RogersWatch @ WordPress

~CCTS – Commissioner for Complaints for Telecom Services – Usefulness, Navigating (/CCTS)

As you can see this page is still in a rather draft state but maybe something here is interesting or useful to you.
=============================

CCTS – Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services

– created (2006) at the behest of the CRTC; went live 2008
– their purpose is to resolve carrier-cx complaints if the carrier cannot resolve it to the cx’s satisfaction
– member companies are CWTA (wireless) companies PLUS landline carriers, etc
– funded by the member companies: 1/3 based on complaints, 2/3 based on market share
– members pay more if they have more, or escalated (Accepted->Investigation->Recommendation->Decision), complaints!
– if a cx has a legitimate complaint and the carrier is being obdurate then the CCTS does have the ability to impose a binding remedy on the carrier (which the cx can accept or decline)

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

CCTS contact & website info is here.

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

Super info & tips when fighting bogus 3rd-party, Premium SMS msg charges (credit to HoFo user AnnHustis):
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1712739-quot-Third-Party-quot-sms-charges?p=14631944#post14631944

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

Anatomy of a CCTS Success:
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1617043-CCTS-Success-Story-Cx-wins-cancel-ECF-0

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

Annual Report, 2008-09: http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CCTS-Annual-Report-2008-2009.pdf
Annual Report, 2009-10: http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CCTS-Annual-Report-2009-2010.pdf

Rough notes…

“According to the theory of ‘regulatory capture’, bodies such as the CRTC go through successive stages towards their own inevitable corruption. In their infancy, regulators show youthful activism. By middle age, they have succumbed to subtle co-option by industry interests. In their final stages of bureaucratic senility, they degenerate into passive interests of the corporate interest under their purview. It would take formidable powers of self-delusion to deny that the CRTC’s evolution has followed the capture theory with alarming fidelity. Created in 1968, the commission was already slipping into complicity with industry interests by the late 1970s. A decade later, it was totally captured.”

Statement by Matthew Fraser, a former CRTC employee, Ryerson University professor and National Post editor-in-chief, in ‘The Man Who Won’t Do Lunch’, Financial Post, 10 June 2000. [http://www.crtcscandal.com]

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

– modifying CCTS mandate (via ‘petitioning’ the CRTC to order a change to CCTS) – (e.g. http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/916)

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

– Add later: their published info – history, decisions, ‘mission statement’, etc

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

http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/about/mission-vision-and-values is good in terms of describing the big picture of what CCTS is all about:

Rigorous : we carefully analyze disputes, ensure that we fully understand the positions of the parties, and explain our outcomes clearly and logically;

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

– they elect to fully ‘enforce’ the industry CoC: per: http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/complaints/other-resources

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

CCTS Successes:

Oct 2008: 30-day notice vs port (cx didn’t have to pay for 30 days dead-air when porting) (Rogers capitulated):

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/24-ending-your-agreement-services-648522/ (whole thread, or esp post #27)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32808188070&v=info (view all tabs)

Feb 2010: Cx wins cancel@ECF=$0 re LCA change (Rog capitulated):

https://rogerswatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ccts__rogers_cx_wins_cancelecf0_vs_lca_shrinkage.pdf
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?p=13483132

Unknown date (mid/late 2010?); 30-day notice vs port (cx didn’t have to pay for 30 days dead-air when porting) (Fido capitulated):

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1696802-100-ETF-for-porting-out-Despite-no-contract-w-Rogers.?p=14219786#post14219786

CCTS UnSuccesses:

CCTS disallows itself jurisdiction over complaint because a fee has been arbitrarily named with “911” in it [pending final resolution]:

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?p=13643835

CCTS Upholds Bell’s right to clawback price diff ‘tween contract & M2M pricing when Bell agreed to ECF=$0 in disputed-contract ending:

http://www.ellenroseman.com/?p=673

CCTS Upholds Bell’s interpretation of “Unlimited” (hint, it’s not unlimited) on cellular data plan:

http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CCTS-Complaint-10461.pdf

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

CCTS – More Info:

– Procedural Code: http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CCTS_Proc_Code_1.pdf
http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/documents/performance-standards
http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/complaints
– brochure: http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/eBrochure-en.pdf
– “Recommendations” are written by investigators
– “Decisions” are written by the Commissioner himself, Howard Maker
– IMO the CCTS-named “Recommendation” is, in effect, their decision … and when a cx refuses to accept the “Recommendation” they actually cause an internal review of the “Recommendation” to see that it was properly implemented and to consider, in light of the reasons why the “Recommendation”  was not accepted by the cx, if the “Recommendation” was still proper.
– It seems that a cx can introduce new information at the time they give their reasons for not accepting a “Recommendation” and if relevant this new information will be considered in the determination of the “Decision”
– CCTS’ constating (incepting and major, governing) docs: ByLaw #1, 2008 version of “Membership Agreement” (including fees & rates for TSP‘s) , original (2008) version of the Procedural Code:
—— On page:
——— http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/fra/2007/8638/c12_200719099.htm
—— the link labelled:
——— 935111.zip
—— links to file:
——— http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2007/8638/c12_200719099/935111.zip

CCTS’ Inception:
– “[…] fulfilling the objectives
—- described first in the report of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel,
—- then in an Order-In-Council (P C 2007-533),
—– and finally in two CRTC Decisions:
——– (2007-130 and
——– 2008-46)”
– pdf page 4 of the 2009-10 Annual Report: http://www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CCTS-Annual-Report-2009-2010.pdf

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: