Reporting on CRTC Codes of Conduct
Annual Report
August 1, 2022 – July 31, 2023
When the CCTS investigates customer complaints about telecom and TV services, we try to determine if the service provider has reasonably met its responsibilities to the customer.
Overview of CRTC codes of conduct
We use four mandatory CRTC codes of conduct as yardsticks against which we measure service provider conduct:
- Wireless Code: For consumer and small business customersA small business customer is a business whose average monthly telecommunications bill is under $2,500. Corporate and commercial accounts are not small business customers. of mobile wireless services.
- Internet Code: For all retail fixed internet access services, including cable, fibre, digital subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless, and satellite services provided by Canada’s 10 largest internet service providers, their brands, and affiliates. Mobile wireless internet services are covered by the Wireless Code.
- Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code: For residential subscription TV services.
- Deposit & Disconnection (D&D) Code: For residential home phone services.
To learn about how we administer the CRTC codes of conduct, watch the video below.
For more detailed information about the preceding codes, see:
Resolving complaints and analyzing code compliance
When we accept a customer complaint, we record and track all the issues raised in the complaint. Some complaints raise questions about whether a provider has complied with a code of conduct. We call these “alleged breaches.”
The vast majority of complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of the customer and the provider during the initial stages 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” and are categorized as “not requiring investigation” in the following figures.
In the cases that we do investigate, we can determine whether there has been a code 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 four applicable codes using the preceding terminology.
Wireless Code
The Wireless Code seeks to ensure that consumers of voice and data services are better informed of the rights and obligations contained in their contracts. The Wireless Code makes it easier for individuals and small business customers to understand their wireless service contracts, to prevent bill shock from extra data charges and roaming charges, and to make it easier for Canadians to switch wireless providers.
The Wireless Code applies to individual and small business customers. All wireless service providers must follow its guidelines.
Note: In charts throughout this report, year-over-year increases are shown in green, and year-over-year decrease are shown in red.
There were 48 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, a decrease of 26% from last year.
Disconnection (Section I) continued to be the most breached requirement of the Wireless Code, accounting for 42% of all confirmed breaches this year (up from 29% last year). Almost all the confirmed breaches are because the service provider did not give the required amount of notice or provide all the required information in the notice.
Problems with the information in or the provision of contracts and related documents (Section B) and the Critical Information Summary (Section C) accounted for 35% of all confirmed breaches (down from 43% last year).
There were two confirmed breaches of failure to communicate with customers in a way that is clear, timely, or accurate (Section A, Clarity) this year, compared to eight last year. We also confirmed three breaches related to unlocking problems (Section F, Mobile device issues), which increased from zero last year.
Virgin Plus and Shaw saw an increase in confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code this year while the overall number of confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code decreased. Virgin Plus had the largest proportion of confirmed breaches (27%).
Rogers and Freedom Mobile saw a significant decrease in confirmed Wireless Code breaches this year. Rogers had two confirmed breaches this year, compared to seven last year. It now accounts for 4% of all confirmed Wireless Code breaches, compared to 11% last year. Freedom Mobile had four confirmed breaches this year, compared to 12 last year. It now accounts for 8% of all confirmed breaches, compared to 18% last year.
Internet Code
The Internet Code was created so that customers of fixed internet access services are better informed about rights and responsibilities contained in their contracts with internet service providers (ISPs). The Internet Code is intended to make it easier for individual customers to understand their internet service contracts, to prevent bill shock from overage fees and price increases, and to make it easier for Canadians to switch internet service providers.
The Internet Code applies only to individual customers; it does not apply to small business customers.
The Internet Code applies to large facilities-based ISPs and their brands and affiliates, which are listed in Table 6.3. However, when we investigate a complaint about an ISP to which the Internet Code does not apply, we may use the principles of the Code to guide us in determining what is good industry practice.
There were eight confirmed breaches of the Internet Code this year, down from 22 last year.
The top confirmed breach areas were related to:
- changes to contracts and related documents (Section D) with three confirmed breaches (38% of all Internet Code breaches), and
- disconnection (Section I) with three confirmed breaches (38% of all confirmed Internet Code breaches).
These breaches account for 75% of all confirmed Internet Code breaches.
| Large facilities-based ISPs | Related brands and affiliates |
|---|---|
| Bell Canada |
|
| Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Ontario and Quebec) |
|
| Eastlink |
|
| Rogers |
|
| Sasktel |
|
| TELUS |
|
| Videotron Ltd. |
|
| Xplore |
|
NOTE: This list is based on the information PSPs provide to the CCTS and is subject to change.
* Northwestel’s terrestrial retail internet services are regulated by the CRTC; therefore, customers should forward their complaint to the CRTC. However, Northwestel’s satellite retail Internet services are not regulated by the CRTC, so the CCTS can accept complaints about these services.
TELUS continues to account for the largest proportion of all confirmed Internet Code breaches with three (38% of all confirmed breaches), down from 11 last year. All of TELUS’ confirmed breaches were due to failure to provide the customer with 30 days’ notice before making changes to other contract terms and conditions or related documents during the commitment period (Section D).
Rogers had two confirmed Internet Code breaches, the same as last year. Virgin Plus had one confirmed Internet Code breach, down from two last year. Cogeco had two confirmed Internet Code breaches compared to zero last year.
Television Service Provider Code
The Television Service Provider Code (TVSP Code) is intended to make it easier for Canadians to understand their television service agreements and to empower residential customers in their relationships with TVSPs.
The TVSP Code applies to consumers. It does not apply to small businesses. All licensed TV service providers must follow its requirements. We address complaints about subscription TV services provided by cable, Internet Protocol television (IPTV), and national satellite direct-to-home (DTH) TV service providers.
There were 14 confirmed breaches of the TVSP Code this year, up from nine last year. The vast majority of the confirmed breaches were about changes to programming options (Section X). These 12 confirmed breaches accounted for 93% of all confirmed breaches and increased from one breach for this requirement last year. The remaining breaches were about clarity of offers (Section II) and changes to the customer’s contract without notice (Section XI).
TELUS had 13 confirmed TVSP Code breaches this year, compared to three breaches last year. This represents 93% of all confirmed TVSP Code breaches. Twelve of TELUS’ confirmed breaches were the result of the service provider’s failure to provide the customer with a written summary of the changes the customer made to their individual or discretionary channels (Section X, Changing programming options).
Cogeco had one confirmed TVSP Code breach this year, compared to zero last year.
Deposit and Disconnection Code
The Deposit and Disconnection Code (D&D Code) provides protection to local phone customers in situations where they are required to provide a deposit as a condition of obtaining local phone service or when a service provider intends to disconnect the customer’s local phone service.
There was one confirmed breach of the D&D Code this year, down from two last year. The breach was related to the service provider’s failure to restore service that was suspended in error, during business hours the next working day (Section 3.5).
The one confirmed breach of the D&D Code this year was from iTalkBB, up from zero last year.