identified over 400 alleged violations by service providers of various Procedural Code requirements. TABLE 18: ALLEGED PROCEDURAL CODE VIOLATIONS Issue and Procedural Code section Section 7: PSP failed to refrain from proceeding with collections activity Section 6.6: PSP failed to provide complete response or did not respond Section 15: PSP failed to provide information/ assistance for complaint investigation Number Percentage of all issues % % % The number of these issues is cause for concern. Although we do our best to ensure that issues impacting customers with complaints are addressed right away as part of our investigation, this is a large number of violations in just seven months. The failure by service providers to provide timely responses to unresolved complaints, to include with those responses the documents necessary for CCTS to conduct its investigation, or to respond promptly to subsequent requests for additional information, make up almost half of these issues. These failings create needless delays for consumers and needless work for the CCTS and service providers. We urge service providers to pay attention to these issues and ensure that their internal processes and staffing are appropriate to comply with these requirements. Future CCTS reporting on this topic, as we obtain more data on these issues, may include identification of individual service providers and the extent to which they are individually in breach of these requirements. PAYING THEIR FEES The CCTS is funded by its PSPs based on a complex formula. We bill them quarterly and they are required to pay their fees within 30 days. Some service providers are in breach of the requirement to pay their fees, and the CCTS will be referring a number of them for collection activity. AllCore COMMUNICATIONS AllCore is a service provider in Hamilton ON that became a CCTS participant in April of In 2018 AllCore agreed to resolve a complaint by providing a refund to a customer who had complained to the CCTS, but it failed to do so. It also failed to implement a binding Recommendation made in another complaint. The CCTS worked hard to communicate with AllCore and explain what AllCore needed to do to remedy its violations of our rules (which included failure to file its annual certification forms, its revenue declaration, and to pay outstanding fees owing to the CCTS). AllCore did not respond. As a result, on August 2, 2018 the CCTS expelled AllCore from participation. Because AllCore is required by the CRTC to participate in the CCTS, this expulsion put AllCore in breach of its regulatory responsibilities and the CCTS notified the CRTC. * In October of 2018, AllCore remedied its non-compliance and was readmitted to participation in the CCTS. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 38

40 WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS Introduction We re always looking for ways to help customers find out about our complaint-handling process and make it easier for them to access our services. This section discusses our activities and results in. Website We know that our website is a key tool for helping customers find us. Our customer surveys tell us that 32% of customers report first learning about the CCTS through an online search. We also know that our website is a focus for customers who want to file complaints. In, 81% of the complaints we accepted were filed by customers using the Submit a Complaint interactive questionnaire on our website. There were close to 290,000 website visits this year, an increase of 64% from last year. There was also a corresponding increase in the use of the Submit a Complaint interactive questionnaire, which peaked at 20,000 sessions last year but at 50,000 this year. Accessibility The CCTS has always been mindful of its responsibility to be responsive to the diverse needs of the public and to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to use our services. Providing accessible customer service so that persons with disabilities can reach us easily and make use of our processes is one of our core values. We provide customer service in a manner that accommodates persons with disabilities and reflects the principles of independence, dignity, integration and equality of opportunity. We conduct annual consultations with groups representing Canadians with disabilities. Based on their feedback from last year, our two new videos that explain what is the CCTS and how the CCTS works are closed captioned and have an American Sign Language/langue des signes Québécoise (ASL/LSQ) version. We have also performed an accessibility analysis of our website to ensure that current content plus any new content added meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. As a result, we are adjusting some website features for better accessibility. We intend to perform an accessibility analysis every two years to ensure ongoing website accessibility. Our Annual and Mid-year Reports are provided in PDF versions that are tagged for accessibility, to help optimize the reading experience for those who use screen readers and other assistive technology. At the request of the CRTC, we have also implemented a process to track accessibility-related issues that appear in customer complaints. For more information about our policies and guidelines, see our Accessibility web page. Customer survey results We survey customers who use our service for two reasons: to get their impressions of the work we do, so we can focus our efforts for improvement to attempt to measure the success of the public awareness initiatives we undertake with service providers The results are based on almost 3,700 responses. We thank the customers who took the time to participate in the survey and share their views. The results for these survey questions show very little change from previous years results. Numbers for all results were rounded. WHAT CUSTOMERS SAID ABOUT THE CCTS We asked our customers: Was it easy to file your complaint with the CCTS? 3% 15% Yes Somewhat No 82% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 39

41 WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS We asked our customers to provide feedback on whether the service they received from our Contact Centre agents met expectations in certain important respects. Finally, we asked our customers about their overall sense of satisfaction with various aspects of our process. 93% 87% Polite and professional 4% 3% Accessibility 2% 11% 83% 81% Helpful 11% Timelines 12% 6% 7% 85% 91% Knowledgeable 10% Professionalism 6% 5% 3% 86% Yes Somewhat No Impartiality 6% We also asked our customers about important elements of the service they received from our Complaints Resolution Officers and Investigators. 8% 80% 92% Process fairness 11% Polite and professional 5% 3% 9% 84% Yes Somewhat No Knowledgeable 11% 5% Impartial 9% 80% The CCTS was very prompt in responding to my complaint and they expedited the resolution in a very timely, satisfactory manner. 11% A.S., a TV customer from ON Yes Somewhat No CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 40

42 WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS WHAT CUSTOMERS SAID ABOUT SERVICE PROVIDER PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES We asked our customers how they first found out about the CCTS. Our customers said: 17% 23% 32% Service providers have committed to notify customers about CCTS during their internal complaint-handling process. We asked our customers whether their service provider told them about the CCTS during their efforts to resolve the problem. Our customers said: 12% 88% 8% 12% Yes No 4% 4% Service providers are required to print a prescribed message about the CCTS on customer bills four times a year. We asked our customers whether they ve ever seen the notice on any of their bills. Our customers said: Web search Notice on bill 15% The CRTC A friend, colleague or family member A consumer group/agency Other 85% Media or other Public Forum Yes No BREAKDOWN OF OTHER 6% 5% 65% Service providers have committed to placing a prescribed notice about the CCTS in a reasonably prominent place on their web sites, and to include a link to our website. We asked our customers whether they d seen it. Our customers said: 11% 89% 24% Yes No A service provider Already knew about CCTS Other/don t recall Bank or credit card company CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 41

43 STATISTICAL REPORTS Contact Centre activities Our Contact Centre received over 110,000 communications by telephone, in writing and by online chat. TABLE 19: COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED Type % change Total written correspondence 44,937 33% Total phone calls answered 62,023 8% Total chat sessions answered 3, % The total written correspondence includes use of our online interactive questionnaire. This information, combined with the modest increase in phone calls and the 134% increase in chat sessions, suggests that the telephone is being replaced by online communications. Out-of-mandate issues The following tables show the number of issues raised by customers that the CCTS could not accept in, broken down by the reason they could not be accepted. TABLE 20: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 3 AND OTHER Issue Number Section 3.1(a)(i) Internet applications/content 409 Section 3.1(a)(ii) Emergency services 57 Section 3.1(a)(iii) Payphones 64 Section 3.1(a)(iv) Yellow pages/business directories 66 Section 3.1(a)(v) Telemarketing/unsolicited messages 844 Section 3.1(a)(vi) 900/976 calls 90 Section 3.1(b)(i) Digital Media Broadcast Undertaking (DMBU) services Section 3.1(b)(ii) Interactive TVSP services and applications Section 3.1(b)(iii) Broadcasting Content 421 Section 3.1(b)(iv) Journalistic ethics 22 Section 3.1(b)(v) Accessibility issues e.g. Closed-captioning and described video Section 3.1(b)(vi) Simultaneous substitution 27 Section 3.1(c)(i) Customer owned equipment Issue Number Section 3.1(c)(ii) Inside wiring 14 Section 3.1(c)(iii) Security services 230 Section 3.1(c)(iv) Networking services 136 Section 3.1(c)(v) Pricing 1,244 Section 3.1(c)(vi) Rights of way 174 Section 3.1(c)(vii) Plant/poles/towers 749 Section 3.1(c)(viii) False/misleading advertising 278 Section 3.1(c)(ix) Privacy issues 707 Other Broadcasting (television) 1,572 Other Broadcasting (radio) 54 Other Consumer clarity of offers and promotions (TVSP Code) Other Not related to service providers (Phone/internet scams) Other Regulated services 114 TOTAL 8,378 CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 42

44 STATISTICAL REPORTS TABLE 21: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 4 Issue Number Section 4.1 Customer service Language barriers 203 Outsourcing 292 Rude representative 1,678 Wait times 2,199 Total 4,372 Section 4.3 General operating practices and policies 2,814 TOTAL 7,186 Some complaints could not be accepted due to provisions of the Procedural Code. They break down as follows. TABLE 22: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 10: DUTY TO DECLINE TO TAKE ACTION Issue Number Section 10.1 Service provider not offered opportunity to resolve 1,432 Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency 1,271 Section 10.3(a) Facts transpired over one year 770 Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date 175 TOTAL 3,648 CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 43

45 STATISTICAL REPORTS Although accessibility issues are out of our mandate, the CRTC asked us to track when customers raised these about their service providers. TABLE 23: ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES Issue Number Contract not provided in alternative format 0 Customer service Indifference to customer s disability 14 Total 14 Emergency services 0 Hearing or speech issues In-store language accessibility 0 MRS not available 4 VRS not available 4 Total 8 Mobility issues In-store physical accessibility 1 Total 1 Other 16 Policies and operating procedures 8 Special type of wireless device handset not offered 0 Visual issues Bills and other information not provided in alternative format 2 Total 2 TOTAL 49 I don t think I would have been able to resolve my complaint without the intervention of the CCTS. I am very pleased with the resolution. P.O., an internet customer from PEI CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 44

46 STATISTICAL REPORTS Small business In, we had 494 complaints from small business customers, 3.7% of all concluded complaints. When we report our operational statistics, we include the data for all the complaints we dealt with during the year. However, not all complaints are alike. In particular, we know that complaints from small business customers can be quite different from those of individual consumers. The following tables highlight the differences. TABLE 24: SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT SUBJECTS vs. CONSUMER COMPLAINT SUBJECTS Subject Small business Consumer Contract dispute 56.7% 34.9% Billing 21.9% 40.8% Service delivery 18.1% 21.0% TABLE 26: TOP 10 SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT ISSUES Issue Small business Consumer Credit management 3.3% 3.4% TOTAL 100% 100% The small business percentages are similar to last year s results. TABLE 25: SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT TYPES OF SERVICE vs. CONSUMER COMPLAINT TYPES OF SERVICES Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fees Non-disclosure of terms/ Misleading information about terms Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service 21.0% 4.7% 10.5% 15.0% 8.2% 8.4% Service Small business Consumer Wireless 23.7% 42.2% Internet 34.2% 29.1% Local phone 40.7% 16.5% Long distance 1.5% 1.2% There were no small business or consumer complaints in about directory assistance, white page directories or operator services. The types of complaints for small business are similar to last year s results. Contract auto-renewal 7.8% 0.2% Incorrect charge 7.2% 14.5% No consent provided for contract renewal 4.8% 2.1% Breach of contract 4.3% 5.2% No consent 3.4% 0.2% Credit reporting 2.9% 2.9% Complete loss of service 2.8% 2.8% The first eight small business issues were also the first eight issues last year, though the order was different. The last two issues are different from last year, when number nine was Material contract change without notice and number ten was Material contract change. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 45

47 STATISTICAL REPORTS Analysis of closed complaints Our operational statistics show that we closed 1,068 complaints in. The following table provides a breakdown of the reasons why those complaints were closed, with reference to the relevant section of the Procedural Code. TABLE 27: COMPLAINTS CLOSED BY REASON FOR CLOSURE Reason for closure Number of closed complaints % of closed complaints Customer withdraws complaint % Out-of-mandate after further information obtained % Section 9.1(b) Customer does not have sufficient interest 9 0.8% Section 9.1(c) Complaint more appropriately handled by another agency % Section 9.1(d) Further investigation not warranted % Section 9.1(e) Customer not cooperative % Section 9.1(f) Service provider offer is reasonable % Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency % Section 10.3(a) Complaint filed outside time limits % Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date 3 0.3% TOTAL 1, % CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 46

48 STATISTICAL REPORTS Compensation analysis In cases that are resolved, as well as in Recommendations and Decisions, customers may receive some form of compensation from their service provider. This compensation can take many forms, including: bill credits bill adjustments free or discounted products and services cash payments We attempt to record the value of all compensation awarded to customers as a result of the CCTS process. This is challenging because in a significant number of cases (in particular resolutions that occur at our Pre-investigation stage) we are not provided with the details of the settlement reached between the customer and the service provider. This report discloses the full value of compensation received by customers that has been reported to us. TABLE 28: NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS IN WHICH COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED Compensation range Number of complaints Percentage < $100 3, % Performance standards Each year, we set ourselves a goal of great customer service. To ensure that we re meeting that goal, we track our performance across various benchmarks. CONTACT CENTRE/PRE-INVESTIGATION TABLE 29: CONTACT CENTRE/PRE-INVESTIGATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Process Target Answer phone calls within 120 seconds Process written communications within 3 calendar days COMPLAINT HANDLING TABLE 30: COMPLAINT HANDLING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 80% 78.0% 80% 70.7% Process Target Complaints concluded at Pre-investigation stage within 40 days of acceptance 80% 97.9% $100 $499 4, % $500 $ % $1,000 $4, % Complaints concluded at Investigation stage within 60 days of referral to Investigation 80% 42.7% $5,000 or more % TOTAL 9, % Total compensation: $2,977,658 Although the 57% increase in complaints this year impacted our target benchmarks, the only substantial change was for concluding complaints at the Investigation stage within 60 days. I always received excellent service from your agents, good advice and explanation of issues. Thank you for providing this service. C.N., a wireless customer from ON CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 47

49 STATISTICAL REPORTS Regional analysis YT 6 BC 1,442 NT 4 NU 4 AB 1,118 SK MB ON 6,663 QC 3,776 NB 205 NL 148 PE 53 NS 320 We receive complaints from customers throughout Canada. Here, we identify the number of accepted complaints by province/territory. 14,272 COMPLAINTS 36,708,083 POPULATION * TABLE 31: COMPLAINTS ACCEPTED BY PROVINCE/TERRITORY Province/Territory Complaints Population* Alberta 1, % 4,286, % British Columbia 1, % 4,817, % Manitoba % 1,338, % New Brunswick % 759, % Newfoundland and Labrador % 528, % Northwest Territories 4 0.0% 44, % Nova Scotia % 953, % Nunavut 4 0.0% 37, % Ontario 6, % 14,193, % Prince Edward Island % 152, % Quebec 3, % 8,394, % Saskatchewan % 1,163, % Yukon 6 0.0% 38, % Not specified % TOTAL 14, % 36,708, % Canada, Statistics Canada, Table (Ottawa, CANSIM, 2017) at Please note that percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 48

50 GOVERNANCE Board of Directors Our Board is structured to provide for the participation of all stakeholders while remaining independent from the telecom and TV industries. It consists of seven directors who are elected for three-year terms: four independent directors, two of whom are appointed by consumer groups three industry directors, one each to represent the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), the cable companies and the other Participating Service Providers Director biographies INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS Catherine Aczel Boivie, PhD, ICD.D (Board Chair, appointed October of 2016) A senior executive and CEO, Catherine has led the advancement of the strategic value of information technology as a business enabler at Vancity Credit Union, Pacific Blue Cross and CAA British Columbia. She serves on several boards, including those of Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (REBGV), MedicAlert Canada and Artsclub theatre. She holds a BMath degree from University of Waterloo and an MEd and PhD from University of Toronto. Dr. Boivie has been publicly recognized for her contributions, including being named as one of Canada s top 100 most powerful women by the Women s Executive Network in the Trailblazers and Trendsetters category, and is the recipient of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee medal for being a catalyst for technology transformation. Darlene Halwas Darlene currently serves on the boards of Aquatera Utilities Inc., Alberta WaterPortal Society and Watt Consulting Group. She has almost 30 years work experience, with 15 years focused on leading risk management functions for companies. In the past, she has served on a number of boards, including the Safety Codes Council, CKUA Radio Foundation, the Management Employees Pension Board and the Calgary Police Commission. She holds a Bachelor of Commerce (Hons.) from the University of Manitoba and the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Financial Risk Manager (FRM) and Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD.D) designations as well as certification in tribunal administrative justice. Since 1995, she has been an active volunteer with the CFA Institute, and recently completed her term on the global Disciplinary Review Committee. She was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for her contributions to Canada. Consumer group appointees Marina Pavlović Marina is an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa s Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, where she is a member of the Center for Law, Technology, and Society. Marina has research and teaching experience in consumer protection, telecommunications, law and technology policy, and dispute resolution. She holds a law degree from the University of Belgrade (Serbia) and a LLM in Law & Technology from the University of Ottawa. Jacques C.P. Bellemare Jacques graduated in Engineering Physics at École Polytechnique in Montreal (1961) and later obtained an MBA from Laval University in Quebec (1973). In the private sector, he has worked in telephony with Bell Canada, in Cable TV with Cablevision Nationale (acquired by Videotron), in consulting with Raymond, Chabot, Martin, Paré, and in regulation with Teleglobe Canada after its privatization. Since 1994, with his own firm STEM Consultants Inc., he offers independent expertise in economic regulation of public utility companies, mostly in the energy sector. In the public sector, from 1982 to 1988, Jacques served as a Member of the Quebec Public Service Board then assuming regulatory jurisdiction over certain telephone companies located in Quebec, including Quebec-Telephone and Telebec. INDUSTRY DIRECTORS Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) Ruby Barber Ruby is Assistant General Counsel, Legal & Regulatory Affairs, and Director, Compliance at Bell Canada and is based in Ottawa. She joined Bell in 1997 and has a broad range of legal and regulatory experience with telecom issues. Most recently she was responsible for Bell Canada s consumer legal team, which on a day-to-day basis addresses legal issues impacting Bell s customers, including the Wireless Code of Conduct. Previously, she supported the Mergers & Acquisitions team at Bell as Assistant General Counsel, M&A. Prior to joining Bell, Ruby was an associate at Fasken Martineau in Toronto, practising corporate and securities law. She is a graduate of Queen s University (Honours Politics) and Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the Bar in Ontario in CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 49

51 GOVERNANCE Cable companies Dennis Béland (to October 2017) Dennis is Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Telecommunications, Quebecor Media Inc. Dennis has a Bachelor s Degree in Engineering and Management and a Master s Degree in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is a Member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian LNP Consortium Inc., the Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium Inc. and a former Member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. Dean Shaikh (from October 2017) Dean is Vice President, Regulatory Affairs at Shaw Communications, where he is primarily responsible for CRTC proceedings and compliance under the Broadcasting Act. He also provides advice on matters involving the Telecommunications Act, Competition Act and Copyright Act. Prior to joining Shaw in 2006, Dean was Regulatory Counsel at the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association. Previously, he worked at the Competition Bureau in the Mergers Branch. Dean is a graduate of Queen s University (Bachelor of Laws) and the University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Social Sciences Political Science and Master of Laws). Other Participating Service Providers Bram Abramson Bram is a Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellow at Citizen Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the University of Toronto s Munk School of Global Affairs. Previous roles include head of law, regulatory, and public policy at TekSavvy; communications lawyer at McCarthy Tétrault; and senior analyst at the CRTC and at TeleGeography. Bram is a graduate of Concordia (BA, Communications) and McGill (BCL/LLB, Law) universities and, alongside his Ontario bar membership, holds the CIPP/C, CIPM, and FIP privacy designations. For up-to-date biographies throughout the year, see our Board of Directors web page. Board changes In October 2017, Dennis Béland retired after serving on the Board since Dean Shaikh was appointed to the cable companies director position that Dennis vacated. Meetings and director attendance Board meeting date Abramson Barber Béland Bellemare Boivie Halwas Pavlović Shaikh October 17, 2017 (conference call) October 24, 2017 January 31 and February 1, 2018 March 21, 2018 (conference call) April 19, 2018 June 21, 2018 N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* N/A* *Retired from Board in October of CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 50

52 GOVERNANCE Committee meetings The Board has a number of committees and working groups. These committees met as follows. Audit Committee September 11 and October 6, 2017 and January 18, March 29, May 14, June 13 and June 22, Corporate Governance Committee August 3, September 6 and October 19, 2017 and February 14, 20, 22, March 21, April 3, April 9, 12, June 11 and July 20, Independent Directors Committee October 23 and December 19, 2017 and January 30, April 18 and June 20, Budget Working Group June 4, 11, 14 and 19, Committee activity increased again in, largely to reflect the Board s efforts to put new programs and policies in place as well as to begin its strategic planning work. CCTS budget The CCTS audited financial statements for can be found in Appendix C. The CCTS is funded by the service providers. Large providers pay a fee based on the proportion of their revenues to the revenues of all the large service providers. Small providers pay an annual fee. All providers pay a fee for each complaint concluded by the CCTS from their customers in the year. New provider sign-up fees and bank interest make up the other sources of revenue. Strategic and operational initiatives for The Board has identified many key initiatives for , highlighted by: completing the strategic planning process which began in conducting the service delivery review to ensure that our service continues to incorporate best-in-class processes and technologies implementing the first phase of our IT Review plan, following the completion of a review conducted in implementing the recommendations of two IT security reviews recently conducted continuing to work with groups representing persons with disabilities, to ensure full access to our service The CCTS generated revenues that almost exactly matched pre-year projections. Expenses were over $600,000 under budget, largely arising from greater than anticipated challenges in recruiting staff. Under the Participation Agreement that governs the relationship between the CCTS and the service providers, the CCTS normally credits the excess of revenues over expenses back to the service providers as a year-end adjustment. However, due to the substantial growth projected for the CCTS in and to ensure adequate funding for day-to-day operations, in June of 2018 the Board approved a Special Resolution (for the second year in a row) authorizing the CCTS to retain this surplus. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 51

53 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider LEGEND Withdrawn Customer withdraws complaint 9.1(b) Customer does not have sufficient interest 9.1(d) Further investigation not warranted 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency Info. obtained Out-of-mandate after further information obtained 9.1(c) Complaint more appropriately handled by another agency 9.1(e) 9.1(f) Customer not cooperative Service provider offer is reasonable 10.3(a) Complaint filed outside time limits 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved # % 0.0% com Ontario Inc. 295.ca 3Web 450Tel 4pairless Communications 1 0.0% N/A Inc. 8COM 3 0.0% 0.0% A dimension humaine Acanac Inc % 61.0% Accelerated Connections Access Communications 0 0.0% N/A % N/A Achatplus Inc % % ACN Canada % -17.2% Acrobat Telecom Inc % N/A CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 52

54 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider AEBC Internet Corporation Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved AEI Internet 1 0.0% -80.0% AIC Global Communications AireNet Internet Solutions AllCore Communications Inc % % % N/A % N/A Allo Telecom 3 0.0% N/A Allstream % 150.0% Altima Telecom 8 0.1% -11.1% Amtelecom LP 0 0.0% N/A Amtelecom Telco GP Inc. Andrews Wireless 0 0.0% N/A Aol Canada 1 0.0% N/A Arrow Technology Group 1 0.0% 0.0% Atalk 1 0.0% N/A Atop TV 0 0.0% N/A Auracom 2 0.0% 0.0% Avenue Axess Communications Axsit 3 0.0% 200.0% B2B2C Inc % 100.0% BabyTel Bell Aliant % 77.5% Bell Canada 4, % 45.8% 4,281 3,908 3, Bell ExpressVu % N/A Bell Fibe % N/A CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 53

55 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved Bell Fibe (Ontario) % N/A Bell Fibe (Quebec) % N/A Bell MTS % 95.7% BluArc Communications 1 0.0% N/A Inc. BlueTone Canada 1 0.0% 0.0% Bragg Communications Inc. Bravo Phone Cards Bravo Telecom 6 0.0% 50.0% Brightroam Broad-Connect Telecom Inc. Bruce Municipal Telephone System 1 0.0% N/A Bruce Telecom 2 0.0% 0.0% BV Communications 3 0.0% N/A Cable Axion 5 0.0% 400.0% Cable Cable Inc % N/A Cablevision du Nord du Québec Inc % % Call Select 2 0.0% -33.3% Can-net Telecom 8 0.1% 300.0% Canada Payphone Corporation Canada Relink 0 0.0% % Caninter.net Canopco Cardinal Telecom (2000) Inc % N/A CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 54

56 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved Carry Telecom 8 0.1% 166.7% CaspianWave Caztel CCAP (Coopérative de Câblodistribution de l`arrière-pays) CCAP Cable CCI Wireless 5 0.0% 150.0% CDMS Inc. CDTel 0 0.0% % Chatr Wireless % 87.1% China Telecom Canada Corp % N/A Choice Tel CICI Mobile 0 0.0% N/A CICILynk 0 0.0% N/A CIK Telecom Inc % 125.0% CipherTV 0 0.0% N/A City Wide Communications % 125.0% Cityfone 5 0.0% 25.0% CityWest Cable & Telephone Corp. Clearlink Networks 2 0.0% N/A % N/A Coast Cable 1 0.0% 0.0% Cogeco Connexion Cogeco Peer 1 (Canada) Inc % 358.8% Cogent Canada 0 0.0% % Colba.Net 2 0.0% 100.0% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 55

57 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Compagnie de Téléphone de Saint-Victor Compagnie de Téléphone Upton Inc. Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved ComparAction % -5.9% Compton Communications Compuxellence 0 0.0% % Comwave % 34.8% Connexio 1 0.0% N/A Convergia Networks Inc % 0.0% Cooptel 1 0.0% 0.0% Cross Country T.V. Limited Cybersurf Internet Access (CIA) 1 0.0% N/A Dcall 0 0.0% N/A DCI Telecom 0 0.0% % Delta Cable 4 0.0% 0.0% Dery Telecom 4 0.0% 300.0% Diallog Telecommunications Corp % N/A DialTone 0 0.0% N/A Digicom 2 0.0% N/A Distributel Communications Limited % 76.9% DolphinTel 1 0.0% 0.0% Eastlink % 108.1% EasyVoice Telecom EBOX Inc % 41.7% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 56

58 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Enhanced VOIP Communications Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved Epik Networks 0 0.0% % Espacenet Execulink % -7.1% Falcon Internet Services Fibernetics 2 0.0% 100.0% Fido % 42.9% Fleettel inc % N/A Followtel Fongo Inc % 400.0% Freedom Mobile Inc. Freedom Phone Lines % 189.6% % % FreePhoneLine.ca 1 0.0% 0.0% Frontline 0 0.0% N/A G3 Telecom 5 0.0% 400.0% Gems Telecom 5 0.0% -16.7% GETUS Communications LTD % N/A Giantel Globalstar 3 0.0% -40.0% Gold Leaf Telecom Ltd. Gold Line Telemanagement Inc % 0.0% Good Call 1 0.0% N/A Groupe-Acces Communications 1 0.0% N/A HuronTel CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 57

59 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider ICA Canada On-Line Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved 1 0.0% N/A ICA Wireless 1 0.0% N/A Ice Wireless 1 0.0% N/A IceNet Wireless 2 0.0% N/A Ilink Communications Impact Telecom 1 0.0% -50.0% InfoFortin Telecom InfoSat Communications InnSys 3 0.0% -62.5% Intelecom Solutions Inc % N/A Inter.net Canada 3 0.0% 0.0% Interhop Internet Papineau Inc % N/A IP4B 0 0.0% N/A Iristel 2 0.0% N/A italkbb % 30.0% itel Networks Inc % N/A ITP/International Telephone Prod. LTD. Jive Communications Technology Canada Ltd. K-Right Communications Inc. K2 Systems Inc % N/A Kawartha Cable 1 0.0% N/A CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 58

60 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Key 2 Communications Inc. Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved 0 0.0% N/A Kincardine Group 1 0.0% N/A Kingston Online Services 2 0.0% 0.0% KnowRoaming Ltd % N/A Koodo % 36.9% Kwic Internet ( Ontario Ltd.) Le pigeon voyageur Leaf Telecommunications (Leaftel) 1 0.0% N/A % N/A Les.Net (1996) Inc % N/A Level 3 Communications LightSpeed Internet 4 0.0% 0.0% Little Loon Wireless 0 0.0% N/A LooneyCall Lucky Mobile % N/A LuckyCall Lycatalk 1 0.0% -50.0% Magic Jack Tel % 83.3% Mascon Cable 2 0.0% N/A Maskatel 6 0.0% 50.0% Mastercall MaximumISP 1 0.0% N/A maxtv 0 0.0% N/A Mazagan Telecom 2 0.0% N/A MCI Canada CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 59

61 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved MCS Net 2 0.0% N/A Mustang Technologies Inc % 0.0% My BC Datacom National Capital FreeNet National Teleconnect Navatalk 3 0.0% 200.0% NCIC Operator Services NECC 1 0.0% 0.0% NECC CA Negotel 2 0.0% N/A Net Reach NetAccess Systems Inc. Netfone Netfox Communications Corp % N/A NetRevolution Netscape 0 0.0% N/A NetSet Communications 1 0.0% -75.0% NetTalk 4 0.0% N/A NEWT Business Services Nexicom 2 0.0% N/A Nobel Canada Telecom Nor-Del Cablevision 0 0.0% N/A Northern Tel 7 0.0% 600.0% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 60

62 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved Northwestel 2 0.0% 100.0% Northwind Wireless 0 0.0% % Novus Entertainment Inc. NRTC Communications Nucleus Information Service Inc % N/A % N/A % 0.0% NuEra Telecom 0 0.0% % Odynet 1 0.0% 0.0% Omega Cable 0 0.0% N/A On Call Centre 0 0.0% N/A OneConnect Services Inc % -50.0% OnlineTel OnStar 0 0.0% N/A Ontarioeast.net 1 0.0% 0.0% Ontera 4 0.0% 33.3% Ooma % N/A Opcom Hospitality Solutions Inc. OpenFace Orbitel Oricom Internet 1 0.0% -50.0% Owtel 0 0.0% % PageNet Parlez rabais Parolink.net 0 0.0% N/A Pathway Communications 1 0.0% 0.0% PC Mobile % 10.0% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 61

63 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved People Line 0 0.0% N/A People's Tel GP Inc. People's Tel LP 0 0.0% N/A Persona Communications Corp. Petro Canada Mobility % 150.0% Phone Factory Phone Power 2 0.0% 0.0% Phonebox 5 0.0% -37.5% Platinum Platinum Communications Corp. Point to Point Broadband PortalOne Premiere Conferencing Canada Ltd. Premiere Global Services Primus % 28.4% Public Mobile % 36.5% Pulse Telecom 0 0.0% % PWHR Solutions QINIQ 0 0.0% N/A Quadro Communications 1 0.0% N/A Quebec internet 0 0.0% % Questzones Quinte Long Distance CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 62

64 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved RadioActif 1 0.0% 0.0% Raftview 1 0.0% N/A Reliant Communications 3 0.0% 200.0% Inc. Réseau Picanoc.net 0 0.0% N/A RevTel Ring Central Canada Inc % N/A Roam Mobility 6 0.0% -72.7% Rogers Communications 1, % 34.4% 1,407 1,253 1, RuralWave 2 0.0% -33.3% S.M.S Vox Inc % N/A Sasktel % 16.1% Sears Connect 7 0.0% -53.3% Seaside Communications (Seaside Cable) Seaside Wireless Communications Inc. SecureNet Information Services Inc % % % N/A Selectcom Inc % % Selectcom Telecom Sens-net Canada Inc. Shaw Communications 5 0.0% 66.7% % 111.9% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 63

65 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Shaw Direct (Star Choice Television Network Incorporated) Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved % N/A Silo Wireless Simcoe County Long Distance Simconet Technologies Inc. SkyChoice Communications Inc % N/A % N/A Skydata Smart Telecom 1 0.0% 0.0% Sogetel 3 0.0% -40.0% Solo % 55.6% Source Cable Ltd % 0.0% Speak Out Wireless (7-11) % 37.0% Speak Telecom Spectravoice Springtel Communications Inc % N/A SSi 0 0.0% N/A SSi Mobile 0 0.0% N/A Start Communications 8 0.1% 14.3% start.ca 1 0.0% -66.7% Startec Global Communications 3 0.0% 200.0% Storm Internet 1 0.0% N/A Sunsonic 7 0.0% N/A Surf Media Inc % N/A Swiftvox 0 0.0% N/A CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 64

66 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved Switchworks Syban Systems Ltd % N/A Talk & Save Talk Canada Talkit.ca Inc % % Tamaani Internet Targo Communications 2 0.0% 100.0% Inc. Tata Communications (Canada) ULC tbaytel 7 0.0% -41.7% TekSavvy Solutions Inc % 103.6% Tel-Synergy 1 0.0% 0.0% Télébec % 10.0% Télécommunications Xittel 2 0.0% -33.3% Telehop 4 0.0% 0.0% Telemart 0 0.0% N/A Téléphone Saint-Éphrem Telesave Communications Ltd % N/A Telizon 1 0.0% 0.0% TelKel Inc % N/A Telnet Communications TELUS Communications Inc % -75.0% % 49.6% CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 65

67 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider TeraGo Networks Inc. Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved 2 0.0% 100.0% ThinkTel 0 0.0% % Toronto Telecom 1 0.0% N/A Tough Country Communications Transvision Cookshire Tuckersmith Communications Uniserve Communications 1 0.0% N/A Unlimitel 1 0.0% N/A Vancouver Telephone Company Ltd. Vbuzzer 0 0.0% % Velcom 4 0.0% -20.0% Velocity Networks Inc. Verizon VerseTEL Inc % N/A Vianet Inc % 0.0% Vianet Internet Solutions Vidéotron ltée/ Videotron Ltd % -71.4% % 113.9% VIF Internet 2 0.0% -60.0% Virgin Mobile Canada % 39.3% VMedia % 88.2% Vodalink Telecom 1 0.0% -50.0% Voice Network Inc % -83.3% VoIP Much Phone Company Inc % N/A CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 66

68 APPENDICES Appendix A Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded All Resolved Pre-Investigation Investigation or higher All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1(b) 9.1(c) 9.1(d) 9.1(e) 9.1(f) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions Provider Accepted Complaints Concluded Complaints Resolved Unresolved Voip.ms 3 0.0% N/A Vonage Canada Corporation % -40.0% Vox 0 0.0% N/A Vox Sun Westman Communications Group WestNet Wireless Wightman Telecom 0 0.0% % WiMac Tel 4 0.0% 300.0% Win-tel World-Link Communications Inc % 0.0% Worldline % 83.3% WTC Communications 1 0.0% 0.0% Xinflix 0 0.0% N/A Xplornet Internet Services Yak Communications Corp. YAP Your Affordable Provider Inc % 47.7% % -23.5% % N/A Zazeen 0 0.0% % Zid Internet 2 0.0% 0.0% ZIP SIM 0 0.0% N/A Zoomer 7 0.0% 250.0% TOTAL 14, % 13,224 12,149 10,214 1,935 1, CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 67

69 APPENDICES Appendix B Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints This table details the issues raised in the complaints that we concluded between August 01, 2017 and July 31, The total number of issues exceeds the number of complaints concluded because some complaints raised more than one issue. Local Exchange and VoIP Long Distance Wireless Television Internet White Pages Directory assistance Operator services Total Billing 2, ,393 1,448 3, , day cancellation policy/ Charges billed after cancellation ,512 3rd party charges Airtime Bandwidth usage Bill delivery Fees for paper billing Invoices not received Bundling discounts Calling Cards Balance clearing Fees not disclosed Wrong rate Chargeable messages Credit/refund not received ,379 Data charges Long distance toll fraud Misapplied payments Monthly price plan , , ,381 Government and regulatory fees Incorrect Charge , , ,370 One-time fees ,257 Activation/reactivation charges Deactivation charges Equipment charges Late-payment fees Pay per use services Payment arrangement dispute CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 68

70 APPENDICES Appendix B Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints Local Exchange and VoIP Long Distance Wireless Television Internet White Pages Directory assistance Operator services Total Billing 2, ,393 1,448 3, ,306 Pre-authorized payments Incorrect amount Incorrect bank account/credit card Not authorized Pre-paid service Balance clearing Fees not disclosed No invoice Top-up Wrong rate Premium text messaging charges Rental equipment Modem TV Terminal VoIP hub Repair charges Charges incorrect Charges not disclosed Inside wiring Roaming charges Text messaging charges (not premium) Transfer of Responsibility Value-add services CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 69

71 APPENDICES Appendix B Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints Local Exchange and VoIP Long Distance Wireless Television Internet White Pages Directory assistance Operator services Total Contract dispute 1, ,880 1,163 2, ,980 Compliance with Terms of Service/Contract , ,455 Breach of Contract ,575 Material contract change Material contract change without notice Contract duration/length of Term Contract renewal Auto-renewal No consent Early Termination Fees (ETF) ,627 Amount of ETF Legitimacy of ETF ,412 Hardware Financing Plan No consent provided Non-disclosure of terms/ Misleading information about terms , , ,543 Warranties Extended warranty purchased from service provider Manufacturer`s Warranty Service delivery 1, , , ,410 Customer-initiated cancellations ,312 Cx cancellation due date not kept/delayed Unable to cancel Unable to port Device placed on blacklist Disconnection/Suspension of service Acceptable use policy Bandwidth/Data over-consumption Fraud Non-payment/collections Partial payment Seasonal suspension CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 70

72 APPENDICES Appendix B Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints Local Exchange and VoIP Long Distance Wireless Television Internet White Pages Directory assistance Operator services Total Service delivery 1, , , ,410 Installation/Activation Damage to property Install/activate due date not kept/delayed Installation error Repair/Loss of service , , ,732 Complete loss of service Damage to property Inside wiring Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service , ,573 Outside wiring Service repair/loss due date not kept/delayed Service provider/account sold Transferred wrong number or service Unauthorized transfer of service Further to inquiry Further to solicitation Credit management ,038 Credit limit Disputes limit amount Exceeded limit Spending limit/other details not disclosed Credit reporting Security deposit Disputes deposit amount Disputes requirement for deposit Interest Not refunded TOTAL 5, ,757 3,248 8, ,734 CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 71

73 Appendix C Financial statements F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S For COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. For the year ended JULY 31, 2018 An Independent Member of BKR International

74 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the directors of COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Commission for Complaints for Telecomtelevision Services Inc./Commission des plaintes relatives aux services de télécom-télévision inc., which comprise the statement of financial position as at July 31, 2018, and the statements of operations, changes in net assets and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc./Commission des plaintes relatives aux services de télécom-télévision inc. as at July 31, 2018, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations. Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Ottawa, Ontario October 5, Welch LLP - Chartered Professional Accountants 123 Slater Street, 3 rd floor, Ottawa, ON K1P 5H2 T: F: W: welchllp.com An Independent Member of BKR International Page 1 of 11

75 COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION JULY 31, 2018 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash - note 4 $ 1,735,917 $ 1,385,322 Accounts receivable 696, ,196 Prepaid expenses 12,655 10,980 2,444,665 1,835,498 TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS - note 5 266, ,052 INTANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS - note 6 131, ,888 $ 2,842,296 $ 2,142,438 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable and accrued liabilities - note 7 $ 371,897 $ 309,364 NET ASSETS Invested in tangible and intangible capital assets - internally restricted 397, ,940 Unrestricted 2,072,768 1,526,134 2,470,399 1,833,074 $ 2,842,296 $ 2,142,438 Approved by the Board: Director Director (See accompanying notes) Page 2 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International