RogersWatch @ WordPress


CCTS’s Constating Documents

Filed under: Uncategorized — RogersWatch @ 20:39
Tags: ,

Discovery of the the CCTS Constating Documents:

One funny thing I came across in examining the CRTC 2010 review of the CCTS was the existence of the “constating” documents of the CCTS, which are in essence the organ’s incepting and governing docs. Funny, in that for the CCTS being quite ‘transparent’ and all and having a helpful, simple, informative website … there’s no record of these constating documents on the CCTS site, nor TTBOMK even mention of them. I emailed them the suggestion that they might post those docs on their website but haven’t heard anything back.


2008 Docs:

The original CCTS constating docs were submitted to the CRTC on August 5, 2008 and are located here:
— —

They include:

– the Procedural Code
– Corporate By-Law #1, which is the entire body of corporate by-laws, and spells out the usual corporate things
– the TSP Membership Agreement
– and esp Schedule E of the Membership Agreement (the “Complaint Level Costs for Eligible Complaints”), yet this Schedule is empty/redacted


2010 Docs:

On 31 May 2010 the CCTS submitted a response to the CRTC’s review of them:
— —

It’s comprised of 19 PDF documents:
– 3 of which are specific Response to Interrogatories,
– 2 of which are a cover letter and an introduction,
– and the remainder which are Appendices (including the Letters Patent this time).

What’s curious is that the Response to Interrogatory titled “30Apr10-1 TNC 2010-247” (filename: “…DOCS-#1400973…”), wherein the CCTS responds to the CRTC’s request for a filing of a copy of the all the constating documents, refers to a large number of Appendices: 1-16, most with [a] and [b] subsets. However many of these Appendices are outright missing from the CCTS submission; most notably though is the absence of the Membership Agreement.

I’ll send off to them an email asking about this and see what they have to say about it.

Update: Apparently the missing 2010 docs was a CRTC problem it’s been corrected.

The CCTS is turning out to be a much more curious thing than I had originally thought, especially since they really, really want to withhold Schedule E of the Membership Agreement: “It is the view of the CCTS that disclosure of this information on the public record would undermine the operation of CCTS’s complaint resolution process.” This schedule documents how much each carrier has had to contribute to the funding of the CCTS, because the formula is partly based on carrier’s market share (which is no secret) and partly based on complaint share).

Pray tell, how would divulging complaint shares (and consequent contribution levels by individual TSP’s) “undermine the operation of CCTS’s complaint resolution process”, especially when the CCTS makes such complaint-share breakdowns already known by way of its annual reports (e.g. PDF page 20 of the 2009 Annual Report, here)?


CCTS News – Procedural Code Changes & CRTC Review

Filed under: Uncategorized — RogersWatch @ 20:35
Tags: , , ,

Wow, looks like the CCTS has been pretty busy.

They’ve already updated their PC and have their 3-yr anniversary coming up so that gets them a CRTC review.


First, the PC Update:

– news item here:, wherein they announce that “The CCTS Board of Directors and Voting Members have approved a number of important amendments to the CCTS Procedural Code” and have a chart highlighting the major changes. Well communicated, CCTS!
– Even more than that though, for those who want to get into the nuts & bolts of it all they have a pdf “analyzing” the changes in significant detail, including explaining the impetus and meaning of the changes, as seen here:
– I can’t really add to their chart and pdf analysis but can say that in sum, it’s some small and medium improvements for cx‘s. Nice!

The most important procedural change though, is that: no longer is a Decision delivered by the CCTS deemed to be “accepted” by the cx, in absence of the cx communicating their rejection of the decision – instead, the cx must now specifically accept a Decision for it to be binding upon the cx and TSP. (Though a recommendation is still considered to be Accepted unless the cx informs the CCTS that they “Reject” the Recommendation.)


Second, the CRTC Review of the CCTS (“Consultation 2010-247”) :

– The CRTC’s Main “Telecom Notice of Consultation” is here:

– From the CCTS main page: “May 2010; CRTC launches its three-year review of CCTS, as contemplated in CRTC Telecom Decisions 2007-130 and 2008-46.  More information about the proceeding is available on the CRTC’s website.…” and they link to the CRTC schedule here:
which lists this schedule (re-sorted for chronological order [hint hint there, CRTC]):

Notice of Consultation 2010-247 Schedule

Activities Deadline Dates
Interrogatories from Commission 2010-04-30
Notice of intention to participate 2010-05-24
Responses to interrogatories 2010-05-31
Comments 2010-06-28
Request to appear 2010-07-12
Reply comments 2010-07-12
Public Hearing 2010-09-27 (revised: 2010-11-29 )
Final arguments 2010-10-07 (removed)

FWICT if someone wishes to file a written submission regarding this Consultation:

12.     Any person who wishes merely to file written comments in this proceeding, without receiving copies of the various submissions, may do so by writing to the Commission by June 28, 2010 at the address or fax number noted above, or by filling out the online form.

In reading up on this review process I came to be aware of the existence of the CCTS “constating” documents, which has become quite interesting in its own right; more info here: /2010/06/09/ccts’s-constating-documents/

All in all it seems like a good kind of busy that the CCTS has been up to.

NC 2010-247 – Review of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services


CCTS Decision – Bell vs Consumer Cx re “Unlimited” Cell/Data Plan

Filed under: Uncategorized — RogersWatch @ 20:39
Tags: , , ,

Hmmm. I read upon this a little while ago so I’m just getting around to discussing it.

The CCTS decision (re complaint #10461) is published here (released early 2010):

– cx enters consumer plan, 3-yr CP, for “Unlimited” wireless data, $75/mo, approx Oct 2007
– 4 mos later Bell cancels the cx’s plan due to cx ‘overusing’ data (cx is using approx 1GB/data of wireless data, according to bell the equivalent of 4,900-13,000 “average” cx’s [is that mean,median or mode kind of “average” there, Bell?])
– Bell then charged $400 ECF to cx
– cx moves to different plan 1GB/mo + overages ($120-$400/mo), Bell rescinds ECF charge
– Bell also reverses $3,600 in overage charges
– 8 mos later cx is again suspended for excessive usage, pursuant to AUP
– so cx contacts CCTS, wants Bell to be forced to restore original $75/mo “Unlimited” plan & pricing
– in discussions with CCTS cx indicates that they used the service for video conferencing, webinars, etc

– CCTS (specifically Josée Thibault) examines AUP and ultimately “Recommends” that Bell is within rights to determine, in its “reasonable opinion”, what is “excessive usage” and terminate cx plan accordingly.
– This was in part based on the Bell Terms (of Service) stating that the wireless service was not intended for (per the ToS)  “multi-media streaking, VoIP, etc” (contrast with what cx told CCTS, above)
– This was also in part discussed in terms of what is “excessive” usage, and that cx’s usage was clearly “excessive”

– Cx is unsatisfied with the “Recommendation” and communicates same to CCTS, forcing CCTS to ‘review’ the “Recommendation” and thereafter issue a final “Decision” (which is binding on the TSP, but not on the cx if the cx communicate such to the CCTS)
– Howard Maker, top gun at CCTS (and a lawyer by trade) issues all decisions it seems, and he issued this one
– It analyzed the process by which the Recommendation was arrived, the underlying fundamental facts as observed therein, the conclusion and the ‘protestations’ of the cx.
– He “Decided” that all was properly performed and the cx’s protestations weren’t at issue (‘fairness’ sorts of arguments).

My Analysis:
– CCTS did a good and proper job, they made the correct call. Cx, good bad or otherwise, got zapped by an not-uncommon scummy contract clause that is ‘upholdable’ in court.

Yet I decry that companies are allowed to use the word “unlimited’ with any qualification attached. Somebody oughtta hit our legislators in the head with a big, fat dictionary. (The material harm to others, I would propose, is that those companies who do offer a true, blue “Unlimited” feature or product lose some significant value in making that claim because of of the tarnishing of what “Unlimited” has come to mean in the marketplace; caused by Bell, Rogers, et al.)

Blog at