!

Report regarding the retail sales practices of Canada’s

large telecommunications carriers

Reply Comments
Telecom and Broadcasting Notice of Consultation
CRTC 2018-246

September 14, 2018

- !2 -
 - !3 -

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………..….3

II. NO EVIDENCE OF A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM………………….……….……….

5

III. NEEDS BASED APPROACH TO RETAIL SALES……….……………………..

9

IV. VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS…………………………………………….……..10

V. UNSUBSTANTIATED TEKSAVVY ALLEGATIONS………………………….11

VI. A NEW CODE OF CONDUCT IS NOT NEEDED….…………………………..12

VII. THE WAY FORWARD…………………………………………………………….13

VIII. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………..15
 - !4 -

I. Introduction/Executive Summary

1. Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) is replying to the interventions filed

in the first phase of the proceeding initiated under Telecom and Broadcasting Notice
of Consultation CRTC 2018-246 (TBNC 2018-246).

2. We have reviewed the interventions submitted in this proceeding by telecom

carriers, broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs), individual Canadians and
groups representing consumer interests. While some interveners proposed new
codes of conduct and other regulatory measures as a means to govern the retail
sales of broadcasting and telecommunications products and services, Rogers does
not believe that such measures are needed.

3. Those types of measures should only be considered in circumstances where there

is clear evidence that telecom carriers and BDUs are systematically engaging in
misleading or aggressive sales practices and where there is evidence that telecom
carriers and BDUs have failed to put in place their own mechanisms to ensure sales
agents treat customers in a fair and respectful manner.

4. In our view, the evidence in this proceeding demonstrates that instances of

misleading or aggressive retail sales practices by employees of telecom carriers
and BDUs are rare. While there may be instances where an employee did not treat
a customer fairly, miscommunicated an offer or failed to ensure a customer was fully
informed about the products and services he or she was acquiring, the evidence we
have reviewed indicates that there is no systemic problem relating to retail sales in
the telecommunications industry that would need to be addressed through the
implementation of extensive new regulatory measures. Many of the problems
highlighted in the interventions appear to be the result of miscommunications and
misunderstandings.

5. Calls for the Commission to adopt new proposals to regulate the retail sales
practices of telecom carriers and BDUs should therefore be rejected. Such
measures are unnecessary and would be counter-productive, particularly when the
evidence indicates that the telecommunications industry has demonstrated, through
its actions, that it is making considerable progress to improve the overall quality of
customer service it provides. In the case of Rogers, our customer-first approach
informs our continuous improvement processes.

6. It is Rogers’ submission that it would be contrary to the 2006 Telecommunications

Policy Direction1 for the Commission to impose additional obligations or regulatory
requirements on the telecom carriers, based on the evidence submitted in this
proceeding. We do not believe that the new regulatory measures proposed by
some interveners would be proportionate to the harm identified and consider that

1Order issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implementing the Canadian Telecommunications Policy
Objectives, SOR/2006-355.
 - !5 -

such measures would unnecessarily interfere with the operation of the competitive
market for telecom and broadcasting services.

7. Rogers further submits that in considering whether additional regulatory obligations

relating to retail sales practices should be imposed on the Canadian
telecommunications and broadcasting distribution industry, the Commission should
only do so where the evidence clearly demonstrates that market forces will not
achieve the Commission’s policy objectives and, even then, only to the extent
necessary to address those objectives. In this respect, we support the principled
approach proposed by the Competition Bureau, which would require the balancing
of regulations with the operation of market forces.2 This would mean that any new
measure being considered by the Commission should be: (i) no broader than
necessary to achieve the policy objective of limiting misleading and aggressive
sales practices; (ii) based on the best available evidence; (iii) proportionate to the
harm identified; and (iv) reviewed at regularly intervals to ensure it continues to
reflect market conditions.

8. With these principles in mind, Rogers believes that the policy objective the
Commission needs to achieve with respect to retail sales practices is to ensure that
telecom carriers and BDUs provide clear explanations of the offers they are making
to consumers. Any new regulatory measure should seek to ensure that customers
are fully aware of the important details about the products and services they are
acquiring.

9. Rogers believes that this objective can be achieved without further regulatory
intervention because of the internal measures that telecom carriers and BDUs are
putting in place. If, however, the Commission determines that more needs to be
done, the Commission could achieve the policy objective by extending the “clarity of
offers” provisions set out in Part II of the Television Service Provider Code (the
TVSP Code) to the rest of the telecommunications and broadcasting distribution
industry. This would ensure that all telecom carriers and BDUs are clearly
explaining the nature of the offers they are making to consumers and would be a
measure that is proportionate to the harm identified.

10. For all of the reasons outlined in this reply and our previous filings in response to
TBNC 2018-246, Rogers believes that the Commission should conclude in its report
to the Governor in Council that there is no evidence that telecom carriers and BDUs
are encouraging or condoning misleading or aggressive sales practices. The
evidence suggests that miscommunications and misunderstandings are a key
concern in the industry. As such, Rogers submits that the Commission should reject
proposals for new codes of conduct and other regulatory measures. If deemed
necessary, the Commission could take the more proportionate, yet effective, step of
ensuring any offers made to customers satisfy the “clarity of offers” requirements in
the TVSP Code.

2 Competition Bureau intervention, paras. 30 to 37.

 - !6 -

II. No Evidence of a Systemic Problem

11. After reviewing the interventions filed in this proceeding, there is no evidence to
support the suggestion that there is a systemic problem pervading the telecom and
broadcasting distribution industries with respect to retail sales practices. There has
been no evidence that management is directing frontline sales employees to
engage in misleading or aggressive tactics. Like Rogers, most telecom carriers and
BDUs participating in this proceeding have received an extremely small number of
complaints from customers relating to their sales practices, both in terms of
absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total number of interactions between
sales agents and customers. The evidence submitted by telecom carriers, BDUs,
individual Canadians, as well as consumer advocates like Fair Communications
Sales Coalition (FCSC), Open Media and Democracy Watch, indicate that there
have been very few well-founded complaints regarding the retail sales practices of
telecom carriers and BDUs over the past year.

12. That is the case despite the fact that this proceeding has been highly publicized,
both in traditional and social media, and that groups representing consumers
actively encouraged their constituencies to participate in the Commission’s process.
It is important to emphasize that fewer than 1300 individual Canadians filed
interventions in this proceeding, which includes hundreds of responses based on
templates. We also acknowledge that Open Media conducted its own online forum
and submitted as its intervention an additional 1072 comments from consumers.
Even if those numbers are combined, the number of consumers who expressed
concern in this proceeding about their service provider is an exceedingly small
fraction of the many millions of Canadians who subscribe to services offered by one
or more of Canada’s telecom carriers and BDUs. As noted in our intervention,
Rogers alone serves close to 13 million wireless, wireline, TV and Internet
customers, and over the past year, our sales and service agents interacted with
customers more than 60 million times.

13. The numbers are even less compelling if the Commission considers that many of
the complaints outlined in the interventions do not actually involve retail sales
practices, and that many others relate to interactions that occurred several years
ago before the industry adopted a variety of measures to improve customer service.

14. All of this indicates that the concerns highlighted in the interventions filed by
consumer advocates, like FCSC, Open Media and Democracy Watch, are not
anywhere near as common or far-reaching as has been alleged.

15. In reviewing those concerns, several things are clear. First, many of the concerns
expressed in the interventions are not about aggressive or misleading sales
practices. A substantial number of consumers have raised extraneous concerns
 - !7 -

about the cost of the services they receive,3 the nature of the offers being made,4
the quality of the service they received5 and their inability to get better offers from
telecom carriers and BDUs.6 Several other individuals filed form letters or
templates that did not identify any specific interaction the intervener might have had
with a sales agent.7 The types of issues identified in these interventions did not
involve specific allegations about misleading or aggressive retail sales practices.

16. A few parties referenced in their interventions the fact that the Commission for
Complaints for Telecom-television Services (the CCTS) released a report in April of
this year indicating that it received 6,849 complaints, which represented a 73%
increase over the same time during the previous year. Some interveners use the
information to argue that this indicates a growing number of Canadian consumers
are experiencing misleading or aggressive retail sales practices.8

17. There is simply no evidence on the record of this proceeding that some or all of the
additional complaints received by the CCTS in the past year relate to misleading or
aggressive sale practices. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the increase in
CCTS complaints is indicative of some sort of organized or systemic plan by
telecom carriers and BDUs to mislead or aggressively sell their products and
services to customers. The CCTS itself refused to speculate on this issue in its
intervention:

Our observation in handling these complaints and reviewing the related

information, is that the main sales practice-related issue facing
customers who have reached out to CCTS seems to be a mismatch
between what the customer was expecting or informed when they
subscribed to service and their subsequent experience with the
service. This mismatch between expectations and outcomes often
manifests itself in complaints about billing charges, service delivery or
usage, and changes to any of these that take the customer by surprise.
CCTS elaborates on this observation in Part III of this intervention. CCTS
cannot, however, offer any findings of fact or opinion, about whether any
of these situations in which there is a mismatch between what a customer
expected and what they experienced were the result of deliberate
“misleading”.9 [emphasis in original]

3 See, for example, Alexander Punnett intervention # 349 and Liam Cohl intervention # 303.
4 See, for example, OpenMedia intervention, page 7, comment provided by Randy Lalonde.
5 See, for example, Sonia Blanchard intervention # 127.
6See, for example, OpenMedia intervention, page 12, comment provided by Guy LaFayette and
Sanjeevan Srikrishnan intervention # 390.

7 See, for example, Gary Mahoney intervention # 1323.

8 See, for example, FCSC intervention, para. 237.
9 CCTS intervention, para. 4.
 - !8 -

18. In addition to the fact that many interveners describe interactions with sales agents
that did not involve misleading or aggressive sales practices, several of the
interactions referenced in the interventions are quite dated. These customer
complaints relate to sales or customer care interactions that took place several
years ago.10 They are not relevant to the issues raised in the Order in Council and
in TBNC 2018-246 because Rogers and other telecom carriers and BDUs have
taken steps in recent years to improve the sales and customer service experience.

19. The Commission, in the July 16, 2018 request for information (RFI) that was sent to
various carriers and BDUs regarding their retail sales practices, limited the
timeframe for consideration of complaints in this proceeding to slightly more than a
year prior to the issuance of TBNC 2018-246. Presumably, that was to ensure that
the interventions being filed in this proceeding relate to problems and concerns that
have taken place more recently, after the Wireless and TVSP Codes were
implemented and during a period of time when many telecom carriers and BDUs
are adopting new mechanisms to better serve Canadians and to reduce customer
complaints. The steps the industry is taking to address concerns raised in past
years about sales practices are well documented in the RFI responses that were
filed by carriers and BDUs in this proceeding.

20. With respect to those individual Canadians who expressed concerns about more
recent interactions with sales or service agents (i.e those that took place within the
last year or two), which relate to retail sales practices and are credible, many
appear to be the result of a misunderstanding or a failure to communicate
effectively, rather than any attempt to mislead. A small number of interventions
provide evidence of aggressive or misleading sales practices, and that is on an
industry-wide basis. As we outlined in our intervention and in our response to the
Commission’s RFI, Rogers has received very few complaints about our retail sales
practices over the past year.

21. Rogers alone serves close to 13 million wireless, wireline, TV and Internet
customers in Canada. Our sales and service agents have interacted with
customers more than 60 million times over the past year, which has resulted in a
mere 2200 sales complaints. That represents less than 0.004% of those
interactions. In this proceeding, fewer than 1300 interventions were filed by
individual consumers, and of those, approximately 225 identified Rogers as the
source of their problem. As noted above, many of these interveners did not raise
concerns about misleading or aggressive sales practices. By our count, fewer than
100 of those individual interventions contained allegations relating specifically to
Rogers’ retail sales practices. A similar ratio was found in the comments that were
filed as the Open Media intervention.

22. Clearly, these interventions are not evidence of any sort of systemic or organized
attempt to mislead or aggressively sell products and services to customers. In fact,

10See, for example, Open Media intervention, page 9, comment provided by Brittany Amell. According to
the comment, the issue involved a Motorola phone in 2003.
 - !9 -

there is no actual evidence that Rogers encourages such behaviour or has

condoned any unethical sales practices. In making this categorical statement, we
are not suggesting that there have been no instances of misleading or aggressive
sales practices, but in each case where Rogers has become aware of such an
instance, we have taken immediate steps to resolve it.

23. We emphasized this in our RFI response and in our intervention. Rogers has
measures in place that enable our company to both proactively and reactively
address any concern raised by a customer or an employee. The proactive
measures we have implemented to ensure our sales and customer care agents
treat customers fairly and respectfully include customer needs-based sales training,
a code of conduct policy, quality monitoring of sales calls, audits of agents,
customer surveys, a continuous improvement program called Centre Ice, mystery
shopping, quality assurance insights, speech analytics and agent coach back
processes. We also respond reactively to concerns raised through a customer and
employee complaints process, survey response teams, and internal fraud
monitoring.

24. In cases where our coach-back and training processes have not been effective in
ensuring an agent serves our customers better and more fully understands the
products and services we ask him or her to sell, we have terminated the employee
or third party vendor. We simply do not tolerate agents or vendors who have
demonstrated bad faith and engaged in unethical sales practices.

25. Rogers has developed and implemented all of these training, monitoring and
complaint mechanisms because our number one priority is satisfying the needs of
our customers. As noted, we serve 13 million Canadians today. Ensuring we
consistently meet their needs takes precedence over everything we do.

26. Despite the comments of some interveners who have questioned Rogers’
commitment to customer service, the evidence we have filed in this proceeding
leaves no doubt that the core of our business strategy is to develop and maintain
positive long-term relationships with Canadians by providing them with products and
services that they want and need. We know that is the only way that our business
will continue to grow. Simply put, if we do not meet their needs, they will leave us.

27. This has been acknowledged and encouraged at the highest levels of our company.
Rogers’ President and CEO Joe Natale addressed this at the RCI Annual General
Meeting in April of this year where he noted the following:

“At the heart of it all is our customer. And when it comes to service, the bar
is constantly rising. Good service today is table stakes tomorrow.
Customers want a simple, personalized and consistent experience. And
global players like Amazon set the standard.

That is why we are reinventing how we serve and support our customers.
This is not about automating what we do today – far from it. It is about
 - 10
! -

rethinking how we delight and serve our customers in every aspect of their
journey.

So our customers can engage with us any way they want - whether that’s
live chat, a mobile app, online, in store, or over the phone. And making
their experience seamless and interconnected.

This is vital work that over time will have a transformative impact. We will
measure success through customer loyalty, their willingness to
recommend us, and a more effective and efficient customer experience.”11

28. The small number of interventions filed in response to TBNC 2018-246 (in
comparison to the millions of Canadians who subscribe to services provided by
carriers and BDUs), coupled with the fact that many interveners failed to describe
sales practices that could be considered misleading or aggressive, is confirmation
that there is no systemic problem in Canada with regarding retail sales practices.
There is ample evidence for the Commission to conclude that concerns identified by
the Governor in Council in the Order in Council are not widespread and do not
require further Commission intervention.

III. Needs-based Approach to Retail Sales

29. As demonstrated in the interventions and RFI responses filed by carriers and BDUs,
the industry has adopted a needs-based approach to customer sales and service. It
is clear that the industry understands the importance of customer service in a
marketplace that is highly competitive with product and service offerings that can be
extremely complex and sometimes difficult for sales agents to explain and for
consumers to fully understand. The evidence in this proceeding indicates that the
industry as a whole has been taking significant steps in recent years to address
ongoing consumer issues, some of which relate to retail sales and other aspects of
our businesses. But we all need to do an even better job. In the case of Rogers,
we are committed to a clear, simple and fair approach in every customer interaction,

30. Rogers is aware that misunderstandings are at the heart of many complaints we
receive. We are working hard to eliminate them from our interactions with
customers. We explained in considerable detail in our intervention and in our
response to the RFI the needs-based approach employed by our sales and service
agents and how that approach informs everything we do as a company. Ensuring
we first understand the needs of our customers is embedded in the sales and
service techniques, training methods, monitoring, complaint resolution processes,
sales targets and compensation incentives we use.

31. Our customer-first sales and service techniques equip our teams to succeed by
teaching agents how to connect with customers and how to build long-lasting
relationships. These techniques emphasize knowing the customers’ needs in order

11 Rogers Communications Inc., Annual General Meeting Transcript, April 20, 2018.
 - ! 11 -

to offer products and services that are best suited to their lifestyles. We use call
listening, mystery shopping and other programs to monitor our customer
interactions and provide feedback to agents on how their performance measures up
against the customer-centric training we provide. This focus on needs-based sales
also means that quality of service is an important metric for performance targets
and compensation.

32. In the interventions filed by FCSC and a few other parties, the needs-based
approach is sometimes mischaracterized as an attempt by Rogers and other
telecom carriers and BDUs to upsell customers and that it is used as a means to
encourage those customers to acquire things that they may not want or need. That
characterization is unfair and completely inaccurate with respect to Rogers.

33. As noted above, the entire rationale underlying all of our sales methods and the
training, monitoring and complaint mechanisms we have implemented is to ensure
that the needs of our customers are being met. This is the number one priority at
every level of our company. Our needs-based approach is purposely designed to
enable our sales and service agents to understand the needs of each customer and
to give each customer what they actually want.

34. By continuing to employ the needs-based approach and by adopting internal

measures (training, monitoring, sales targets, compensation, etc.) specifically
designed to achieve the goal of matching a customer’s needs to the products and
services we provide, Rogers believes we can significantly reduce the instances
where our agents have created a misunderstanding or failed to communicate
effectively with customers. In doing so, we strive to eliminate all of the concerns
that have been raised by our customers in this proceeding.

35. For a company the size of Rogers, there is always an inherent risk that some
frontline employees may not consistently meet the customer service standards we
have established. We manage this risk, in part, through a Business Code of
Conduct that is applied to all staff. We provide training for all new employees when
they are first hired and every employee receives refreshed training on the Code of
Conduct annually thereafter. We also continually monitor interactions with
customers to ensure they are consistent with Rogers’ values.

36. Ultimately, Rogers does not gain any long-term benefit or advantage by providing
customers with products or services they do not want or need, or that do not fit
within the customer’s budget. We know that. Our whole approach to sales and
customer care is dedicated to avoiding situations where there is a misunderstanding
or miscommunication and a customer is unhappy with the products or services he
or she acquired.

IV. Vulnerable Consumers

37. Our needs-based approach is also designed to ensure we are meeting the needs of
all customers, including those that may be more vulnerable, such as Canadians with
 - 12
! -

disabilities, seniors and those whose first language is not French or English. We
train our agents to get to know their customers and to personalize the interactions in
order to address the specific needs of each individual.

38. For customers with disabilities, we offer a range of online services that are
accessible. These include Text911, TTY Message Relay Service, Video Relay
Service, live online chat services and a dedicated line to our Rogers Accessibility
Service Team.

39. For seniors, we provide one-on-one interactions where our staff can provide live
product demonstrations and personal instruction. We also have a dedicated Field
Sales team who support new product orders for seniors’ residences.

40. As for customers who do not speak English or French, they can choose online
ordering or live chat interactions where the use of translation tools can be easily
integrated to facilitate conversations with agents. We also employ sales and
service agents (currently 200) at all business hours who speak Cantonese and
Mandarin and have staff who speak other third languages that can be made
available to assist those whose primary language is not French or English.

41. We are continuously reviewing innovative new solutions to deliver a heightened

quality of service to vulnerable customers. We believe more can be done in this
area and will be evaluating how other service providers’ strategies serve these
customers for ongoing improvements.

V. Unsubstantiated TekSavvy Allegations

42. Another issue that Rogers is compelled to address in this reply is the
unsubstantiated claim made by TekSavvy that Rogers’ technicians (i.e. those who
perform installs and repairs) are making sales offers to TekSavvy customers when
those technicians are carrying out their work. For the record, the allegations are
simply untrue. None of our technicians are permitted to make any sales offers or
make statements about competitors when they are installing or repairing facilities.
Nor do we provide any incentive to a technician to encourage a customer to switch
carriers.

43. Significantly, TekSavvy failed to provide any actual evidence of these transgressions
as part of its submission. Instead, it merely makes allegations about Rogers that
are anecdotal and lack any verifiable facts. Such baseless claims were also
directed at Rogers by TekSavvy regarding its high-speed access (HSA) service in
Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2017-49. In that proceeding, Rogers
demonstrated that the claims made by TekSavvy were untrue. The Commission
found in Telecom Decision CRTC 2018-123 that the evidence presented by
TekSavvy was inadequate noting “that there is insufficient evidence on the record of
this proceeding to justify imposing an RRP on wholesale HSA service providers at
 - 13
! -

this time.”12 Further, the Commission determined “that it would be premature at this
time to establish a formal mechanism to address instances of wholesale HSA
service providers not meeting competitor service quality standards”13 indicating that
the Commission rejected TekSavvy’s unsubstantiated claims of low quality of
service.

44. In addition, TekSavvy’s allegations regarding our technicians fall outside the scope
of TBNC 2018-246. If TekSavvy wants to raise concerns about technician sales
practices, TekSavvy has numerous avenues to bring them to the Commission’s
attention. To do so would contravene Rogers’ directives and CRTC Customer
Services Group (CSG) safeguards as first established in Telecom Decision CRTC
92-12. Every Rogers technician is graded on a scorecard for their interactions with
both wholesale HSA and Rogers customers. The scorecard, which is used in the
performance review of each and every technician, does not differentiate between
wholesale HSA and Rogers. They include performance objective metrics for
wholesale HSA-related work as a means to ensure the same high quality of service
for our wholesale HSA customers. Further, there are process measures which deter
technicians to upsell wholesale HSA customers. Specifically, wholesale HSA
customer accounts are clearly identified as TPIA and as such, are not eligible for
sales performance incentives (i.e. upselling).

VI. A New Code of Conduct is not Needed

45. FCSC,14 Telus Communications Inc. (Telus)15 and a few other interveners have filed
submissions in this proceeding in which they proposed that the Commission adopt a
new code of conduct that would govern retail sales practices in the telecom and
broadcasting distribution industries. For the reasons outlined above, Rogers does
not believe that there is any justification for creating another code of conduct that
would limit the ability of telecom carriers and BDUs to sell their products and
services to Canadians, while at the same time increasing regulatory costs and
complexity.

46. In its intervention, FCSC equates the telecom and broadcasting distribution industry
to the Canadian securities industry and suggests that the new code should include
a “suitability standard” that requires the seller to “know your client” and “know your
product”. These are measures that were adopted by the Canadian Securities
Administrators to protect the investments of Canadians.

47. Adopting such an approach is completely unreasonable for the telecommunications

and broadcasting distribution industry. The two industries and the sales methods
they use are completely different. In addition, the risk to the customer that is

12 At para. 119.
13 At para. 121.
14 FCSC intervention, para. 241,
15 Telus intervention, para. 163.
 - 14
! -

associated with an unethical sales person in the securities and investment industry
is profoundly greater than in the telecom and broadcasting industry. The fact that
FCSC is attempting to equate the two industries is absurd. Measures that have
been implemented to protect Canadians’ investments and, in some cases a
person’s entire life savings, should not be automatically adopted and applied to
protect their acquisition of telecom and broadcasting distribution services.

48. Besides, as demonstrated in the interventions filed by the telecom carriers and
BDUs and in their responses to the Commission’s RFI, the industry is already
addressing the concerns raised by customers in this proceeding. Rogers has
already put in place a variety of mechanisms that are specifically designed to
address and eliminate concerns about retail sales practices. Many other telecom
carriers and BDUs have adopted similar approaches in an attempt to better serve
their customers.

49. The reality is that there is no evidence in this proceeding that the retail sales
practices employed by telecom carriers and BDUs are consistently or systemically
misleading or aggressive. None of the interveners calling for the Commission to
adopt new regulatory measures even addressed in their interventions the question
of whether the extensive mechanisms adopted throughout the telecommunications
and broadcasting distribution industry – which include sales and service techniques,
training methods, monitoring of sales interactions, complaint resolution processes,
and sales targets and compensation incentives – have impacted the number of
complaints consumers have relating to retail sales practices.

50. There is therefore no evidence that adopting an entirely new code of conduct, such
as those proposed in this proceeding by FCSC, Telus and others, would have a
greater or lesser impact on the retail sale practices used within Canada’s
telecommunications and broadcasting distribution industry.

VII. The Way Forward

51. Rogers was a leader in proposing the Wireless Code and supported the adoption of
the TVSP Code. We believe that, if the Commission determines corrective action is
needed, minor adjustments to those existing Codes would be sufficient to address
any instances of misleading or aggressive sale practices raised in this proceeding.

52. We believe that the Commission must consider the 2006 Telecommunications
Policy Direction, before it issues any decision imposing additional obligations or
regulatory requirements on the telecom carriers as a result of this proceeding. In
accordance with that Direction, the Commission is mandated to:

(i) rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible as the means of
achieving the telecommunications policy objectives, and

(ii) when relying on regulation, use measures that are efficient and
proportionate to their purpose and that interfere with the operation of
 - 15
! -

competitive market forces to the minimum extent necessary to meet the

policy objectives.

53. Further in its intervention, the Competition Bureau cautioned the Commission to
consider new regulatory measures only if the evidence clearly demonstrates that
market forces will not achieve the Commission’s policy objectives and, even then,
only to the extent necessary to address those objectives. Specifically, the
Competition Bureau proposes that if new measures are implemented to address
concerns about retail sales practices, they should adhere to the following four
principles:

i. Regulation should be no broader than necessary to achieve the

Commission’s policy objectives;

ii. Regulation should be based on the best available evidence;

iii. Regulation should be proportionate to harm; and

iv. Regulation should be regularly reviewed to reflect market conditions.

54. Rogers agrees with the Competition Bureau and supports its four principles for
determining whether to adopt new regulations governing the telecommunications
and broadcasting distribution industry.

55. In Rogers’ view, imposing a new code of conduct on the industry would be contrary
to the 2006 Telecommunications Policy Direction and it would be inconsistent with
the principled approach advocated by the Competition Bureau. More specifically,
adopting such a regulatory measure would be broader than necessary and it would
not be proportionate to the limited harm identified in this proceeding. The evidence
submitted in this proceeding does not support proposals for the Commission to
implement new regulations or a new code of conduct specifically governing the
retail sales practices of broadcasting and telecom service providers.

56. Consistent with the Competition Bureau’s first and third principles, Rogers submits
that the most the Commission should consider in this proceeding is to extend the
“clarity of offers” provisions set out in Part II of the TVSP Code to the rest of the
telecommunications and broadcasting distribution industry. Those provisions state
as follows:

II. Clarity of offers

1. A TVSP must ensure that any offers made to consumers are clearly explained
in all communications with consumers, including during telephone calls and in
its promotional material.
2. The explanation of an offer must clearly state the following:
a. the duration of the offer;
 - 16
! -

b. in the case of an offer that includes a time-limited discount or other

incentive, the price of the service at the end of the time-limited discount or
incentive;
c. any associated obligations on a consumer in relation to accepting the
offer, including the minimum commitment period during which an early
cancellation fee can be applied.

57. There is no equivalent requirement or provision in the Wireless Code, nor has such
an obligation been imposed on wireline carriers or ISPs. By extending the “clarity of
offers” provisions in the TVSP Code to the Wireless Code and applying them to
wireline carriers and ISPs, the Commission would ensure that all telecom carriers
and BDUs are using plain language to clearly explain the nature of the offers they
are making to consumers. Imposing any additional obligations or regulatory
requirements beyond this would be excessive. This type of measure would be
efficient and proportionate to its purpose and would not unnecessarily interfere with
the operation of the competitive market for telecom and broadcasting services.
Adopting this approach would be entirely consistent with the Competition Bureau’s
four principles.

58. The CCTS is capable and well situated to use its existing powers to enforce the
plain language and clarity requirements that have been established for television
service providers and could easily extend that authority into the realm of wireless
and wireline telecommunications and ISPs.

59. As outlined in the CCTS intervention, the complaints body is willing to accept new
responsibilities. It is already examining complaints relating to retail sales today.
Our proposal would not therefore expand its mandate, but it would give the CCTS
an additional tool to determine whether a telecom carrier or BDU has made offers to
consumers that are clearly explained in all communications, including in respect of
telephone calls and in its promotional material.

VIII. Conclusion

60. It is Rogers’ respectful submission that the evidence presented in this proceeding
demonstrates that retail sales practices employed by Canada’s telecom carriers and
BDUs are generally fair and respectful. There is no credible evidence that sales
and customer care agents are encouraged to engage in any misleading or
aggressive retail sales practices. Nor is there any credible evidence that Canadian
telecom carriers and BDUs condone unethical sales practices.

61. In light of this and consistent with the principled approach advocated by the
Competition Bureau in this proceeding, Rogers does not believe that the
Commission should adopt any new measures, including a new code of conduct, to
regulate the sale of products and services by telecom carriers and BDUs. At most,
the Commission could adopt the “clarity of offers” provisions set out in the TVSP
Code (which only apply to BDUs) reproduced above in paragraph 56 and apply
them to the telecommunications and broadcasting distribution industry as a whole.
 - 17
! -

62. Rogers appreciates this opportunity to reply to the interventions filed in this
proceeding.

**End of Document**