Transcription, Audience du 10 juin 2025

Les participants et l'endroit

Tenue à :

Centre de Conférence
Portage IV
140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau (Québec)

Participants :

• Président de l’audience : Adam Scott
• Membres : Bram Abramson, Conseiller, Ontario
  Ellen Desmond, Conseillère, Région de l’Atlantique et Nunavut
  Nirmala Naidoo, Conseillère, Alberta et Territoires du Nord-Ouest
  Stéphanie Paquette, Conseillère, Québec
• Conseiller juridique : Michael Ostroff
• Secrétaires de l’audience : Alexanne Patry, Jade Roy
• Gérant de l’audience : Albert Xie

Table des matières

Présentations

26 Dan Mazier - Member of Parliament, Riding Mountain

191 Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement

302 Cogeco Connexion Inc.

539 CAC Manitoba, Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, Harvest Manitoba (The Manitoba Coalition)

738 Deaf Wireless Canada Committee

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
10 juin 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 01

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le mardi 10 juin 2025 à 9 h 01

1 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, Mr. Chair. We may begin.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Bonjour à tous. Merci d’assister à cette audience publique.

3 Before we begin, I’d like to thank the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people for having me here as a guest on their unceded, unsurrendered territory. I would also like to thank them for being stewards of the land and waters in this area since time immemorial.

4 J’encourage les participants qui sont avec nous en personne ou de manière virtuelle et qui peuvent se trouver sur d’autres terres autochtones à réfléchir à l’histoire et à la culture des peuples autochtones, des terres traditionnelles sur lesquelles ils se trouvent.

5 Permettez‑moi de commencer en remerciant tout le monde. Merci d’assister à cette audience, que ce soit en personne ou virtuellement. Je vous remercie d’avoir pris le temps de consulter le dossier public et d’avoir soumis vos commentaires.

6 Comme vous le savez, le CRTC est un tribunal quasi judiciaire indépendant. Nous tenons des consultations publiques sur les questions de télécommunication et de radiodiffusion et prenons des décisions fondées sur le dossier public.

7 Nous sommes ici aujourd’hui pour discuter d’un enjeu important en matière de télécommunication, à savoir comment rendre le magasinage de services Internet plus simple pour les consommateurs.

8 As part of the public consultations for this hearing, we received hundreds of interventions. Over the next four days, we’ll hear from more than 20 intervenors. This proceeding is part of our consumer protections action plan, which aims to help Canadians choose internet, cell phone and TV services that best meet their needs.

9 We are always listening to Canadians, and some of the things we’ve heard are that they need better tools to compare internet services before they make a purchasing decision and they need to know whether the service that they get is the service that they’ve paid for.

10 We have, among other things, suggested the possibility of presenting information on a standardized label a bit like the ones you find on food products at the grocery store. The information consumers want, like speed and price, would have to be clearly displayed and easy to understand to make it easier to compare plans.

11 In the Notice of Consultation, we asked a number of questions, some of which will be examined over the next four days. This will include a look at how transparency regarding over‑subscription ratios might help consumers choose the internet plan that is right for them.

12 You may have noticed that an exhibit on the subject was added to the public record on May 27th to help guide our discussions.

13 Nous sommes donc ici aujourd’hui pour vous écouter. Nous voulons connaître votre point de vue sur les moyens de simplifier la façon de choisir des services Internet résidentiels. Comment est‑ce qu’on peut offrir les meilleurs outils aux consommateurs pour qu’ils comprennent différents forfaits?

14 Je laisse maintenant la parole à notre secrétaire d’audience, Alexanne Patry, qui présentera notre équipe et expliquera la procédure que nous allons suivre. Madame la Secrétaire, commençons.

15 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci et bonjour à tous.

16 Le comité pour cette audience est composé de Adam Scott, vice‑président Télécommunications, qui présidera cette audience; Bram Abramson, conseiller Ontario; Ellen Desmond, conseillère région de l’Atlantique et Nunavut; Nirmala Naidoo, conseillère Alberta et Territoires du Nord‑Ouest; et Stéphanie Paquette, conseillère Québec.

17 The Commission staff assisting us include Albert Xie, Hearing Manager, Michael Ostroff, legal counsel, and myself, Alexanne Patry, hearing secretary.

18 Before we start, I would like to go over a few housekeeping matters to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing.

19 There is a verbatim transcript being taken by the court reporter. Please note that the transcript of each day will be posted on the Commission’s website the following business day.

20 Just a reminder that, pursuant to section 41 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures, you must not submit evidence at the hearing unless it supports the statements already on the public record. If you wish to introduce new evidence as an exception to this rule, you must ask permission of the Panel of the hearing before you do so.

21 Please note that if parties undertake to file information with the Commission in their responses to questioning by the Panel, these undertakings will be confirmed on the record through the transcript of the hearing.

22 The hearing is expected to last four days. We will advise you of any scheduling changes as these occur. Also, when you are in the room, we will ask that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the emergency exits.

23 Pour les fins du dossier public, nous voudrions annoncer que des demandes d’information pourraient être envoyées à certains intervenants après l’audience et qu’il y aura une période donnant l’occasion aux parties de soumettre des observations finales écrites, qui sera annoncée à une date ultérieure.

24 Mr. Chairperson, we will now start.

25 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

26 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Good morning. Thank you very much.

27 Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. My name is Dan Mazier. I’m the current Member of Parliament for Riding Mountain and the former Member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa prior to the ‑‑ my voice is going to go here right away. Just hang on.

28 Former Member of Parliament for Dauphin‑Swan River‑Neepawa prior to the most recent federal electoral district boundaries changes.

29 I’m appearing today not just as a legislator, but as an author and sponsor of Bill C‑288, which this public hearing stems directly from.

30 I am joined today by my Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Michael Kreshewski, who worked on this legislation from the initial draft all the way to Royal Assent.

31 For the purpose of this proceeding, I request that the Commission treat any comments or responses provided by him at an equivalent weight to my own testimony. Our statements should be considered jointly and fully representative of the position submitted by myself and my office.

32 I want to begin by emphasizing a very important point. This hearing is not about whether internet service providers should provide standardized information to consumers. That question has already been settled, unanimously, by Parliament through Bill C‑288.

33 The Commission’s legal duty now is to determine how this transparency will be implemented, enforced and provided in a format that is the most useful for Canadians.

34 And let me be clear, Canadians expect action.

35 I also want to emphasize that the Canadians who I represent don’t have an entire department of lawyers or regulatory experts to make CRTC interventions on their behalf. These people are mostly hardworking rural, remote and Indigenous Canadians. Most have never intervened in a CRTC hearing before and likely never will.

36 But they are the reason I introduced Bill C‑288 in Parliament.

37 I hope the Commission will keep that in mind as it hears from the well‑resourced corporate voices that will argue against the very transparency Canadians deserve.

38 I brought forward Bill C‑288 because many Canadians, especially those in rural, remote and Indigenous communities, told me they were not receiving the internet service they were paying for. Time and again, I heard from Canadians who signed up for internet plans based on advertised speeds but found the actual performance fell far short so I took the time to understand why this gap exists.

39 What I found was that most Canadians believed the “up to” speed in the internet plan was a reasonable estimate of what they could expect to receive most of the time. Internet providers often say they are delivering what they advertise. And technically, they are. Because as long as the service falls somewhere within the advertised range, they are following the rules.

40 If they promise speeds “up to 50 megabits”, and the customer gets 10, that still technically meets the advertised speeds, but it clearly doesn’t meet the consumer’s expectations.

41 This isn’t about accusing service providers of wrongdoing. They are operating within the rules as they exist today.

42 The problem is the existing rules allow advertising practices that confuse consumers, lead to frustration, and make it difficult for Canadians to make informed choices.

43 That’s why I introduced Bill C‑288, to strengthen the rules and give consumers accurate, clear and realistic information about the internet service they are buying.

44 Parliamentarians from all parties supported this cause, which is why Bill C‑288 passed with unanimous consent. This is rare in today’s political environment.

45 I hope you understand the clear mandate and expectation Parliament has entrusted you with.

46 To do that, I want to flag a few implementation points that I believe are important. First, include fixed‑wireless services. This is where the gap between advertised and actual service is most prominent. Exempting fixed‑wireless would leave rural Canadians behind.

47 Second, use the smallest possible geographic area. A provincial average tells a rural Manitoban nothing about what they’re actually to get.

48 I urge the Commission to consider using Tier 5 service areas or even tower‑level data for fixed wireless to give consumers local relevant information.

49 Third, narrow the peak period window. If peak periods are defined too broadly, say a six‑hour range, for example, then performance data gets diluted and is less meaningful. A tighter window gives consumers a clearer picture of what they can actually expect for service quality.

50 Fourth, expand the label beyond just upload and download speed. Include metrics like latency and jitter. These quality metrics matter now more than when I tabled Bill C‑288. Video calls, streaming and online education are the norm.

51 I also urge the Commission to include pricing, contract length, data caps and fees in any broadband label. Let’s empower Canadians to make informed decisions. It’s not just about speed, but value.

52 And fifth, ensure strong enforcement. The law only matters if it’s followed.

53 As written in Bill C‑288, the Commission must determine the enforcement measures to ensure ISPs are held accountable for the information they publish. Without that, transparency is meaningless.

54 Part 4. I want to recognize the valuable contributions made by several organizations through their interventions to this hearing. Due to the timing of the public reply period overlapping with the federal election campaign, I was unable to provide a formal reply submission.

55 I have reviewed these submissions closely, and I want to thank those who supported the Bill’s intent and proposed thoughtful additions that complement and strengthen its goals.

56 The Public Interest Advocacy Centre recommended that the broadband labels include not only technical metrics, but also clear explanations in plain language including what each metric means and what level of service is required for common online activities. I strongly support that recommendation.

57 Many consumers don’t know what “latency” or “packet loss” refer to, but they do know what it means when a video call drops or a streaming service constantly buffers.

58 Giving people plain‑language context, for example, what level of service is suitable for HD video streaming or that low latency is important for video calls will help them make informed decisions based on their needs.

59 They also suggested that labels should include information on how to make a complaint to Commission for Complaints for Telecom‑television Services should something go wrong. I strongly support this, as many constituents reach out to Members of Parliament seeking information on how to submit a complaint about their internet services.

60 Additionally, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom‑Television Services recommended integrating broadband label information into contracts to maintain a clear record of the pre‑sale information that the consumer relied on. They advised that this would be useful in resolving future disputes.

61 This is a practical and consumer‑focused suggestion that should be adopted and a reason why a pre‑sale and post‑sale label should be provided to Canadians.

62 With regards to the interventions made by the telecommunications industry, many companies were quick to brag about how their services are exceeding expectations; however, they were opposed to a standardized label that would provide service information. If they are so confident in their services, they should have no reason to hold back this important information from consumers.

63 The reality is that I would have never had to introduce Bill C‑288 if there wasn’t a problem with the existing environment.

64 These companies also claim that service providers are already subject to advertising laws under the Competition Act but, as I said earlier, under the current regime, their maximum theoretical speeds are not false advertising.

65 Large service providers also argued they shouldn’t be required to provide the information required in Bill C‑288 in a physical format. However, I ask you how someone would receive this information in a rural, remote or Indigenous region without service.

66 As I said in the beginning of my remarks, the people who brought these concerns forward, don’t have legal teams and policy consultants. They don’t file interventions or sponsor studies and polls. They just want a fair deal.

67 They want to know what they’re buying. They want to be treated with respect as consumers.

68 As I said during my second reading speech in the House of Commons, and I quote:

“Consumers will take their money elsewhere if a company's service quality is worse than its competitors — but only if they have the information to do so.”

69 This legislation is about giving them that information.

70 I want to remind you that the legislation that led to today’s hearing passed with unanimous support from every Member of Parliament and Senator. That kind of consensus is extremely rare, but it reflects a unified message from Parliament on behalf of Canadians.

71 I’m proud Parliament passed Bill C‑288 unanimously. I hope the Commission will now carry out its responsibilities with the same level of clarity, commitment and respect for the public interest.

72 Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

73 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Mazier. I think it’s very appropriate to have you as our first intervenor given your role in getting us here.

74 So I’d like to start the questions on the topic of speed and the discrepancy that can occur between advertised speed and delivered speed.

75 So as you noted, consumers are used to seeing “up to” and the legislation requires us to look at typical speeds during peak, but I think I heard you say this is ‑‑ you don’t think it’s a deliberate effort to misleading consumers that’s causing this. So what are your thoughts on kind of the underlying circumstance that lead to that potential disparity?

76 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Well, the telecoms are playing within the rules. Like I think that’s ‑‑ if you want to beat up on somebody and get some trust, you know, telecoms are a pretty easy target, right, these days and then government’s right beside them. So it ends up in a bunch of pointing fingers and people really don’t understand the speeds.

77 When they realize that there’s a reason why their systems are buffering or they’re not getting ‑‑ you know, they can’t watch their videos, they can’t go online to learn and get their education, that’s where the speeds become so important, the information becomes so important. And when they realize that the telecoms don’t have to provide those speeds, that’s when they get ‑‑ the anger sets in and that’s where the frustration sets in.

78 So let’s just make the rules clearer. Whatever service you’re buying, you need it for this particular, you know, video or for this education system which you’re trying to do in your house and I think that’s where the ‑‑ that’s why there’s a need or this has where it’s happened.

79 So the telecoms are saying they’re providing within the rules, but yet, you know, expectations are much greater.

80 Michael, did you want to add?

81 THE CHAIRPERSON: So would consumers be well ‑‑ would consumers be better served if the telcos were not allowed to advertise “up to” speeds or is it enough for them to advertise “up to” speeds so long as they also provide information on typical speeds at peak?

82 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: If they would not advertise it at all, like not say “up to” speeds?

83 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think my question is, would consumers be okay having the advertising including an “up to” speed, so the typical marketing information provided, so long as, in addition, they were provided with the typical speeds at peak?

84 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: It wouldn’t address the problem that they’re not getting the speeds.

85 MR. KRESHEWSKI: I think just to add to that, I don’t think there’s maybe concern if they want to like ‑‑ I know some countries have a given range, per se, and maybe they still can include “up to”. I think the issue would probably become if they were ‑‑ if that was the most predominant like speed that they were showing. So if that expected speed was just hidden somewhere at the bottom and that theoretical speed was still that front‑facing speed, well, then, it’s going to continue to lead to that same level of confusion, so just keep that in mind.

86 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: I think that’s where the peak speeds come in, right, that peak period. So if you’re sitting at 7 o’clock at night, you know you can depend on this speed. So I think that’s where the danger is. Like Michael said, it may just be a minimal amount of time that you’re getting that peak speed, so I think it’s pretty important to have expectations set and clear.

87 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

88 So we understand that one of the potential causes of a discrepancy between the offering speed and the received speed can be a congestion issue, so we’ve proposed ‑‑ or we put forward on the record a discussion of over‑subscription ratios. It’s a bit of a technical factor, but you’re both pretty savvy.

89 In your sense, is that something that Canadians would understand and would they know and be able to compare one over‑subscription ratio to another or is that way too in the weeds for consumers? Would that not be helpful?

90 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Well, I think it would distract from the problem of providing service to rural Canada, especially in rural Canada. The problem is with over‑subscriptions telecoms come back to you and say, “Well, there’s not the market for that so that’s why we’re over‑subscribed. Like we need another 100 customers before we’re going to put up more infrastructure”. And that’s becoming a bigger problem as we go up in spectrum as well, which is another thing I’m looking at.

91 But I think it’s maybe ‑‑ it gives ‑‑ it would give the municipalities in the area like, you know, developers some interpretation or what’s coming at them, like where they have to pay attention to their infrastructure as far as digital infrastructure, so maybe on a government level and things like that, that would be useful information so just to give everybody a heads up that we need to pay attention to it.

92 MR. KRESHEWSKI: It is something we've definitely heard in conversations, is someone will be advertised a given speed and then, two years from then, you know, the over‑subscription ratio is much higher, there’s a lot more subscribers on a tower, and that level of service actually decreases. So I think that’s an important metric to keep like in mind because, you know, if Joe signs up today and then there’s 30 Joes tomorrow, like the quality of service can go down if the provider isn’t increasing the capacity on their tower.

93 So I think it’s a very important metric, actually, when we talk about this. I think that’s why these metrics also have to be like monitored on a continual basis and you can’t just say, okay, what it was one year ago is what it is today per se, or maybe five years ago.

94 I think it’s an important metric. I don’t know if consumers will fully understand it, but I definitely think that there should be some measurement on that front.

95 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

96 So you did propose a number of other metrics that should be consumer facing. I think your list in your opening remarks was speed, latency, jitter, pricing and contract length.

97 Do your opening remarks constitute an exhaustive list or are there other metrics that you would propose being included as well?

98 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: I think that ‑‑ well, and looking at other countries and other, actually, services, when you say here's what I need to download videos, or here's what I need for a zoom call, those metrics, like for when the user ‑‑ here’s the information you need to make a decision. I think that's ‑‑ we approach it that way and then see what that list looks like, and I think that the discussion.

99 That's part of the reason why 288 was developed this way. So it is a discussion between the regulator and the industry to see what would give the best information to the user at the end of the day.

100 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I remember back in the day when we used to talk about speeds in terms of how many minutes it would take you to download a song or an encyclopedia. Is that the type of contextual information that you're talking about?

101 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Yes.

102 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So that would contrast then somewhat to one of the options on the table which is a food label style. Which I think in most common conception is more, this is the metric, this is the number. A food label doesn't typically have, you know, exhaustive information about what else you should be eating. Is there a contrast between the contextual model you're proposing and more of a stark food label style information product?

103 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Well, food label actually you can have different columns, and all over the food label, or that type of style would be just, here's what we're providing. The examples would be a different thing and that would be up to service provider at that time, or the customer to ask, here's what you should be asking.

104 Like, you know, are you looking for video service? Well, here, in this label this is what it is looking for. And it does is you're able to compare apples to apples. Like, what this telecom is providing versus ‑‑ ISP versus this ISP, right?

105 Right now, they are able to up two speeds, there is such a big range and there’s theoretical, right? Well, you should be in theory to get that, you know, that service. But that's why the food labels are very, very, certain. Everybody looks at same place for the same criteria.

106 MR. KRESHEWSKI: I don't think that having an explanation about what metrics are needed necessarily need to go on the food label. Like, that can be somewhere else, like you know, if the Commission wants to come up with their own this is what's needed for HD video streaming, like, I don't think there's an expectation that that's going to be on the label.

107 The label is supposed to be very clear and standardized so you can cross compare, like Mr. Mazier said here, with an explanation on what services are needed. I don't think it's expected to necessarily be on the label, that can be somewhere else.

108 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Yeah, that was never the intention. It was all about criteria and what actually service you're providing for speed, all the technicalities of that.

109 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So all the technicalities and presented ‑‑ I think I heard you saying in a uniform format and means of presentation across companies. Not just the same information, but the same information presented in the same way.

110 A couple of questions now about granularity of information. So you propose a Tier 5 spectrum license area model, which if memory serves is 654 geographic areas, some of which are quite small. I'm sure you know, think about 2,000 Canadians in the smallest, up to a couple million for Toronto. Is there a regulatory burden that comes with that that outweighs benefits of having information at that disaggregated a level?

111 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: I don’t think so. You know, you’re the regulator. But everything is at a push of a button, everything is being gathered digitally now. Those towers are out there, they have the information. And I can't imagine being a consumer out in where I live, the population is .5 people per square kilometre. So the 2,000 would be fantastic.

112 If I knew what was on that tower and what we're going on, like why I drive by it every time I have no signal. Like, if I had that information I could go back and have an intelligent conversation with my telecom. Right now I have no ability to that, or I have to go through a bunch of different hoops find that.

113 So I think, and especially Manitoba is a real example, like 1.3 million people in the province of Manitoba, 800,000 of them are in Winnipeg. Like you drive ‑‑ like, there Winnipeg and then the rest of Manitoba, right? So the services get all out of whack there. That's why I think it's really important, especially for rural communities, extremely important that we maintain that granularity.

114 THE CHAIRPERSON: So your use of ‑‑ proposal for the use of Tier 5 then is primarily tied to your concerns about wireless service for internet? Is there a linkage there, or is it just it conveniently sized geographic area?

115 MR. KRESHEWSKI: I don't think Tier 5 is like the be all end all here. It's like a starting point. The concern is that if you live, you know, 50 kilometres outside of Brandon, Manitoba, a population of 50,000, the people in Brandon, Manitoba are not complaining about the quality of service as much as those folks that probably on fixed wireless in a rural area.

116 So how do you ensure that those urban areas that have great service are not skewing the metrics that are being advertised to those folks that are living in rural areas? Because that becomes a big issue. If you're surrounded ‑‑ you live around Winnipeg, there's plenty of communities that, you know, might not have the same internet quality as those in Winnipeg.

117 So if there's, what did we say 800,000 people in Winnipeg and 100,000 just in the surrounding area, assuming that those 100,000 people have the same service as the 800,000 people in Winnipeg is not an accurate representation.

118 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. So ‑‑ sorry.

119 MR. KRESHEWSKI: And on that sample, I hear lots of like digital deserts around cities and that's the exact reason, like they're not getting reported into the system. And there's a gap actually between the intense users with the towers stop, drop, all that stuff. So there's actually bigger issues around bigger centres

120 THE CHAIRPERSON: So any geographic granularity that captured people of a similar experience would be consistent with what you're proposing. Thank you.

121 Last question for me before I go to my colleagues. And again, it's up granularity, the narrowness of the window. So how much better served would Canadians be with an extremely narrow window? And all carriers use the same block of time, or should they point to their specific peak?

122 So if Telus users have their peak between 6:00 and 10:00 and Bell users are between 9:00 and 11:00, which more accurately captures the peak information that consumers would be most interested in?

123 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: and that's a great example. I think that that allows consumer to dial in to what service they actually need. Maybe they don't service out the wazoo at 7:00. Like, I mean maybe ‑‑ and then maybe the service provider can say, hey, well I can give you a better deal because our network is relatively low in your area at 9:00. So that's a really good example.

124 Like, the peak periods was trying to get the most of people, like and then that’s ‑‑ other countries have gone to the peak periods because that's when the most strain is on the system and that's when the most kind of, manipulation or management of the network is needed, when it's peak periods, right? So that's why peak is really referred to.

125 But I think there's a really good opportunity for telecoms here to step up and say, here's what we can provide you that no one else can in your area, and have those really good relationships with their customers instead of just blanking it off and saying, oh, we're going to go to bottom and provide it when we can.

126 MR. KRESHWSKI: You might want to look into the PIAC intervention, page 7 out of 19. I think they mentioned the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s web page on broadband performance data provides reporting on average speeds available to consumers by hour of the day.

127 And they have a graph on page 8 out of 19 to kind of maybe take into consideration some of like, what a peak period is for each provider. Like, it looks like they provide an average fixed wireless speed by each hour of the day. So obviously, the dip would be the peak hour for that provider.

128 I think you're going to have to balance the importance of standardization so that consumers can compare. Because if you start changing the peak hours on that standardized format then you’re also changing the goal post and it's not as easily comparable. So if you're going to provide different peak periods ‑‑ and I think Mr. Mazier is right in saying that the internet companies could provide more information, like this Australian model, per hour of the day, that that is almost complementary.

129 And again, if they can prove that they have better service during all times of day over their competitors, they should want to show that information. That’s a selling point that would probably be in their best interest to share.

130 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I’ll turn to Commissioner Paquette for a question.

131 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello, hi.

132 Roger’s mentions in its intervention that there's no evidence in the transcript of the House of Commons or Senate committee meetings to study Bill C‑288, that the legislator understood the complexity of what they were requesting. I was wondering can you comment on this statement?

133 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Complexity, like what?

134 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Like the complexity of the development that was required from the ISPs and the impact it would have on their pipeline.

135 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Well, what this boils down to, all we're asking is for transparency and for consumers to have the information of what services are being provided to everyone, what’s being sold to them.

136 I used the analogy in the House of Commons, it's like going to a gas station and wanting 50 liters of fuel, and paying for 50 liters of fuel, but you're only getting 10 liters and yet you’re expected pay for 50 litres of fuel. It's the same type of analogy.

137 The telecom industry is the only industry in Canada that is allowed to operate under these conditions. Well, will see when we can offer you the service. It's when it works for them. All we're asking for, they have all this information, they have to manage their network. They say that over and over again, we have to manage the network. They do that based on information, speed, latency, all these information criteria are in their control. All we're asking for is a little bit of transparency so Canadians can make a decision on what service they are actually providing.

138 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So the burden of producing such standardized information, has it been discussed at all during the evaluation of the project, or not?

139 MR. KRESHEWSKI: I think Professor Rajabiun talked about this during the committee hearings. I think these, if you go look, I think they were attached in the written intervention by Mr. Mazier. But if you look at the committee transcripts, I think there was questions about the administrative burden.

140 The fact of the matter is if an internet service provider doesn't know what their customers are getting on average for speeds, and they are a large provider, they probably aren't running a good business.

141 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So if in fact there is a big burden, and I guess it's going to be our responsibility to assess what it represents, do you think ‑‑ how much should this project be prioritized over other products that are in the ISP pipeline?

142 And I can give you examples. At the moment some ISPs are working getting rid of their legacy systems in order to give better experience to their clients. Some others don't have unified billing with their wireless services which creates a lot of confusion in what they provide to the clients. So how much should this be a priority over the other developments that are in the pipelines of the ISPs?

143 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Canadians should always be a priority, the consumer should always be, and the customer should be the telecom’s priority. And everything you mentioned costs money, this won't. This will not cost any money. All we're asking for is information that they already have. So there's no money exchanged here at all between anybody else.

144 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much.

145 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will turn to Commissioner Abramson for a couple of questions.

146 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. Good morning.

147 Just a couple of questions, and congratulations by the way on getting your Bill through. I know it's not often an easy feat. To that end, just small question one the wording. I wonder if anything turned on it.

148 When I look at what's now subsection 2, it talks about a Canadian carrier that offers fixed broadband services shall make the following information available. And you know, somebody goes to word it that way “a Canadian carrier” as opposed to saying a telecommunications service provider. A Canadian carrier is sort of the term used in the Act to describe facilities‑based players, and telecommunications service provider refers to sort of the broader set of everybody, facilities based or not.

149 Just I wondered if anything turned on that, and whether it was something they you guys had thought about, or whether that was just sort of the way the drafters had it in the end?

150 MR. KRESHEWSKI: There was a specific reason, I think. I think there was concern about whether like, a foreign entity like a Starlink would be able to be governed under something like this, or if they would like, pull their services out, or whether they would have to comply. I think there was concern about like, Starlink for example, and I don't think we wanted to start interfering with them coming into the market per say.

151 But I think there was a reference to this in the Telecom Act too, maybe, Canadian carrier as a definition that already existed. So we can maybe get back to you on that if that's useful.

152 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yeah, it would be helpful. And you know, nothing may turn on it, but I was just sort of intrigued by it. The way the Act defines a Canadian carrier includes some what confusingly non‑Canadian players. So Starlink is a Canadian carrier in Canada as long as they're facilities based. So I guess, you know, the exclusion would mostly those who don't have their own facilities, like resellers.

153 But anyway, it's something that because we've got you folks in front of us as the drafters of the amendment, I thought I'd ask.

154 The other question is just, I know you mentioned providing information both presale and post sale. I just wanted to ask you a little bit about you would envision that working.

155 So it was the purpose of having it available post sale in order to have a handy reference? Or is it more about, you know, as things change on the consumers being updated? In other words is this sort of an ongoing performance tracker, or is it just a piece of reference material?

156 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Yes, as far as ongoing. That's the biggest challenge right now, we get to make a big announcement, a telecom is putting up a big tower, and then there's no service beside it. And so, we do have some follow up that would allow us, especially just ‑‑ anybody could be champions for this system if we're given information, right? So I think follow up is very, very important.

157 MR. KRESHEWSKI: I think there's an issue that if a consumer goes to purchase a service and they are showing the expected speed, they're not going remember what that was per say, a year down the line when they're noticing, oh, my service is not what it was advertised as. There has to be that point of reference, and I think the CCTS talks about this.

158 It would be good for future disputes if someone called in and said, hey, I'm having an issue with my speed quality, that they would have a reference point. Okay, what were you sold? So if you just go into a provider and they say, oh, this is what you can expect, and then that information disappears, the average consumer is not going to remember what that was offered. You're going to write it down somewhere and like, was that information going to be stored?

159 So I think for a competitive and dispute point of view it needs to be provided at some point after service is purchased so they can reference it. I think there were some suggestions in interventions that could be just provided on the bill for that specific region, which is think, reasonable too.

160 So I think you're going to have to balance this too with obviously those metrics could change based on over subscription ratios, based on new investments in technology and equipment. So I think you're going to have to balance all. But if you don't know what the speed you were sold is, you're not going to be able to compare it and reference it down the line.

161 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: What you're asking about is not update information post sale, it's simply way to access the information that was already provided to you post sale; correct?

162 MR. KRESHEWSKI: Well, I think the information has to updated regularly, because there is always consumers shopping for services, so there has to be a way to, as Mr. Mazier said, it has to continue to evolve. Because what the service being offered, the expected service today is going to be different than a year and a half down the line. The internet companies are not going to advertise the service quality that was five years ago.

163 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

164 THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are our questions for today. We would like to give you a final word if there were any key points you didn't get a chance to make, or if there's anything you would like underline in particular. The floor is yours for a final thought.

165 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: I have to say, this whole process between writing the Bill, and listening to Canadians, and then here today, this is quite a surreal moment for myself.

166 This was never about, I guess for me, was you know, pointing the finger at the telecom and saying, you know, you guys are lying to us. I've had very good experiences with my ISP providers. I'll have to say, it's never been about, oh, I don't have the speed. It is why am I not getting the signal?

167 And I have to say, all of the service providers have been going ‑‑ they say no, I can see your router, it's something in your house. Like it's a 10 minute, 20 minutes, 20 second conversation about where do I go look and troubleshoot for that? So they are doing a very good job.

168 I think where it gets into is lots of problems for people are not getting those answers when they don't have any service. And they go to the regulator and there is no information there, especially on the granularity. Time and time again I've gone, why is ‑‑ Michael and I will be driving by a tower and I will say, well who's tower is that first of all? And then the next thing is, well I've got no damn signal. Like, what is going on here?

169 Like I mean, so there's lots of changes in the telecom industry, and I think that that information needs to be started going out. And all of this has been accelerated since COVID, especially in rural Canada. We're trying to play catch up with that, and I think we need to get to a place where we are ahead of the information and Canadians know what's going on with our connectivity in Canada, right across, and it will make us a stronger nation at the end of the day.

170 MR. KRESHEWSKI: I'm just going to add a couple of points. I think first of all, I think it's important, and if you read Mr. Mazier’s testimony throughout his speeches in the House of Commons, this has always been about the public interest. He has never claimed to be a technical expert. We expected that the telecommunication companies would say, oh, a member of parliament doesn't understand the intricacies of running a network.

171 The Bill Was developed in a way that is balanced in the sense of putting the trust in the regulator to take into account those technicalities, to take into account the administrative burden. And we did expect that the providers didn't want to do this, why would they want to change the existing model. It doesn't make sense.

172 But I think it's important to keep in mind that Mr. Mazier’s legislation came from a point of the public interest, and maybe that was a little naive to say, we're going to put our trust in the regulator of the public hearings to determine this. Because like Mr. Mazier said, these folks have the resources to come to you and provide the most information, whereas the average Canadian doesn't.

173 So I think it's just important that you keep in mind that those things were not left wide open to say, oh, opt out, opt out, opt out as soon as someone raises concern from the industry. It was to ensure that you guys took into account a reasonable balance between the cost to the industry, but also the public interest.

174 I think there was some conversations in the interventions about smaller ISPs, if this should apply to them, a label or something. I think there was comments that ISPs at are not under the Internet Code should be maybe be exempt. The ability to exempt certain providers or carriers, if there's somebody that's just fighting internet too like, 30 people, or are really small, you know, they might shut down their operations because of something like this.

175 If there's just a one‑man shop ‑‑ Dan has a few folks in his writing that they are very local, have one or two people running a network, they're not going to be able to comply with whole bunch of things and that's probably one of the reasons that are not under the Internet Code.

176 But I think it's important to say that if a smaller provider does want to opt into a label or a standard, that they be given that option. Because there are a lot of providers out there that can offer an incredible service, but for a consumer to come up and compare a big company with a smaller company, they might trust the name recognition of the big company, but might not trust this quality a smaller entity.

177 So if they do want to opt in, and I do think that other ISPs will want to opt into this, because they can showcase that their speed on average is better than some of the larger incumbents, that they would want to highlight their service is better. So if they could have that option to be of a standardized label, that they be given the resources to do so, but that also has to be enforced.

178 So if a smaller ISP says I want to be part of this process, I want this label to, you know, appear on my bill, or I want to meet standards that you guys determine, that all has to be enforced though. So if they do choose to like, opt in, like they can't just be saying whatever they want. Like, it also has to be enforced in the same way. You can't have a smaller provider that maybe this doesn't apply to say, okay, I'm going to use your label and I'm just going to advertise whatever expected speed that I want, like, it has to be enforced consistently.

179 So just take into account that there might be providers that choose to adopt this label because they are confident in their expected service quality and their metrics, that they will be better than the incumbents in the area and they’re proud of that and they want to show consumers that they are better and that they could compare. So I think there is an opportunity for that.

180 So that's all I had.

181 THE CHAIRPESON: Thank you.

182 I think counsel wanted to confirm a follow up request before we let you go.

183 MR. OSTROFF: So as Commissioner Abramson requested certain information, I wanted to confirm with you a request for information will be put on the record and submitted to the parties after the hearing and it will be specific as to the questions that we are asking for.

184 It will also include a date for which the response will be provided in that letter. It will have all of those details within and it will be in line with what Commissioner Abramson had asked.

185 THE CHAIRPERSON: And with that, I would like to thank you both very much for appearing before us. It was a pleasure to talk to you and I wish you a great day.

186 MR. DAN MAZIER, MP: Thank you.

187 THE SECRETARY: We will now take a short break and be back at 10:05.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 9 h 49

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 05

188 THE SECRETARY: Please take your seats.

189 We will now hear Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement, who will be appearing remotely. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

190 MS. WOOD (interpreted): I just want to make sure the interpreters can see me clearly.

191 Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Kimberly Wood, and I am the Founder and Chair of the Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement, or as what we refer to as CDGM. I’m also here along with Anthony Cashin, who is our Ontario representative, as well as our DeafBlind representative.

192 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind Canadians. The acronym that we use for that is DDIHHDB.

193 We commend the CRTC for initiating this proceeding, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2024‑318, which aims to make it easier for consumers to shop for internet services. For Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind Canadians, access to the internet is a basic right, but too often barriers in language, format and transparency makes shopping for services difficult or even impossible without help.

194 Today I would like to highlight five key points from CDGM’s intervention and reply.

195 The first point is accessibility must be built in from the beginning, not added as an afterthought.

196 When choosing an internet plan, too many Deaf Canadians are forced to rely on their hearing family members, those who can hear, or on service representatives who don’t use sign language. That is not independence. In fact, that is inequality.

197 We expect the Commission to mandate broadband consumer labels that are the following: fully accessible in ASL and LSQ video formats; designed with icons and plain language summaries, making it much easier to understand visually; and offered both before and after sale in both print and digital formats. And again, emphasis on plain language and ASL video formats.

198 These three things that I’ve listed aren’t extras. They are basic tools our communities need to make informed decisions, just like any other consumer.

199 My second key point is a one‑size‑fits‑all policy will not work.

200 CDGM disagrees with a uniform national approach as proposed by some parties in this proceeding. Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind consumers in remote communities and rural communities face very different realities than those in large cities.

201 We expect the CRTC to adopt a phased, adaptive framework.

202 What that means is start with regional pilot projects, gather data and feedback and then adjust implementation based on real‑world outcomes.

203 Accessibility must be responsive and easily adaptable to geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity.

204 My third key point is that meaningful consultation means listening at every stage. Too often, policies are created about us without actually talking to us. We are left in the dark prior to implementation of policies. And then that results in barriers.

205 We expect that the Commission establishes mandatory consultation periods with community organizations like Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement during every stage of policy development. This means from design all the way through to review. Without Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind voices in the room, barriers will persist.

206 The fourth key point is metrics must reflect real experiences.

207 We strongly support the inclusion of real‑world performance data in broadband labels, specifically connected to typical speeds during peak hours, latency, jitter and reliability, as well as accessibility to customer support, again including ASL and LSQ options.

208 Metrics should also reflect regional differences ‑‑ urban, rural and remote areas. The metrics in those areas are much different than in large cities, and the experiences of the users are very different. So Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind users know what to realistically expect based on their locale, because they rely on their internet service provider for communication.

209 The fifth key point is we support oversight, flexibility and accountability. We expect a Joint Oversight Committee with community representatives, ongoing audits and data‑driven adjustments and public reporting of accessibility gaps. We need to know where those gaps are. A phased rollout over 18 months, starting with ASL and LSQ resources and training for staff.

210 These steps ensure accountability while giving realistic and reasonable time for ISPs to comply.

211 In closing, CDGM strongly believes that internet service must be transparent, fair and accessible for everyone, including Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind consumers.

212 We believe the Commission must lead the way by setting standards to empower, not to hinder or create further barriers for Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind Canadians while shopping for internet services.

213 We thank the Commission for this opportunity, and we are ready to answer your questions.

214 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and on behalf of the Commission we would like to thank you for participating and getting your views on the record.

215 We will turn to Commissioner Desmond to start off the questioning.

216 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning and thank you both for being here and thank you for your submissions, your opening statement and your presentation today.

217 I did have a chance to read all of the documents that you did file in advance of today. In your submission ‑‑ I think it’s at paragraph 14 ‑‑ you talk about a summary of the key information that you think need to be included in the standardized information, including things like the speed and the contract terms.

218 And then further in your submission, you refer to network reliability that also needs to be included in the information to be provided to consumers. And the reliability information would include things like upload and download speeds, latency and jitter, and that type of information.

219 Having read your submission, I’m wondering if you could indicate if, in your view, there a balance to be had in terms of the amount of information consumers need to see when they look at a label, for example? Should the information be in plain language and maybe just what is essential, or should all of this information be included at the first instance?

220 So, what kind of information is critical for consumers?

221 MS. WOOD (interpreted): I think our main point for the Commission to hear is about communication access. When we think about video relay service, that requires high‑speed internet service. So that required information that you just mentioned, in paragraph 14, for Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind individuals, often that information is inaccessible because they don’t understand basically is this internet service going to be sufficient to do what I need to do in order to access communication?

222 So I think that plain language is very important, and then we need to think about what internet service would be best suited for video communication, and specifically video relay service. So in providing all of the information, I think that would just cause more confusion for our community. And I think that if we had that information simplified and standardized and hit the key points in order to be able for a Deaf, DeafBlind, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing person to be able to look at the label and to be able to determine whether it is suitable for them to access video relay service.

223 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. That's really interesting, because I think many intervenors in this hearing have talked about contextualizing the information, including what kind of activities a speed can support.

224 So maybe latency and jitter doesn’t mean a whole lot to all of the consumers. But being able to see this speed can support this activity, is that something you think would be really helpful to your community?

225 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Oh yes, absolutely that would work. I think that's a good solution.

226 For example, you are talking about some of the terminology, for example, jitter and latency. That is not a word, an English word, that is familiar to many Deaf people. But if it is interpreted or conveyed in sign language, people understand what that means; that the jitter is the freezing or the choppy feed. So, that’s why we are emphasizing that any access to this information needs to be in both ASL and LSQ for the Deaf, Deaf Indigenous, Hard of Hearing and DeafBlind communities to access and to be able to understand what those terms mean.

227 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

228 Over the course of this hearing, we have heard from many consumers who have said that there is not a lot of clarity around pricing. While service providers do have an obligation to disclose the price of their contract, what can we do as a Commission to improve that clarity? What could we do to help consumers better understand pricing and what it is that they are purchasing?

229 MS. WOOD (interpreted): I think I followed up with that in the undertaking. So, I think we need more research on that. We can do some more investigation on that specifically.

230 So what I know in rural locations, so several Deaf people live in those locations, and they often pay more for their services to get what they need, because they need high‑speed internet for video relay service. They don’t have an option. So, they have to pay the higher price in order to get the speed that they need.

231 But yes, that is described in more detail in the undertaking.

232 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you.

233 One of the things the Commission raised as an issue just in the last few weeks is about an over‑subscription ratio.

234 And I’m not sure if you had an opportunity to consider that or if it’s something you wish to comment on.

235 If not, that’s fine. It is a bit of a technical term. But I did want to give you the opportunity to comment on that issue, if it’s something that is of concern to your community.

236 THE INTERPRETER: I just need a moment for the interpretation. One moment, please.

‑‑‑ Pause

237 MS. WOOD (interpreted): We have responded to that in the undertaking in more detail. So, I would just refer to that.

238 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you very much.

239 We’ve talked about the importance of sign language and making sure that all of this information is available for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community. In practice, as I understand it, the ISPs often change their plans, and those changes happen very quickly and can be quite agile in terms of their offerings.

240 So, I’m trying to understand how we can be accommodation of the service provider, giving them the flexibility they need to adjust their plans and be competitive in the marketplace, but also be sure that they are making their information accessible, which in reality may take time and, if there is a shortage of sign language interpreters, for example, that would need time to prepare videos, how can we accommodate both ‑‑ provide videos that are accessible but yet give the marketplace and ISPs the flexibility they need to be competitive and to change their plans as quickly and as often as they may need to?

241 MS. WOOD (interpreted): If you recall in my presentation, I said that accessibility must be built in from the start. So, if an ISP is thinking about changing their plan, they need to think about accessibility right when they’re thinking about changing that plan. So, as they’re developing the new plan, they’re already thinking about preparing AFL and LSQ videos from the start, not waiting until the plan is already set in motion and they’ve made a decision and it’s been advertised or promoted to community members, and then adding accessibility to ASL and LSQ as an afterthought. So, it needs to be streamlined right from the start ‑‑ so, from design to delivery. If that is included, I believe that that could address the balance of both needs.

242 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. And if providers were to be required to do that, what would be kind of the key piece of information that would need to be disclosed for your members? What would be essential in terms of information that would need to be available so that, if they wanted agility and they needed short timelines, if there was something most critical, what would that be?

243 MS. WOOD (interpreted): I think I would like to address those details in the undertaking ‑‑ so, yes.

244 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on ‑‑

245 THE INTERPRETER: Just to make sure that I have ‑‑ sorry, it’s for the interpretation ‑‑ just to make sure that I have all the specifics.

246 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Absolutely. Thank you.

247 I just wanted to address a couple of the things that you’ve raised in your opening statement. You’ve talked about a phased rollout period, and there would be the opportunity to do some pilot projects and adjust.

248 So, could you maybe just give a bit more information about what you’re thinking when you talk about a phased rollout with pilot projects? Like, who would be involved in that? Is it based on particular community groups? Would it be regionalized? How would a phased rollout go forward?

249 MS. WOOD (interpreted): I believe that that approach would follow regions, and so then, if we had representatives from, say for example, deaf Indigenous folks from particular Nations, community representatives from that region and do some research, gather data based on their usage and what they need, and then have a pilot project, come back to those same representatives and ask them if there has been improvement from what the previous iteration looked like, and following the project.

250 And so, I don’t expect that this would be something that would happen overnight. So, that’s why it is a phased rollout. So, basically, what we’re wanting is something that is based on what the community needs. When we lobbied for video relay service, they did virtual testing, they gathered data, and then they had a rollout ‑‑ a phased rollout for VRS, and then adapted what they learned from that rollout.

251 And so, I think we have something to look back on in terms of how VRS was rolled out, and I see that that could be something that could apply here because deaf Canadians across Canada really ‑‑ they do not have standardized speed ‑‑ internet speeds, because people in some rural, remote, small communities ‑‑ their internet speed is much different than people in urban areas, specifically Indigenous folks.

252 Some of them ‑‑ their internet service is either non‑existent or so poor that they cannot have a video call. So, and we’re not even talking about video relay service; I’m talking about having a video conversation with another deaf person. So, if somebody wanted to contact me, for instance, they wouldn’t be able to do so.

253 So, that phased rollout would be established in different regions with the goal of improving services for deaf, deaf Indigenous, hard of hearing, and deafblind people across Canada, so they can access standardized service and not have variations in that service based on their regions.

254 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. I just have a couple ‑‑

255 THE INTERPRETER: And also, I just wanted to add ‑‑ the interpreter missed something ‑‑ Specifically for those Indigenous folks living on reserve, as well.

256 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. I just have a couple of more questions.

257 You have mentioned audits in your materials, and potentially allowing audits to take place. Are you thinking along the same lines in terms of how these audits would proceed ‑‑ sort of regularly, after some testing? Is that kind of the intent with your recommendation to do audits?

258 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Mm‑hmm. Yes, it is. And then transparency with the data, based on what the findings of the audit are. So, currently we don’t have any specific details, so I think those sorts of details will help all of us to understand the service and improve upon it.

259 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: And in that same recommendation, you ‑‑

260 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Oh, if I could just add ‑‑

261 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Oh, sorry.

262 MS. WOOD (interpreted):  ‑‑ sorry, before you move on to your next section.

263 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Yes.

264 MS. WOOD (interpreted): We believe that data and feedback are critically important for this process because it helps us to see where the gaps are, specifically the gaps in accessibility and then the gaps in service provision for all of the communities ‑‑ the differing communities.

265 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: And just on that same recommendation that you have made, you refer to the ASL/LSQ accessibility standards. So, if you could just add a little clarity to what you mean when you refer to the accessibility standards?

266 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Accessibility standards for us means that we would have access to communication in a culturally linguistic appropriate way. I think that’s the key. So, we currently don’t have that type of access, and without that access, we can’t access the ‑‑ we don’t have access to the information that we need to make informed decisions. And without access, we don’t get the service that we need, and that leads to further isolation.

267 So, with access, we can learn, we can participate, we have the ability to engage in the dialogue, and interact with people, whether they are selling the service or we’re talking about the service or engaged in the regulatory process of oversight.

268 One other thing that I wanted to mention. Just in terms of this hearing, it would not be successful without interpreters. We wouldn’t be able to have this hearing without interpreters because interpreters are one of our tools that help us to communicate and interact so that you can understand what we are saying, and we can also understand what you’re saying. It’s not a one‑way street; it goes both ways ‑‑ that in order for you to understand us, we need interpreters, and for us to understand you, we also need interpreters as well.

269 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. I just have one last question, and then I will return the microphone to our Chair.

270 In your materials, you did reference having a highly visual icon‑based design, and it would be interactive as a label. I just wondered if you could maybe speak to that, in terms of what your vision is for an icon, and how that would be interactive. Thank you.

271 MS. WOOD (interpreted): For example, specific icons for internet or Wi‑Fi. Currently, there’s an icon for VRS. I think that for many deaf people who have experienced language deprivation, specifically deaf Indigenous folks, both language and educational deprivation ‑‑ so, what that means is not being able to access English on the same literacy level that other people are able to do so.

272 Just for example, I was in the Toronto airport and I was looking for my date, and I saw an icon with a sunflower, and so I knew that the sunflower indicates this is for support for people with disabilities. So, something like that. So, some symbols or icons that are readily identifiable just visually without the clutter of all the terminology, to accommodate those who have experienced language deprivation or educational deprivation and don’t have the same literacy level ‑‑ because even if it’s written in plain English, sometimes that’s not accessible.

273 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you so much for your time today and your responses. I appreciate that. Thank you.

274 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you, Commissioner Desmond.

275 We will turn to Commissioner Abramson for questions.

276 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks, and thanks for being here with us.

277 As a first question, I just wanted to ask ‑‑ we’re talking about building in accessibility by design into potential new requirements. How is accessibility by design going with existing service from telecommunications providers, especially regarding consumer safeguards like critical information summaries?

278 MS. WOOD (interpreted): I think, you know, when I think of a service provider like Telus, it would be contacting them ‑‑ we’ve already done that actually ‑‑ and letting them know what the gaps are providing the feedback, what we have experienced. So, so far, Telus has been pretty good with the gaps in communication. So, as members of the deaf community, we will contact them, give them feedback so that they can improve upon the existing gaps.

279 Sometimes not all of our wishes are ceded, but providing the feedback I think is the key. So, that’s one way. So, then both of us learn. So, we provide information to the ISP, and they learn our experience, and we also learn what their experience and their limitations are.

280 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. That's helpful.

281 You talked about pre‑ and post‑sale information, and I have a similar question for you as I did for our first intervenor this morning. Would that information differ? In other words, are you asking for information post‑sale to be made available in order to refer back to what was said pre‑sale? Or to have an update as to how that information has changed? Or both?

282 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Both, is what we envision. We feel this would be most beneficial for deaf, deaf Indigenous, hard of hearing and deafblind consumers to understand their service. For example, they have highspeed and their provider is providing all of these details ‑‑ that’s the pre‑sale. And then, post‑sale, maybe they have been experiencing jitter, or drops in service, or technical problems.

283 So, if they’re having conversations with customer support, I believe that the pre‑ and post‑sale information will give them the information that they need. And again, I draw emphasis to video relay service. It’s so important that deaf people have stable internet service because if they don’t have that and it drops, they cannot make a phone call, and they may have to go to another location, try to find somebody who has Wi‑Fi and use their Wi‑Fi on their cell phone, which isn't ideal.

284 So, I think that the pre‑ and the post‑sale information makes it very clear for us as a community to have greater access. I think that there is quite a delay ‑‑ or quite a difference in how people who can hear can access information and how those who are deaf or hard of hearing can’t. So, if we ‑‑ if our internet service drops, we can’t make a phone call through VRS, and I think that having that information allows us to do the comparison, and supports us when we’re making complaints to service providers. And so, when we have that, then we can make the connection and draw on that information.

285 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you very much.

286 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you.

287 THE INTERPRETER: Just ‑‑ just a moment, ‑‑

288 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

289 THE INTERPRETER:  ‑‑ sorry, for the interpretation.

290 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Also, that phone service and internet service needs to be separated out so that that information is ‑‑ because deaf people don’t use the phone service, so just having their internet service detailed is helpful for them.

291 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That's great. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

292 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. I would like to thank you very much for participating in the proceeding, including the oral hearing today. As we digest what you’ve said, we may follow up with some written requests for information throughout the process, and then there is a final reply period as well.

293 As is our practice, we would like to give you the last word. So, if you have a final thought for us, we would love to hear it.

294 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present at the hearing, and to respond to your questions.

295 I think my closing comment would be a strong emphasis to deaf, deaf Indigenous, hard of hearing, and deafblind Canadians no longer want to be isolated from the world or from our communities. This is a really important issue to us. And we want to be full participants in society, just as everybody else is. And having stable, reliable service is one way to do that. And so, we want to have equal access and full participation in the realm of internet services.

296 So, thank you. Thank you so much.

297 THE CHAIRPERSON: And thanks to you. Have a great day.

298 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

299 MS. WOOD (interpreted): Thank you. Bye‑bye.

300 LA SECRÉTAIRE : J’inviterais maintenant Cogeco Connexion inc. à venir à la table de présentation, s’il vous plaît. Quand vous êtes prêts, s’il vous plaît, vous présenter. Et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

301 M. COWLING : Monsieur le vice‑président, monsieur et mesdames les commissaires, membres du personnel du Conseil, bonjour. Je suis Paul Cowling, chef des affaires juridiques et corporatives de Cogeco.

302 Je suis accompagné, à ma gauche, par Paul Beaudry, vice‑président, affaires réglementaires et corporatives, et par Leonard Eichel, directeur, affaires réglementaires, et à ma droite, par Sabrina Bambara, vice‑présidente, numérique et marque.

303 Cogeco est d'accord avec le Parlement canadien sur l’importance de s’assurer que les consommateurs aient accès à des renseignements transparents et exacts lorsqu’ils magasinent un forfait Internet. Or, la preuve versée au dossier public dans cette instance démontre sans l’ombre d’un doute que les Canadiens ont accès à l’information dont ils ont besoin pour faire des choix éclairés, et que l’imposition de mesures réglementaires additionnelles par le Conseil serait, au mieux, superflue, et, au pire, préjudiciable aux consommateurs.

304 Pourquoi en est‑il ainsi? C’est notamment parce que la concurrence pour les services de large bande n’a jamais été aussi forte. À mesure que les vitesses ont augmenté, les plafonds de données ont disparu et les prix ont baissé. Selon les données de Statistique Canada, entre janvier 2019 et septembre 2024, les prix pour les services internet ont chuté de près de 11 pour cent alors que l’indice des prix à la consommation a augmenté de plus de 20 pour cent.

305 Dans un marché concurrentiel, les fournisseurs ont tout intérêt à se démarquer en offrant des produits et des services de qualité, en fournissant des informations claires et accessibles, et en respectant les droits des consommateurs. La transparence est un avantage concurrentiel et une entreprise qui induit ses clients en erreur risque de perdre leur confiance et leur loyauté.

306 It goes without saying ‑‑ but must be said ‑‑ that more regulation is not always better for consumers. The Commission needs evidence of a gap that is hurting consumers or a barrier that is preventing the market from functioning or hurting competition. Is there really a problem? What is that problem? And what is the least intrusive way of fixing it?

307 We trust the Commission is focused on these questions in this and other consumer protection proceedings underway. The broadband regulatory framework is extensive, complex, and sometimes harmful in its overreach, particularly for regional and smaller competitors like Cogeco.

308 The evidence in this proceeding does not make a case for more regulation. At the same time, incremental regulation involves multiple dimensions of cost ‑‑ costs of implementation, compliance, monitoring, and, perhaps most importantly, the opportunity cost of redirecting resources and focus from investments in networks and services. As Statistics Canada notes, while regulation in the Canadian economy has increased by an average of 2.1 percent annually, GDP growth has declined by 1.7 percent, and investment also declining by nine percent.

309 Our $60 billion sector provides the connectivity infrastructure that drives our economy. Cogeco’s ability to invest in the more than 600 Canadian communities we serve from Gaspé to Windsor depends on an efficient and effective regulatory framework. Unnecessary regulation is a drag on that investment.

310 As stewards of the Canadian telecommunications system, we ask you to consider whether there is a demonstrated need for additional disclosure regulation and whether the potential benefits of any new regulation outweigh its costs. In Cogeco’s view, the answer to both questions is no.

311 In some cases, additional, effective regulation is both necessary and good for consumers and competition. Those circumstances do not exist here.

312 MR. BEAUDRY: Our core positions are as follows. There’s no need to mandate standardized information requirements on service providers. Parliament did not mandate a standardized label or even suggest it. While the amendments to the Act do require Canadian carriers to provide typical download and upload speeds during peak periods, they leave considerable discretion in the hands of the Commission to determine if the disclosure of any other information should be mandated and the format of any such disclosures.

313 A standardized label requirement is unnecessary considering that Canadian ISPs already display relevant information about their offerings in an easy to understand and accessible way, allowing consumers to make informed choices when shopping for broadband services. This information includes price, applicable discounts, download and upload speeds, and applicable equipment costs.

314 The evidence in this proceeding also shows that most Canadians are satisfied with the information they can access when shopping for home internet services. The Earnscliffe Strategy Group found that 72 percent of Canadians feel that they are knowledgeable about what to look for, and that very few Canadians have concerns about the availability or clarity of information provided in a pre‑sale context.

315 While the United States has recently mandated the disclosure of standardized network performance metrics and other countries such as the U.K. and Australia have adopted voluntary codes encouraging certain disclosure, it is important to note that these actions were taken in order to address inconsistencies between advertised and actual speeds identified by regulators.

316 Canadians have not experienced these inconsistencies. SamKnows reports have found that the vast majority of Canadian ISPs have met or exceeded download and upload speeds they advertise and that the quality of Internet service is consistent across ISPs who participated in the study, regardless of the time of day.

317 Imposing a broadband label requirement would create an unnecessary burden on ISPs and be costly to implement. From the public interest perspective, this matters a great deal because it takes away from our ability to expand our networks’ reach and capacity. There’s an opportunity cost for unnecessary regulation that hurts Canadians’ ability to access the internet.

318 There is significant dynamic competition in the Canadian market for broadband services, and competitive offerings can change at a very rapid pace. The cost and burden of implementing a broadband label mandate would be significant and may result in the duplication of existing and comprehensive consumer protection requirements already mandated by the Commission.

319 Respectfully, we see no benefit to consumers of mandating broadband labels and we see significant risk in confusing customers with information that is not relevant to their service experience. That is on top of the risks from competitive distortion and wasted resources.

320 Given the dynamic competition in the market and the wide variance of network technologies, IT systems and geographic areas of each service provider, the format of the presentation of information should be left to the service providers. This principle should apply even if the Commission takes the unnecessary step of imposing additional regulation in this area. In order to encourage a dynamic competitive market, competitors need flexibility in how they display this key information.

321 Cogeco is very concerned with any expectation that implementing a regulated notice would be simple or quick. While we were asked during this process for an estimate of costs, we caution that we do not know what the specifications or expectations would be. The Commission’s questions on scope have ranged wildly.

322 Further process around cost and time to implement is required if the Commission adds more requirements to its existing consumer protection framework. New regulatory requirements could be highly disruptive to implement, diverting scarce human and financial resources away from the provision of quality services and support for customers. That burden is amplified for smaller players.

323 Further, the more detailed and prescriptive the regulatory measures become, the more service providers become constrained in their ability to serve their customers, to innovate their service offerings and to invest in future technologies and services that customers want. In essence, such heavy regulatory oversight puts a brake on the competitive dynamism of the entire sector at a time when the Canadian economy is facing considerable headwinds from external forces. Instead, the Commission should be looking for ways to ensure the effectiveness of its existing consumer protection regulatory regime with more emphasis on efficiency, proportionality and outcomes.

324 MS. BAMBARA: As you may know, Cogeco has operations in the U.S. and we can therefore speak firsthand about the experience of implementing a broadband label requirement and the associated customer experience. As we’ve already noted, this new requirement was mandated in the U.S. due to inconsistencies between advertised and actual speeds identified by the regulator, inconsistencies that, we remind you, do not exist in Canada.

325 While the CRTC and some intervenors in this proceeding have cited the FCC label mandate as a possible model to implement in the Canadian internet market, Cogeco submits that, in a Canadian context, such a requirement is a bad idea.

326 The requirement was burdensome to implement considering the number of plans we offer in our different markets. A separate label is required for each offer and, if there is a change, a new label is required.

327 In addition, there is no evidence that the label requirement has helped consumers or their purchase of internet services. Consumers are finding the labels confusing, and the FCC is now considering several changes to the broadband label requirements to reduce the burden on providers.

328 In fact, when customers sign up for broadband services on our website, less than two percent choose to view the broadband label. The reality is that we already provide consumers with the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions, that is, price, discount, discount period and speeds.

329 Given our experience with broadband labels in the U.S. and given existing market practices and consumer protections, such a requirement is unnecessary and therefore wasteful.

330 MR. BEAUDRY: In closing, Cogeco asks the Commission to refrain from regulating where it is unnecessary, costly and potentially harmful to do so. The Commission has ample discretion under the legislation and must act in accordance with the Act and the Policy Direction. In this case, the evidence shows that the Canadian service providers are consistent in the information they provide consumers.

331 Further, consumers themselves have voiced their satisfaction with the information they can obtain to assist their purchasing decisions for internet services.

332 Is additional regulation here necessary? It is not. Will additional regulation distract us from serving our customers and investing in networks? It will. Are there risks of customer confusion and competitive distortions if overly technical information is required to be disclosed? Yes. And can the industry afford unnecessary regulation? It cannot.

333 Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this proceeding. We look forward to your questions.

334 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci beaucoup à Cogeco pour votre participation. La conseillère Paquette va commencer les questionnements.

335 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci beaucoup et bienvenue. Merci pour votre participation. J’ai beaucoup de questions. Donc, il va falloir qu’on discute rapidement, je crois.

336 Je voudrais commencer par aborder la question de la production de l’étiquette parce que je pense que votre rapport est intéressant, étant donné que, vous, vous avez l’expérience avec Breezeline aux États‑Unis. Vous avez parlé dans votre présentation d’une gestion complexe par rapport au nombre d’offres que vous avez à mettre en marché. Pouvez‑vous nous en dire un peu plus sur l’expérience, notamment en ce qui concerne l’implantation comme telle du système? Est‑ce que ça s’est fait facilement, difficilement? Enfin, j’aimerais avoir votre impression sur la question.

337 M. BEAUDRY : Absolument, ça va nous faire plaisir. Puis ma collègue Sabrina pourra vous parler des détails qui ont été liés à la mise en œuvre puis, évidemment, l’efficacité de la mesure, parce que, ultimement, on veut que les mesures qui soient mises en place par le régulateur aient une fin réelle qui soit utile pour les consommateurs.

338 Breezeline est un petit opérateur aux États‑Unis. On sert des marchés de moyenne, petite taille dans 13 États des États‑Unis, qui vont du Maine jusqu’à Miami. Et, souvent, c’est des plus petites régions qui ont été délaissées par les plus grands concurrents. Puis on est fiers de servir ces régions‑là.

339 Mais, évidemment, quand la demande ou l’exigence de la FCC d’imposer l’étiquetage des services Internet de la façon dont ils l’ont fait a été mise en place, il y a eu des coûts importants de mise en œuvre. On est une petite entreprise. On n’a pas des départements de IT énormes qui sont capables de mettre tout ça en œuvre à l’interne. Donc, il a fallu contracter avec des parties externes, qui ont tout mis ça en place.

340 Il y a eu des coûts significatifs de mise en place. Évidemment, on a eu un certain délai pour le faire. Mais, lorsque ça a été mis en place, je pense que, ce qui est intéressant, puis Sabrina pourra vous en parler davantage, c’est qu’on sent que, malgré tout le travail, toutes les sommes qu’on a investies pour se conformer à ce mandat‑là, qui est quand même assez imposant en termes d’obligations, on se rend compte que l’utilisation au final par les utilisateurs, elle est marginale. Et, s’il y a quoi que ce soit qu’on peut déceler comme conclusion, c’est que ça confond davantage des consommateurs que ça les aide réellement.

341 M^me BAMBARA : Oui, pour ajouter à mon collègue au niveau de l’implémentation, elle a été complexe. Ça a été mentionné que, effectivement, en étant un plus petit provider, qu’on a dû avoir des ressources externes.

342 Au niveau de l’implémentation, quand vous pensez, en fait, que nous sommes présents dans 13 marchés aux États‑Unis, chacun de ces marchés à des différences au niveau des prix, au niveau des taxes, donc, un plan en Floride ne sera pas le même qu’un plan en Ohio, par exemple. Donc, chaque changement requiert un changement de ces labels. Donc, ça requiert une gestion constante et assez impactante pour nos opérations, notamment en étant un plus petit fournisseur.

343 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et ce n'est pas quelque chose qui se génère automatiquement, une fois que c'est implanté, l'étiquette se génère à chaque fois que vous générez une offre dans vos systèmes?

344 M^me BAMBARA : Non, ça dépend effectivement de tous les requis qui doivent aller dans l'étiquette, à savoir que, effectivement, c'est de l'information qu'on génère et qu'on envoie à notre partenaire pour pouvoir ensuite le remettre dans nos étiquettes sur le site.

345 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis je comprends que ça peut être sous‑traité comme développement, la production d'une étiquette? Par rapport à tous vos systèmes internes, c'est quelque chose qui se sous‑traite quand même assez bien?

346 M^me BAMBARA : Dans notre cas, ça a été nécessaire, n'ayant pas les ressources internes, de le faire entièrement de façon interne.

347 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis je comprends de ce que vous dites que vous jugez que l'étiquette n'est pas utile pour les consommateurs dans la mesure où, votre constat, c'est qu'il y a peu de consommateurs qui ont consulté l’étiquette. Et vous constatez ça sur le nombre de clics qu’il y a eu pour accéder à l'étiquette, c'est ça?

348 M^me BAMBARA : Absolument.

349 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K.

350 M^me BAMBARA : Ce qu'on voit, que ce soit aux États‑Unis ou au Canada, nos consommateurs, ils recherchent de la simplicité. Les critères principaux pour faire leur choix pour un service télécom, c'est le prix et les vitesses. Donc, ce qu'on voit notamment de par leur comportement sur le site, c'est que, en ayant accès initialement à l'information au niveau des prix et des vitesses, c'est assez suffisant pour eux pour pouvoir faire leur décision d'achat.

351 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Alors, je vous ramène au Québec. Vous dites que les informations fournies par Cogeco sont suffisantes, correspondent aux besoins des consommateurs sans les submerger d'informations. J'ai consulté votre site Internet ainsi que les exemples que vous avez mis dans votre intervention. Et je ne vois pas dans le visuel de ce que vous mettez en marché de vitesse de téléversement, là, de vitesse d'upload, je ne vois pas… la question des coûts d'activation n'apparaît pas. Peut‑être que c'est parce que vous n'en chargez pas.

352 Je ne vois pas aussi la notion d'infos subjective pour permettre aux consommateurs d'évaluer quelle vitesse serait nécessaire pour ses besoins. Je ne vois pas d'informations technologiques, comme la question de la latence, le jitter, là, dont il va être question ici. Peut‑être que l'information se trouve ailleurs dans le parcours client, mais je me demandais : pourquoi est‑ce que vous estimez que ce n'est pas pertinent pour les consommateurs au niveau de la description des offres en tant que telles?

353 M. BEAUDRY : Je peux peut‑être commencer puis Sabrina pourra compléter. Donc, premièrement, par rapport au téléversement, il y a des informations. On a fourni au Conseil, je pense, dans notre intervention initiale, une capture d'écran.

354 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

355 M. BEAUDRY : Et la vitesse de téléversement, elle est disponible quand on met son curseur sur un bouton qui est juste à côté de l'offre. Donc, elle est disponible. Mais, ultimement, comme Sabrina disait, on inclut les informations qui, à notre avis, sont importantes pour que les consommateurs puissent faire des choix éclairés. C'est informations qui, à notre avis, ont été un petit peu confirmées dans l'étude du Conseil de Earnscliffe qui montre les éléments les plus importants qui sont perçus par les consommateurs comme étant les éléments dont ils se préoccupent lorsqu'ils font du magasinage pour leur service Internet.

356 L'autre élément également, c'est les informations subjectives. On fournit les informations subjectives par palier de vitesse en donnant des indications aux consommateurs, à savoir : pour telle vitesse, vous pouvez vous attendre à faire une utilisation de telle, telle sorte. C'est sûr qu’on le fait d'une façon très simple, de façon à nous assurer que les consommateurs puissent rapidement se faire une idée de quel forfait qui pourrait être approprié pour eux. Mais on l'indique. Puis, évidemment, on a un système de service à la clientèle chez Cogeco. On est une entreprise régionale puis on est très fiers d'offrir un service de service à la clientèle qui est basé dans les régions que l'on dessert.

357 Puis tu pourras peut‑être parler, Sabrina, là, de l'évaluation qu'on fait avec les clients des besoins qu'ils ont pour faire en sorte qu’ils ou elles peuvent être le mieux servis possible grâce à nos différents paliers de service puis la différente gamme de choses que l'on offre.

358 M^me BAMBARA : Oui. Je dirais que, définitivement, nos clients nous le disent et on fait des recherches constantes consommateurs pour pouvoir évaluer les besoins qui évoluent de nos consommateurs et leurs besoins pour pouvoir faire des choix éclairés. Si vous regardez le site Internet de Cogeco aujourd'hui, on fournit cette information dans la décision d'achat, à savoir entre un plan dans ce qu'on dirait d’entrée de gamme versus un plan un peu plus premium, on fournit des informations communes qui peuvent être facilement comprises de tous les consommateurs. Donc, ce n'est pas des informations dans du jargon technique. C'est des informations pour pouvoir dire que, par exemple, si quelqu'un joue aux jeux vidéo versus quelqu'un qui a juste besoin de faire une vérification d'email, le besoin n'est pas le même. Donc, on fournit cette information aujourd'hui pour nos consommateurs.

359 Les besoins des consommateurs évoluent au fil du temps. Et donc, on continue à faire ces recherches constantes. Et, dans les recherches qu'on fait aujourd'hui, l'information que nous fournissons a été basée déjà, un, sur le feedback de ces consommateurs et nous l'évoluons au fil du temps parce que c'est des recherches constantes et des… nous avons des outils pour pouvoir le faire en continu.

360 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis, maintenant, je vous amènerais sur la question du débit typique aux heures de pointe, là, de la typical speed during peak period, comme on dit en bon français. Ce n'est pas une information que vous offrez en ce moment. C'est au cœur, je crois, de tout ce qui a amené le projet de loi C‑288. Est‑ce que vous pensez que ça permettrait d'éviter de nombreuses insatisfactions, nombreuses plaintes de la part des clients s’ils savaient déjà au moment de l'abonnement à quoi ils peuvent s'attendre en matière de vitesse? Est‑ce que… Premièrement, pensez‑vous que le fameux opt to est représentatif? Et, sinon, pourquoi ne pas y aller avec une vitesse à laquelle ils devraient s'attendre dans des heures de plus haute congestion?

361 M. BEAUDRY : C'est une très bonne question et c’est une question de libellé qui, pour nous, n'a pas énormément de signification parce que, de notre perspective, ce qu'on donne à nos abonnés en termes de opt to, c'est la vitesse typique à laquelle ils peuvent s'attendre d'obtenir. Puis d'ailleurs, on a relevé dans notre énoncé d'ouverture que, dans les tests qui ont été effectués par le passé, dont les tests de Sam Knowles, on a relevé que, de façon très générale, les fournisseurs de services d'accès Internet offrent les services qu'ils publicisent, que ce soit opt to, qu'on utilise un libellé différent comme étant des vitesses typiques, de notre perspective, ça ne changerait pas la donne, qui est que nos abonnés ont accès aux vitesses que l'on publicise sur nos sites Web et sur nos autres matériaux de marketing.

362 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, l'utilisation du opt to, c'est plus — quoi? — une forme de protection en cas où vous n'arrivez pas à livrer la vitesse?

363 M. BEAUDRY : Je pense qu'on doit reconnaître qu’il n’y a jamais un 100 pour cent. Il peut y avoir des événements qui se passent qui font en sorte que, dans chaque cas unique, il peut y avoir des exceptions. Mais, encore une fois, nos tests nous démontrent puis les tests indépendants de tierces parties démontrent que, dans la grande majorité des cas, ce qu'on met sur notre site Web et sur nos autres documents de marketing, c'est ce que les clients au final vont obtenir comme vitesse.

364 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Maintenant, je vous amènerais… La clarté des prix est aussi quelque chose qui est mentionné par les intervenants, quelque chose qui pourrait être amélioré, bien que ce soit déjà un requis du code Internet. Ils disent notamment que l'information demeure difficile à comparer entre fournisseurs. La question des frais d'activation, entre autres, est un bon exemple, mais, sinon, les frais d'installation, frais de surconsommation. Comme je vous disais, je ne voyais pas ces informations‑là dans vos promotions. Premièrement, est‑ce qu'il y a de ces frais‑là qui s'appliquent parfois ou c'est simplement parce qu'il n’y en a pas? Puis, si ça s'applique, comment vos clients réagissent quand ils doivent faire face à ces coûts supplémentaires?

365 M^me BAMBARA : Oui, si vous regardez pour un client qui est dans un processus d'achat, c'est certain que, la première information qui est fournie aux consommateurs, c'est l'information générale, qui est le prix et la vitesse. Quand le consommateur continue dans le processus d'achat, par exemple, en ligne, toute l'information est extrêmement détaillée, à savoir, tous les coûts qui pourraient s'ajouter sont ajoutés dans ce qu'on appelle le kart du consommateur. Donc, toute cette information est présente. Et puis, bien sûr, si un consommateur décide de faire une activation au travers de notre centre à la clientèle, toutes ces informations sont aussi fournies. Donc, toutes les informations pour pouvoir prendre une décision sont indiquées avant la décision d'achat.

366 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, vous dites que le consommateur doit se rendre au niveau de l'achat, là, du kart, pour avoir accès à la totalité des informations?

367 M^me BAMBARA : Aux informations pertinentes qui pourraient…

368 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Pour l’achat?

369 M^me BAMBARA : Pour l’achat, oui.

370 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis, dans le cadre du processus d'achat, pensez‑vous qu'il y aurait quelque chose à faire, un, pour améliorer la clarté, mais aussi pour permettre aux consommateurs de comparer entre vos offres, celles d'autres fournisseurs?

371 M^me BAMBARA : L'information que les consommateurs aujourd'hui, encore une fois, basé sur les recherches qu'on a, sont assez suffisantes pour eux pour prendre une décision. Si on regarde notamment au Canada, il y a énormément de compagnies qui offrent des services de comparatifs de produits télécoms. Et, en général, ça inclut toujours l'information générale que chacun des fournisseurs au Canada produit, cette information qui a été perçue comme pertinente et suffisante par nos consommateurs aujourd'hui de par les éléments qu'on a de feedback.

372 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis concernant l'information subjective contextualisée, vous m'aviez dit tantôt que c'est à un autre niveau, là, ce n'est pas au niveau de l'offre comme telle, mais que vous offrez cette information‑là à un autre niveau. Est‑ce qu’il y aurait lieu, d'après vous, de standardiser les débits de streaming recommandés de façon à ce que les consommateurs s'y retracent, s'y reconnaissent par rapport à une offre que vous faites ou celle d'un concurrent? Par exemple, est‑ce qu'on devrait afficher qu'est‑ce qu'un 500 mégabits par seconde peut permettre de faire, mais de façon uniforme à travers l'industrie?

373 M^me BAMBARA : Je dirais que l'information uniforme, pas nécessairement, à savoir que c'est une… il faut avoir l'information de façon simple pour que le consommateur puisse comprendre un peu les cas généraux qui peuvent s'appliquer à son besoin. Donc, aujourd'hui, si on regarde encore une fois… je l’ai mentionné un peu plus tôt, mais qu'on regarde au niveau de l'offre Internet qu'on offre, le consommateur peut très bien comprendre assez facilement, et on l'a confirmé au travers de recherches consommateurs que nous avons faites, que le consommateur a assez d'informations pour définir : si j'ai une famille de deux personnes versus une famille de quatre personnes avec des personnes qui aiment le gaming, des personnes qui sont plutôt... travailler à la maison, et cætera, toute cette information, nous la fournissons de façon assez simple sur notre site Internet aujourd'hui.

374 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Donc, pas de standard nécessaire à travers l'industrie, d'après vous?

375 M^me BAMBARA : Non.

376 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Maintenant, je vous amènerais sur la question de la vitesse, qui est encore une fois très, très centrale dans cette consultation. Vraiment, au cœur de ce qui semble le problème, la question des débits qui sont inférieurs à ceux qui sont promis par les offres des fournisseurs, vous semblez dire que ce n'est pas le cas au Canada. Puis je comprends qu'il y a de nombreux facteurs qui peuvent contribuer à cet écart, là, dont parfois à cet écart, dont beaucoup vous échappent. Mais la congestion comme telle des réseaux pourrait être un des principaux facteurs qui est sous le contrôle des fournisseurs.

377 Est‑ce que vous êtes premièrement d'accord avec cette idée que la congestion peut être un facteur qui ralentit bien entendu le débit des utilisateurs? Puis je voulais savoir : comment est‑ce que vous gérez de votre côté cet enjeu de congestion qui est ressenti par les consommateurs?

378 M. BEAUDRY : Je vais peut‑être laisser la parole à mon collègue Leonard, qui peut en parler davantage, mais, évidemment, la congestion peut avoir un impact sur l'expérience du consommateur. Et c'est pour ça qu'on a une gestion de notre réseau qui est faite de façon constante de manière à nous assurer que nos abonnés ont une connectivité à une vitesse adéquate et une capacité adéquate qui répondent à leurs besoins. Je sais que vous allez peut‑être avoir cette fameuse notion, puis excusez‑moi, je l'ai en anglais, mais le fameux…

379 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je sens que vous allez me devancer.

380 M. BEAUDRY : Oui, bien, voilà, bien, je vais laisser à mon collègue Leonard d’en parler davantage, mais, certainement, on gère notre réseau. Cependant, la donnée en tant que telle que vous avez peut‑être amenée sur la table n’est pas une donnée qui est particulièrement pertinente pour nous et avec laquelle on transige régulièrement.

381 MR. EICHEL: So I’ll just pick up on that with the idea of the over‑subscription ratio and how to manage congestion.

382 So Cogeco has other network providers. We do manage congestion on a regular and ongoing basis. We have tools in our network that are used to monitor each node that we ‑‑ where we offer services. We have tools to look at congestion on a daily, hourly basis and so on. So those tools are used to identify where nodes are being congested and, if they are, then mitigating work would be ordered to address that.

383 As for the over‑subscription ratio itself, we were a bit surprised to see that tabled by the Commission as possible metric. It’s not something that is used by us to measure congestion in our network and, frankly, we find that the concept itself is abstract and difficult to explain and we don’t see that as a ratio or a metric that can be very useful for consumers because if it’s difficult for us to conceive how we would use it, it would be even more difficult to explain that to consumers for them to find value in that as well.

384 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So if the Commission were to consider this over‑subscription ratio, are you saying it would be very difficult for you to produce and to publicize?

385 MR. EICHEL: We don't have any particular means to do this on a regular basis today. We would have to explore how we would be able to actually measure this at the level of granularity that you are proposing. And again, it goes to ‑‑ even though you could calculate it, the problem we have is figuring out how to translate that calculation into a meaningful amount of information for ordinary consumers to understand.

386 We were thinking, for example, of a traffic light system or some other system by saying, you know, congested, not congested or something of that nature, but it’s difficult for us to conceive that, so it would definitely take more thought and more reflection on our part to figure this out and perhaps even ‑‑ would perhaps be necessary for us to look at it maybe a separate process to discuss how that might be done or not if it’s ‑‑ if we ever get to that stage of it being mandated.

387 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And I believe you will tell me that doing it at the regional level would be even more difficult for you?

388 MR. EICHEL: Yes.

389 MR. COWLING: Just an additional point on this.

390 I mean, we are talking a little bit about the how when we’re talking about over‑subscription ratios or network congestion management and from the point of view of the moment that we’re focused on in this proceeding, it’s the moment of the purchase and the disclosure that’s appropriate and material to that purchase. And I think, you know, the research that Sabrina’s team has done has pretty much confirmed that the speed is the factor and that’s the “what”. And what am I going to use this for and picking that correct is a very important step.

391 I think the over‑subscription ratio is going to confuse that moment from the material items for that ‑‑ for purposes of that transaction.

392 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: O.K. Et si on voulait mesurer les vitesses de manière uniforme, comment la mesure devrait‑elle être effectuée pour que les indicateurs soient utiles pour le consommateur? Par exemple, si les consommateurs souhaitent connaître la vitesse habituelle de leurs services dans leur quartier, quelle serait la zone géographique minimale, la fréquence des tests, et cætera? Avez‑vous des recommandations à ce sujet?

393 MR. EICHEL: So you’re talking about specific geographic zones and going down to measuring speeds at a neighbourhood level. Is that correct?

394 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

395 MR. EICHEL: Well, we had difficulty with that, too, and the reason for that is because we have a network in place where we offer the same speeds across the entire network no matter which neighbourhood you’re in, so there is no variation between neighbourhood to neighbourhood. What we offer on a provincial basis is what we offer on a provincial basis no matter where you are in that province.

396 This is ‑‑ it seems to be a concept of ‑‑ that applies more to a fixed wireless or a mobile situation than it is to a fixed line network situation like we have.

397 MR. COWLING: I’m going to go back to this point about the moment and what’s important to the moment of the purchase.

398 Based on our research, the “up to” speed is the speed. That’s ‑‑ a customer when they see that “up to” disclosure, let’s say it’s one gigabit per second, that is the speed they’re expecting. And testing shows generally we are either meeting or exceeding that speed.

399 That’s our understanding to the customer, so if we’re ‑‑ and that needs to be the case across the network to every customer. So that’s the role of the “up to” speed. That’s what the market now expects and that’s the burden we bear to provide that service.

400 MS. BAMBARA: If I could also add, if we were to take a comparison even to what’s being done in Europe that is at the forefront of consumer protection, “up to” is very commonly as well used. I think if we’re looking in terms of what’s being done in France, it’s using as well “up to” as a way for consumers to avoid the technical jargon.

401 So again, from a consumer perspective, what they’re looking into the what we offer, not necessarily the how it’s being delivered and the underlying infrastructure.

402 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Maintenant, je vous amènerais sur la question du développement.

403 Si le Conseil imposait des standards, là, puis je comprends que ce n'est pas votre suggestion, votre recommandation, mais si on en venait à imposer des standards dans la publication des offres tant en ce qui concerne les informations que leur forme, vous semblez dire que, bien entendu, ça aurait un impact de votre côté sur le développement qui serait nécessaire. Vous avez dit : « On ne peut pas l'évaluer tant qu'on sait exactement c'est quoi qui sera requis. » Mais pouvez‑vous nous donner une idée de, un, ce que ça peut représenter, mais aussi ce qui pourrait être impacté dans votre pipeline de développement? Donc, est‑ce que ça se ferait au détriment d'autres projets? Sans entrer dans vos secrets d'industrie, peut‑être que vous pouvez nous donner une meilleure idée des impacts de votre côté en ce qui concerne le fardeau technologique que ça peut représenter.

404 M. BEAUDRY : Je vous parlais tantôt notre expérience américaine avec une petite entreprise. Une moyenne entreprise comme la nôtre, avec des petits départements, que ce soient les opérations, le service informatique, et cætera, la mise en œuvre de tout nouveau mandat règlementaire implique non seulement des ressources financières importantes, mais des ressources humaines importantes qui doivent être affectées à s'assurer que les mandats soient non seulement mis en place, mais à ce qu'ils soient respectés d'une façon continuelle.

405 On n'a pas des départements de conformité où il y a des centaines de personnes qui peuvent prendre du temps pour s'assurer que chaque mandat réglementaire dans chaque juridiction différente dans laquelle on est soit pleinement mise en œuvre si ces obligations‑là se multiplient, se multiplient, se multiplient.

406 Donc, évidemment, pour nous, puis on a fait référence dans notre énoncé d'ouverture, si on doit mettre des ressources dans la mise en œuvre d'un étiquetage, par exemple, bien, c'est sûr que ça retire des gens qui vont s'occuper typiquement d'autres choses, de mieux servir les consommateurs.

407 Je vous le disais tantôt, chez Cogeco, un de nos éléments qui nous distingue, surtout par rapport à de plus gros concurrents, c'est qu'on a une force de service aux consommateurs qui est locale, qui est située dans les communautés qu’on sert.

408 Puis je pense qu'on se targue avec grande fierté que ces gens‑là sont très près de notre clientèle. Ils savent comment les servir. Sabrina a fait mention des tests qu'on fait, des sondages qu'on fait avec nos consommateurs pour bien saisir ce qu'ils désirent obtenir de la part de leur fournisseur.

409 Donc, certainement, avoir un mandat lourd, onéreux comme un mandat d'étiquetage, bien, ça fait en sorte que plutôt que de nous attarder sur la meilleure façon d'avoir cet engagement continuel avec nos consommateurs, on doit se mettre dans une boîte en s'assurant que les cases soient cochées pour ce qui est de la mise en œuvre d'un mandat extrêmement précis, qui, à notre avis, n'a pas d'utilité apparente pour les consommateurs, bien, c'est sûr que ça nous prive de ressources temporelles, financières, autres qui seraient mieux utilisées pour améliorer nos réseaux, mieux servir nos consommateurs, innover dans la façon dont on sert nos consommateurs, parmi tant d'autres.

410 MR. COWLING: We want to compete on customer service and differentiating ourselves by building relationships with our customers, and this would be a distraction from that, because it’s a call to standardization.

411 So as a smaller regional competitor, that ability to differentiate ourselves and compete is more important. Just from a scale perspective, our Canadian business is roughly the same size as our U.S. business. Obviously, there will be no advantages to having done it in the U.S. It’s a different requirement completely. Even in the specifications, it will likely be different, I would expect. So, we’ll have to start from scratch.

412 And for a company of our size, it’s clear that the costs of that type of implementation exercise are more than for a company of a bigger scale. So, Comcast Charter could absorb the costs of this requirement much more easily than we could.

413 I would suggest that the same applies in Canada. Our ability to absorb these costs is not the same thing as the ability of the biggest players in Canada to absorb these costs.

414 Does that mean we think you should differentiate the rules between carriers? We do not. We think you have to regulate based on what’s necessary and what satisfies a cost‑benefit analysis.

415 So you need to take into account the impact from a scale perspective on smaller providers in order to assess whether this makes sense for the industry as a whole.

416 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much. I have no more questions.

417 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci, Conseillère Paquette.

418 A question from me. You said that Canada generally doesn't have a problem with a spread between advertised price and delivery price. You said that Cogeco in most cases delivers the speed, captured as up to.

419 Should there be consequences for companies when they don’t meet that standard? What would be fair to the consumer in a case where what was advertised to them is not the service that they receive?

420 MR. BEAUDRY: I would say that talking about enforcement when in our view there is no evident market failure might be a little quick. The Commission has in the past done some tests to measure broadband speeds throughout Canada, and it has the possibility to perform these industry‑wide testing initiatives if it feels that it is necessary to assess the performance of the industry.

421 So, we do think that instead of talking about specifically an enforcement mechanism, perhaps even though right now we are of the view that the industry is delivering on the advertised speeds and there is no marked difference between what’s advertised and the actual speeds that people have, having the ability to do tests on a regular basis, or a semi‑regular basis, to verify that what people are advertising is indeed correct, is something the Commission could choose to do.

422 We also want to point out that we’ve been discussing the U.S. experience, as well as the U.K. and Australia experience, and in these jurisdictions the reason why there were mandates of voluntary codes that were adopted by the industry was because regulators had found that there was a discrepancy between advertised speeds and the actual speeds that customers were experiencing and benefiting from.

423 In these cases, perhaps regulatory action had some justification. In this case, in our view, the cost‑benefit test of implementing a broadband label is not being met.

424 THE CHAIRPERSON: A quick follow‑up.

425 Do you have thoughts on why the up to language has persisted in the Canadian market, even if the delivery doesn’t suggest that up to doesn’t need to be there? Some people see it as functioning as almost an escape hatch and letting you off the hook, but it sounds like you don’t need to get off the hook.

426 Why does everyone still use up to language, if they do?

427 MR. BEAUDRY: I heard MP Mazier this morning referring to this. It seemed to me his explanation seemed to be very focused on a gap that might exist with respect to rural fixed‑wireless access. With respect to traditional broadband services, I think it’s an industry practice. As Sabrina pointed out, it is the norm in other countries as well. Europe does it as well. So, I don’t have a compelling explanation as to why historically it’s been like this.

428 I think there is also a consideration that there might be extraneous events sometimes that are outside of our control that will not have us meet the 100 percent target.

429 But as I said, from our perspective, we are meeting these targets day in and day out. There is no gap, widespread gap or even a minimal gap. The vast, vast majority of times, as substantiated by our own testing, customers are getting what they pay for. And if it’s about using typical or up to, it’s a distinction without a real difference, from our perspective.

430 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

431 Commissioner Naidoo, let's go to you next.

432 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today.

433 My French isn’t excellent. It’s not even great. I’m going to ask my question in English, but please do feel free to answer in any language that you would prefer.

434 I wanted to start off by asking you about you had said in your opening statements that you don’t think consumers need a lot more information; that you are providing what you think is necessary.

435 We’ve seen many intervenors in their written submissions for this hearing say pretty much the opposite ‑‑ you’ve probably read some of their submissions ‑‑ that more standardized, more concise information that’s less confusing is needed. So, I’m wondering, considering that there seems to be a little bit of a discrepancy between what you have said this morning and what we’ve seen some other intervenors put on the record, saying that what’s provided is sufficient, I’m wondering what you think could work with standardized labels.

436 Is there anything that we could do that would not be confusing to people?

437 MR. COWLING: I think our position is informed by not only our experience in the U.S. but by our looking into what customers do when they buy internet services. Their focus is on the speed, and I think that’s a proxy for the what, and on price.

438 And based on that, what we see is a need to be simple about that to present it, what are the options, a, b, or c, and we provide some contextual information as a supplement to that, depending on what their use is.

439 In terms of the discrepancy between what you’re seeing on the record and our position, we speak from our experience as a service provider, and that’s what we believe the customer wants to see. And we need to be right, or more or less right, because if they don’t see it, they don’t buy internet service from us. So, that’s the important aspect of the competitive market.

440 And that is reinforced by our experience in the U.S. where the customer doesn’t look at the standard label.

441 There is a lot of consistency between providers in terms of what they’re highlighting, and they are all trying to do what they think is the best job possible to focus on the important things for that moment for that transaction. We want to be as good at that as we can. That’s part of our competitive impulse.

442 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that.

443 Earlier this morning, MP Mazier, the MP for Riding Mountain, said that standardized information for consumers won’t cost ISPs anything, in his view; that it is information you already have.

444 I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that.

445 MR. BEAUDRY: There are costs with implementing new regulatory mandates. We mentioned to you this morning that we think that to the extent the Commission decides to impose any additional requirements on us, there may be a rationale to have a further process to determine the specifications of what this mandate ought to be.

446 But the reality is there are costs associated with implementation. We’ve certainly lived them in the United States when we’ve had to implement the broadband labels. And ultimately, for us it’s all about is there a cost‑benefit?

447 If there was a clear benefit to consumers ‑‑ I understand from a theoretical basis there may be an appeal to using this type of medium, but the reality is I think we know our customers very well, and we do our best to package the information on our website and other marketing materials in a way that resonates with what they tell us they need when they make a choice of internet service provider.

448 And certainly the proof is in the pudding. In the United States, we notice that there is very little appetite to make use of this. And our Customer Service Department has also heard from customers who call us and say I’m confused about this. I don’t know what this means.

449 So, again, cost‑benefit for us is not being met, and we believe that there should not be an additional mandate on us with respect to the disclosure of information.

450 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Last question, if I may, because I know my colleagues have questions too.

451 We have been tasked, and we’re between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, we want to make things more transparent and easier for consumers to understand. Obviously, you’ve got your thoughts on what’s doable and what’s best and the most efficient.

452 So, how do we rectify those two things? How do you think we can make things more transparent?

453 I mean, given the fact that we’ve been tasked with doing this, I’m just wondering what kind of constructive suggestions do you have for us that we could maybe learn from?

454 We’re here having a conversation, so we might as well just throw things on the table.

455 MS. BAMBARA: Maybe if I could start just from a consumer standpoint, more transparency in the eyes of the consumer doesn’t mean more technicality brought to them, because it’s going to bring more complexity, overwhelming information that they might not understand what it means.

456 So bringing transparency, from what we hear from consumers, is for sure what I see is what I get is what we need to provide as an internet provider, which is today, which is the speed and the price they pay.

457 What we do, though, as a smaller provider is for sure understanding and continuously hearing the needs of a consumer. And that’s something that is going to evolve.

458 What it is today might not be what it is tomorrow. But today, based on the research that we have, the criteria for choices are the ones that we’re providing to consumers today and not necessarily the technicality of the how it’s being delivered to them.

459 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you.

460 Please go ahead.

461 MR. COWLING: I was going to say we are talking about potentially more regulation around a particular moment in time, which is the purchase. And again, disclosure in that context, there’s other areas of law that talk about disclosure, securities law. I used to be a securities lawyer.

462 You focus on what’s material. More is not always better. In fact, more is often perceived as worse because you are distorting or distracting from what’s material.

463 I think learning from this proceeding about what actually is material to that transaction, not necessarily with a view to regulating it, but to seeing whether customers are seeing what’s material in that moment of disclosure, moment of transaction, you can take an oversight monitoring role without necessarily crafting a solution that is in search of a problem.

464 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. Those are all my questions.

465 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

466 Commissioner Desmond.

467 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

468 Just one more follow‑up as a result of the comments this morning of MP Mazier.

469 In his opening remarks and in his submission, he says it’s not if, but how. So in his view, when you look at that legislation ‑‑ and in particular, I think it’s Section 24.1(3) or (2), I think it is: 24.2(2) ‑‑ it says that the Commission shall specify and provide information and ensure that ISPs are complying.

470 How do you respond to that, I guess, if in his view the legislation ‑‑ and he was part of the group in Parliament that ensured that legislation was passed. How do you respond to that, if their view is it has to be done?

471 MR. BEAUDRY: I think I would say that I believe the way the amendments have been crafted provides significant discretion to the Commission as to how it will implement the amendments.

472 There is specific wording about typical speeds during peak periods. We’ve made the case to you today that there is no automatic need for additional mandates that result from this provision, because in our experience the typical speeds, the up to speeds that we already advertise to customers who shop for internet services on our platforms, are the typical speeds that they get.

473 The bottom line for us is there is no compelling need to necessarily add to the array of regulations we already face. And should the Commission ‑‑ although we would not support that. But should the Commission decide to impose additional disclosure obligations, I think we would be of the view that they do not need to be in a standardized format. As we mentioned in our opening remarks, there is no specific mention of labels and a standardized broadband label that arises from this legislation.

474 So although, again, we don’t think there is a need for an additional regulatory mandate that arises from this proceeding, if there were to be one, we would urge the Commission to provide discretion to broadband providers as to how these additional requirements, if any, ought to be implemented and reflected on our marketing platforms.

475 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I just have one other question.

476 Earlier today you talked about if there were to be further regulatory requirements, you would envision a follow‑up proceeding that would take some time to kind of flesh out what those requirements might mean by way of cost, etc.

477 Can you just add a little bit more detail in terms of how you would see that working, and what timeframe you would be able to respond.

478 MR. BEAUDRY: We have seen a wide array of proposals being made in the course of this proceeding. So, I think the point we’re trying to make is while the Commission hasn’t necessarily made a preliminary determination as to how a new mandate or new requirements could eventually look like, we do believe that in order to be better able to plan and even comment on a specific proposal, it would serve the consumer’s interest and industry’s interest to ensure that there is a meaningful way for us to engage with the Commission on a particular proposal, to the extent that the Commission feels that a mandate of any sort ought to be implemented as a result of these legislative amendments.

479 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

480 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

481 Commissioner Abramson, let’s close out with you, please.

482 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. Last before lunch.

483 Let me start out with just a very high‑level question to set the stage.

484 Have you made significant changes in how you present consumers with speed and quality information in the last couple of years? Have you found that in the last couple of years or so you’ve had to take a different tack, go in a different direction?

485 MS. BAMBARA: I would say that yes, we have. Over the years, we’ve tried to simplify, actually, how we are going to market. So, if you are looking at advertising, definitely moving away from technicality is the direction we have on the website. We’ve added the commonly use cases for consumers, for them to understand their usage.

486 Again, it’s ongoing, but I would say the general direction has been over simplified.

487 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes, go ahead, please.

488 MR. COWLING: I was going to add, if you look at the industry as a whole, certain features of the service have also fallen away; data caps being the most obvious one. That’s probably not in the last two years, but it’s certainly in the last ten.

489 It used to be highly relevant. It’s no longer relevant.

490 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That makes good sense, and I appreciate what you are saying about providing context for consumers to better make sense of the information.

491 Just in terms of the actual presentation of speed and service quality information, have you started to present that data in a different way to consumers, I guess?

492 MS. BAMBARA: I would say outside ‑‑ I mean, the main change that you would see for the consumer to be able to understand what they are getting from the speed offered is really the commonly use case. That’s what we have. The other enhancement might just be in the overall presentation. Being more clear in terms of what’s being offered would be the main items I could think of.

493 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Got it. Thank you.

494 Then let me also ask about the actual measurement side.

495 You’ve talked a little bit about follow‑ups and SISC processes and so on. We did some of that in 2018 and 2019, and of course we ended up with a bit of a set of quality measurements around what we then said was necessary to ensure Canadians had, from memory, a high standard of universal broadband; you know, 50 millisecond round trip latency and 0.25 percent packet loss, jitter it below 5 milliseconds, all measured from a customer premise’s modem to an off‑net server at one of ten internet exchange points in Canada from the hours of 7:00 to 11:00 p.m.

496 So, you know, it was a little bit prescriptive.

497 Has Cogeco ever gone through the exercise of measuring in that manner?

498 MR. EICHEL: In general, we do measure speeds, latency and other technical metrics on a semi‑regular basis. I mean, when you’re putting in new nodes and when you’re structuring new nodes, you want to make sure that the level of service quality is the same as the rest of your network.

499 The same thing when you’re doing network extension projects where fibre is being put in. You want to make sure it evens out with the rest of the network.

500 So, yeah, those measurements do happen. I will leave it at that.

501 OMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Makes sense.

502 And what about congestion? Earlier, my colleague asked some questions about a sort of theoretical over‑subscription ratio.

503 But just more broadly, I mean, how do you measure congestion at your different nodes, and so on, in terms of looking at when the needle is starting to get into the red? What does that translate into for Cogeco in terms of its particular approach, without getting into specific numbers, of course?

504 MR. EICHEL: Each node is monitored by our Network Operations Group. We have, obviously, software to be able to monitor all the nodes on our network. When they get to a certain threshold of use, in terms of the total bandwidth that’s being used, a more active monitoring then takes place to see whether that is a blip or whether it’s part of a trend. If it’s part of a trend, then certainly we will take action to look about how to split the node or how to do other actions on our network higher up from the node to increase capacity down to that node to make sure that it never gets to a point where it’s congested.

505 So, certainly we do monitor that on a regular basis.

506 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So to paraphrase a little bit, you make sure that congestion is not consistently above a certain level. And once it is, you monitor it more closely and look for opportunities to add more bandwidth either by splitting or by adding more bandwidth or equipment, or whatever.

507 MR. EICHEL: I would go a little further and say we actually don’t let a node get congested at all. We just monitor the use to see, because we know the total capacity of a node. So, we can see, as usage increases on that particular node, where it gets to a certain percentage. And once it gets to that percentage, we know we have to monitor it more in order to prevent congestion.

508 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

509 I want to ask you a little bit: You provided some cost estimates, and I assume they are informed by your experience in the U.S. So, I wanted to ask about given your experience there, what are the biggest cost items?

510 In other words, you talked about outsourcing the actual sort of presentation based on data that you pull internally. What’s the bigger cost for you guys? Is it pulling the data internally, or is it the sort of presentation in the form of a nutrition label part of it?

511 MS. BAMBARA: Without going into too much detail, the reality of a label, like from the experience we had in the U.S. looking at a label, it’s a complex set of information in itself. That information is requiring to have a unique ID, if I may say, for each of the plans that we offer. Think of all the consumers that we have. That information needs to be stored, and that information needs to be constantly updated.

512 So it’s pretty complex in terms of the level of information that you have to gather, the permitation that you need to have, and to keep it within a viable ID to be able to deliver it to the end consumer. So all that maintenance ‑‑ so there is for sure the first set of implementation going through the process, but then the maintenance of it as well is quite significant.

513 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So all of the above. Thank you.

514 You know, you’ve told us a few times now that these nutrition labels, and you have experience with them in the U.S., aren't useful for consumers and you see that in the shopping behavior of consumers on your websites and so on.

515 We have a number of consumer groups before us who say that these ‑‑ who are asking how to mandate nutrition labels. So let me give you a chance, what would you say to them, to these consumers about why they are wrong about what they need?

516 MR. BEAUDRY: I think that the information that we have doesn't derive from thin air. We've done our research, we consult and we survey our customers on a regular basis, and I think that through experience we understand there's certain elements that are very important for consumers when they shop for services. And Sabrina mentioned it, speed, prices at the main two pillars of what people look for.

517 And we also understand from our experience with labels in the U.S. that cramming too much information on a CVS receipt type of long label doesn't get a lot of eyeballs, and when it does, it creates more confusion than it helps.

518 So again, our perspective is that if there's no clear market failure with the information that’s being provided to consumers right now, and notably both in a presale and a post sale context, we should very careful about implementing an additional mandate which not only going to be costly to implement for a regional carrier like us, but in our view will not provide meaningful benefits to the end users who are shopping for services.

519 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. And ‑‑

520 MR. COWLING: it's a very simple statistic, but it is worth just mentioning this. It's less than 2 percent of the time. So I think that in itself suggests the appetite, the demand for the label. So that's one of the points I would ask them to consider, that's the empirical evidence, is that less than 2 percent of the time, consumers look at the label.

521 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: We will look forward to hearing from consumer groups on the record in response.

522 Final question for me, and it will have to be quick one. And I just want to clarify because you've made a few remarks in this direction, but I want to tie it up a little bit.

523 What in your view is the least that we're allowed to do legally given the changes to the Telecommunications Act? Because I think I've heard you say we are not required do anything and I want to confirm that with you.

524 MR. BEAUDRY: So we recognize that there is language in the Act that talks about typical download and upload speeds at peak periods. I'll let the Commission determine how legally it is interpreting this.

525 From our perspective it is a distinction without a difference when you look at the practicality of how we currently advertise our speeds. We are providing “opt to”, and the “opt to” is from our perspective the typical speeds that our customers have access to both in a non‑peak and a peak period.

526 So ultimately, there is no meaningful changes to how we conduct our own affairs that need to be mandated as a result of this legislation. If there's change of wording, we're certainly happy to consider it. But deep down, the way we currently do this with the current language does not reflect a difference of treatment of consumers between what we use to advertise and the actual speeds they benefit from on a day in and day out basis.

527 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you very much.

528 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. And with that we would like to pass it back to you for a quick final thought.

529 M. BEAUDRY: Bien, on tient à remercier le Conseil de vous attarder à cette question importante, à savoir est‑ce que des changements doivent être faits au cadre réglementaire pour s’assurer que les consommateurs aient un accès à de l’information transparente et claire par rapport aux services Internet pour lesquels ils vont magasiner. Le but est extrêmement noble et nous croyons que les Canadiens doivent avoir accès à une information transparente et claire.

530 Ce qu’on vous a soumis aujourd’hui, c’est qu’à notre avis, à notre très humble avis, les Canadiens ont accès à une information qui est factuelle, transparente, claire, présentement. Le sondage qui a été effectué par Earnscliffe démontre que les Canadiens, généralement, sont satisfaits par l’information à laquelle ils ont accès. Et notre propre expérience comme opérateur régional démontre également ce qui s’est passé ce niveau‑là.

531 Également, notre aventure aux États‑Unis avec la mise en œuvre de l’étiquetage nous démontre que les avantages pour les consommateurs sont inexistants. Même qu’il y a des retombées négatives qui font en sorte que les consommateurs se sentent confus par rapport à l’information qui est véhiculée dans ce genre d’étiquetage. Donc, à notre avis, le test du coût‑bénéfice ne passe pas.

532 Puis, finalement, ce qu’on demanderait au Conseil, c’est de faire en sorte que, avant d’adopter de nouvelles pratiques, revoyez le cadre réglementaire qui est déjà en place. Il y a beaucoup de mesures, tant dans le Code sur les services Internet que dans la Loi sur la concurrence que dans les lois provinciales en matière de protection du consommateur.

533 Simplement rajouter une écorce de plus dans cet éventail de réglementations là n’est pas nécessairement à l’avantage des consommateurs. Nous, Cogeco, comme entreprise régionale, on est fiers d’avoir de très bonnes relations avec nos clients. On met un accent très important sur le service client de proximité. Et, ce qu’on veut pouvoir faire, c’est de continuer d’avoir ces relations ténues avec nos clients sans nécessairement avoir une imposition de le faire d’une façon uniformisée, qui, à notre avis, va supprimer l’innovation et va supprimer la qualité de la relation qu’on a avec nos clients sur une base quotidienne.

534 Donc, on vous remercie beaucoup. Puis on vous souhaite une bonne audience publique.

535 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci beaucoup. And likewise, we would like to thank you as well.

536 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take break ‑‑ we will now break for lunch and resume at 1:00. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 55

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 00

537 THE SECRETARY: We will now hear the presentation from CAC Manitoba, Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, Harvest Manitoba, known as the Manitoba Coalition, who are appearing virtually. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

538 MR. KLASSEN: Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair, Members of the Panel, Commission staff. Thank you to the Commission for welcoming the Manitoba Coalition and permitting us to appear virtually in this important process.

539 On behalf of Manitoba consumers, the Manitoba Coalition is here to support the Commission’s proposed implementation of standardized consumer labeling and to highlight the importance of information about service quality and reliability, alongside price as important for monitoring, reporting, and sharing with consumers so that they can make important and informed decisions in the marketplace.

540 My name is Chris Klassen, I’m from the Public Interest Law Centre Legal Aid Manitoba. We are legal counsel to the Manitoba Coalition.

541 I’m joined today by Ms. Peggy Barker of the Board of Directors of the Manitoba Branch of the Consumer’s Association of Canada, and by Mr. Damon Johnston who is President of the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. Harvest Manitoba is also a proud and active coalition member, but was not able to send a representative to join us here today.

542 The Manitoba Coalition has two key points to make in our submissions before you this afternoon. After providing a brief introduction to the Coalition as an entity, we’ll highlight the strong support available for standardized consumer labeling, and also discuss the importance of consumer’s access to information about network performance, including as part of a standardized label.

543 The Manitoba Coalition will be familiar to the Commission from multiple past processes and hearings, including our last in person appearance before you in February of last year. And a number of the Commissioners before us today were also in the room with us at that time, and it’s good to see you again.

544 In all processes, the Manitoba Coalition is guided by consumer’s voices and independent evidence, and is consistently the only province specific coalition of consumer groups participating in Commission processes.

545 Briefly, the Manitoba Coalition consists of three Manitoba based non‑profit organizations, being CAC Manitoba, who are leaders in consumer advocacy and public education with an unwavering commitment to the rights and interests of Manitoba consumers. Harvest Manitoba, which is a network of food banks and support services feeding over 100,000 Manitobans each month, with a deep understanding of the needs and interests of low‑income and food insecure households in Manitoba. As well as the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, which is an active advocate and support organization working on behalf of Manitoba’s urban indigenous populations.

546 Together as the Manitoba Coalition, these organizations are active participants before this Commission and others, advocating on behalf of Manitoba consumers.

547 I’ll invite Ms. Barker of CAC Manitoba to speak to our next points. And for those following along, we’re now on slide four of the deck circulated previously.

548 MS. BARKER: Good morning.

549 For CAC Manitoba our starting point is always consumer rights and responsibilities. Consumers have a right to be informed, which requires that consumers receive adequate and timely information on matters that effect their interests, in formats which are accessible and intelligible to a broad and diverse audience.

550 Consumers also have a right to choose, and that choice must be meaningful. For informed decision making, consumers need adequate information about all options. The ability to compare and the ability to freely determine and act in accordance with their preferences.

551 Consumers also have a right to consumer education. Consumers have the right to information relevant to the decisions they must make, and they also have a responsibility to understand and act on the information provided by their service providers.

552 These rights ‑‑ this is slide number five. These rights and responsibilities strongly support the proposed implementation of a standardized broadband consumer label. A standardized consumer label presents all of the information consumers need to make a decision in a manner that is easily accessible, and which facilitates straightforward comparisons between products.

553 Consumers’ abilities to access this information and make these comparisons is necessary for informed decision making. A standardized consumer label makes informed decision making an accessible reality for all.

554 The consumer has ‑‑ excuse me. The Commission has acknowledged experience with standardized labelling in other sectors, and we highlight the recent report of our Manitoba Public Utilities Board, which adopted our Coalition’s recommendation that standardized consumer labelling be used to protect consumers’ interests in the payday loan and high‑cost credit marketplace in Manitoba.

555 MR. KLASSEN: Thank you, Ms. Barker.

556 We’ll invite Mr. Johnston to carry us forward from slide six. And Damon, it appears that you are muted. Sorry for interrupting.

557 MR. JOHNSTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. A pleasure to be here to speak to you today.

558 In order to make informed decisions, consumers need access to all relevant information. Manitoba Coalition’s consumer research makes it clear that when making decisions about an internet service, information about reliability and service quality is very important. We want to draw the Commission’s attention to consumer research prepared for a past proceeding, which is particularly applicable to questions now before the Commission.

559 In consumer research prepared for the wholesale high speed access proceeding shown on screen, the Manitoba Coalition found that price and reliability are the two most important factors informing consumer’s decision making in the home internet marketplace.

560 Price is the only deciding factor when there are multiple reliable options to choose from. This means that consumers will prioritize reliability over price and that reliability will drive decision making where there are few reliable options available. And we know that in certain parts of Manitoba this is a common experience.

561 Because information about reliability and service quality is so important for consumers, the Manitoba Coalition agrees that information about both reliability and service quality should be monitored, reported on, and addressed in a standardized consumer label. It is important to note, however, the targeted regulatory interventions like consumer labelling, the underlying issues of inadequate competition and growing market concentration.

562 Like consumers across Canada, Manitoba consumers occupy a disadvantaged position in the marketplace where a lack of competition deprives them of meaningful choice. Processes like these and the measures being considered by the Commission are very important. Standardized consumer labelling may be an important part of an effective regulatory response.

563 We have to keep in mind that these pressing problems are symptoms of the larger systemic problem of a lack of sufficient competition in the marketplace.

564 Thank you.

565 MR. KLASSEN: Thank you, Mr. Johnston. This is Chris Klassen speaking again, and I’m going to take a moment to respond to the Commission’s more recent questions about the utility of the oversubscription ratio as a metric before concluding our submissions and inviting comments.

566 As you’ve heard about this morning and as you would have read in our written submissions, the Manitoba Coalition has emphasized the importance for consumers of access to information about reliability when making choices in the marketplace. And our team certainly struggled earlier in this process with figuring out how to ensure that consumers could get information that would be relevant to their unique experience, given their service address and the particular complications that might be unique to infrastructure and service in their small specific region.

567 And the introduction of the idea of the oversubscription ratio as seen in submissions of others and in the recent appendix added to the record, for the Manitoba Coalition, certainly shows some promise. We do have a couple of caveats and cautions to note today, and I’ll proceed with those.

568 On a preliminary basis, the Manitoba Coalition identifies three limitations to the oversubscription metric, recognizing that it’s still a promising idea that there may be value in pursuing.

569 The first is that on its own, the oversubscription ratio may be an inadequate metric. We recognize that due to varying usage patterns, the number of subscribers in a neighbourhood or relying on a specific node, may or may not be correlated with traffic or download speeds at peak. And so it will be important to compliment information about oversubscription still with information about peak speeds, again at the neighbourhood level, so that consumers can assess not only whether or not ‑‑ whether they are contributing to oversubscription, but also whether that’s compounded by high usage by their neighbours.

570 Second, the Manitoba Coalition is not familiar enough with the metric as it has been tracked in Manitoba to assess accuracy. But we caution, and again this is in the record before the Commission in multiple past proceedings, that many residents of rural and remote parts of Manitoba live in regions with extremely low population density and continually face challenges in accessing reliable service.

571 And there is some speculation involving this comment, but given the population density of many parts of Manitoba, we would be surprised to hear that those regions would be over subscribed. And at the same time, we know that those consumers face reliability challenges, and so there is some learning to do there for the Manitoba Coalition and some important points for the Commission to pay attention to with respect to the purposes for which it refers to the oversubscription ratio and the reliability of the information that is put in to determining it. Because we know that there is low reliability in low density, low population density parts of Manitoba, which suggest that oversubscription may not be the only factor contributing to network reliability.

572 Second, a practical consideration simply recognizes that a consumer would need to enter their service address in order to access information at the neighbourhood level, and this would of course need to be available to consumers when interacting with providers on the phone or online or in person. And given that reality, we suggest that there would also be value in an independent source of this information, which could be through a tool on the Commission’s website.

573 And lastly, the Commission as well as other parties, including those who have presented today, we think have rightly identified communication challenges as something requiring consideration if the Commission moves ahead with reliance on oversubscription rations. We suggest, however, that consumers should not be underestimated and that these barriers can be overcome.

574 Manitoba Coalition member organizations have extensive experience in consumer education and offer three guiding principles for the Commission’s consideration when planning this public education exercise so that consumers can use and rely on the oversubscription ratio as a valuable tool.

575 One is that that’s important to rely on multiple means and methods of communication, recognizing that consumers learn differently.

576 Two is that messaging should be repetitive, constant, and consistent, recognizing that consumers may be exposed to this over time, and over time develop a better understanding of the metric, and also recognizing that we are not necessarily making decisions in this marketplace on a regular basis, so that when a consumer accesses information to make a decision today, and then again perhaps two or three years down the road, in both of those instances they will have access to information they need in order to properly interpret an oversubscription ration in their decision‑making.

577 And finally, that there should be monitoring and testing in place, to make sure that consumers are properly understanding the information and responding accordingly. This can be achieved through testing and workshopping and proposed messaging, but also with monitoring over time to make sure that consumers are understanding and responding to the information being provided.

578 And, for example, if oversubscribed neighbourhoods remain, so that could tell us something either about the effectiveness of the oversubscription ratio as a metric, or about the effectiveness of the supporting communications exercise, or about a persistent lack of choice for customers in that particular neighbourhood. And we welcome questions from the Commission on that point and others.

579 At slide 8, we have provided a very high‑level recap of the recommendations provided earlier in the Coalition’s written submissions. I won’t spend time on these in our oral remarks today, but they’re available for reference in the subsequent discussion, if needed.

580 And finally, on slide 9, I’ll invite Ms. Barker to offer thanks on behalf of the Coalition.

‑‑‑ Pause

581 THE SECRETARY: You are on mute.

582 MR. KLASSEN: If I could interrupt you, Peggy ‑‑ thank you.

583 MS. BARKER: Sorry about that. On behalf of the Manitoba Coalition, thank you for your time and attention. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process and we welcome any questions you may have.

584 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Well, I think it is us who should be thanking you. So, let me do that on behalf of the Commission. You have been generous with your time in appearing before us today, as well as preparing your submissions.

585 So, we’ll jump right into questions, starting with Commissioner Naidoo.

586 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for appearing before us today. We really appreciate it.

587 I am going to start off with a question about the information that’s already available out there. Many ISPs, as you have probably seen from reading the submissions for this hearing, and maybe even from tuning in this morning, have said that they already offer consumers what they need without overwhelming them with too much information.

588 So, I am wondering whether you think that key information is indeed sufficiently being passed on to consumers?

589 MR. KLASSEN: Thank you for the question, Commissioner Naidoo. This is Chris Klassen, for the Manitoba Coalition.

590 I’ll provide brief comments in response, after which I will invite Ms. Barker and Mr. Johnston to chime in as I expect they will have value to add as well.

591 We certainly don’t dispute the fact that providers offer information about the services that are available. The purpose of the discussion today, however, is to ask ourselves whether that information is sufficiently accessible, and whether there are opportunities to make that information more accessible and more useful to consumers, in how it is presented.

592 We will refer the Commission’s attention ‑‑ and this isn't before you on screen today or in our slides, but the Commission will recall that the Manitoba Coalition conducted independent consumer research in support of its interventions in the ‘Making It Easier’ series of consultations, and that information was filed on the record of this process as well as the other three also initiated at the end of the 2024 calendar year.

593 And at page 16 of that report, you will see that only between a quarter and a third of Manitoba consumers considered themselves to understand the terms and conditions of their home internet contract very well. Nearly half only said ‘somewhat well’, and the remainder said ‘not very well’ or ‘not well at all’.

594 And we recognize that there are somewhat stronger metrics in response to a similar question in the Commission’s research, but the fact that we are seeing these responses coming from Manitoba suggest to us that there are gaps that need to be filled, and that the Commission has an opportunity to fill those gaps through packaging much of the same information that’s available today in a way that’s more accessible and readily identifiable for consumers. And, as was noted this morning by Ms. Barker, this is an approach that has seen success in other sectors, and that we expect would be valuable for consumers in this sector as well.

595 I will pause there and invite any further contributions from Ms. Barker and Mr. Johnston.

596 MS. BARKER: This is Peggy Barker. I would like to make a comment that this morning, in listening to some of the comments from the previous intervenors, I was struck by a similarity to back in 1974, I worked for Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada as a textile labeling specialist, and this was just several years after the Textile Labeling Act, which required standardized labeling on consumer products that were made of textiles.

597 And in doing inspections in the factories here in Winnipeg, I heard comments very similar to the comments that were being made this morning about this would be very expensive and very difficult for the industry in Manitoba to implement, to make sure that there were labels on every single textile item. And yet, you know, now ‑‑ 50 years later ‑‑ we do have standardized textile labeling.

598 And the comment about the experience in the States being that standardized labeling wasn’t being used is, I think, dependent on how long the labeling has been available and how much the individual consumers know to be able to access and assess the information, because that was certainly the experience in terms of textile labeling.

599 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. I think we have covered off that question sufficiently.

600 I’d like to move to pricing clarity. The Internet Code, as you already know, requires clarity of offers and prices specifically, but some say pricing clarity can be improved. So, I’m wondering if you can answer, first of all, do you think it can be improved? And, how do you think it can be improved?

601 MR. KLASSEN: Thanks for the question. The specific issue of pricing clarity did not emerge as a prominent complaint in the Manitoba Coalition’s consumer research, but based on the member organizations; observation and engagement with consumers in the marketplace, a couple of the metrics proposed in the sample consumer label, we expect would address the issues that we’ve heard about to date, primarily related to differences between price at point of signing compared to price, for example, six months later when promotional rates may end.

602 And so, making the cost per time period clear to consumers and identifying the relationship to the services provided, and clearly identifying any promotional pricing that might be at play, finally as well as adequate warning of any ends to the term of promotional pricing, we expect would be valuable for consumers in the kind of tool that the Commission is considering.

603 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

604 I would like to move on to clarity right now, and contract length. The Internet Code, as you know, precludes changes to pricing during a contract term, but it requires ISPs to notify customers about price changes after the contract period concludes. It also requires that time‑limited discounts be explained in the offer and also in the contract. Even so, though, internet customers still raised concerns over a lack of clarity of contract lengths and price certainty, as you’ve probably seen.

605 And I’m wondering how you think the Commission should require ISPs to improve the clarity of contract periods for consumers? How do you think we could take a look at that?

606 MR. KLASSEN: Subject to any additions from Ms. Barker and Mr. Johnston, I think we’ll refer the Commission back to the principles guiding best practice public education that were referenced in our written submissions. We don’t dispute the fact that, in many or most cases, providers are complying with that Internet Code requirement and providing the requisite information to their customers, but the fact that there are persistent challenges faced by consumers in accessing and understanding that information tells us that that’s not good enough.

607 And so, when CAC Manitoba draws on its expertise to recommended to the Commission that it consider repetitive, consistent, ongoing messaging by multiple means and methods, these are ways that have proven track records at addressing some of these information gaps, recognizing that simply making information available is not always sufficient to allow consumers in every circumstance to access it, to internalize it, and to make decisions based on it.

608 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you.

609 Moving to the oversubscription ratio, which you touched on in your opening remarks, I wanted to just dive down into that a little bit more. The Commission has identified the oversubscription ratio, as you know, as a promising metric to address the various challenges identified on the record: number one, because it’s inexpensive for ISPs to report since they control the provisioning; number two, it exists independent of any static peak usage times; and then, number three, it’s a single, simple number for consumers to compare between services to determine the susceptibility of internet offerings to network congestion, for example.

610 So, my question to you is, would requiring the disclosure of the oversubscription ratio, in your view, be a reasonable proxy for consumers to determine which service is likely to offer the experience that they expect?

611 MR. KLASSEN: I’ll note that the Manitoba Coalition are consumer advocates and not technical analysts, and that our learning about the oversubscription ratio has been a relatively recent undertaking, through this process, but if the link between oversubscription ratio and reliability is certain, then yes, the Manitoba Coalition today is in favour of the oversubscription ratio being relied on in the way proposed by the Commission.

612 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. So, you touched a bit on the next part of that question. The fact that you just familiarized yourself quite recently with the oversubscription ratio ‑‑ you’re saying that you’re new to the whole idea of it ‑‑ so, obviously you’re not alone. We’re talking about Canadian consumers en masse ‑‑ you’re not going to be the only ones that this is a new concept to.

613 So, I’m wondering then, with your recent understanding of what the oversubscription ratio means, how would we explain that to the masses of consumers out there in a very simplified, contextualized way? Do you have any ideas?

614 MR. KLASSEN: I’ll begin, and I expect there will be others in the room to follow up, but as an initial comment, I will note that, as much as it technical, it’s also not a foreign concept. In our preparation discussions over the past week, an immediate connection was made between the telecommunications oversubscription ratio and the experience of an airline overbooking a flight. These are common consumer experiences and there are multiple ways for the Commission to connect this concept to everyday concepts that consumers are familiar with.

615 And a couple of the ideas that came up in our informal conversations included a graphic displaying a sliding scale, a ‑‑ for example, a Commission‑sanctioned classification system by which oversubscription ratios could be categorized to give consumers a sense of risk. These are a couple of our ideas, but underlying this conversation were the recommendations from the Manitoba Coalition earlier on that there are best practice methods in place and available to the Commission in identifying how consumers can best access this information, including through testing and workshopping communication tools, and also through keeping in mind again that repetitive, consistent, ongoing message.

616 I will invite further comments from Ms. Barker and Mr. Johnston, before concluding.

617 MS. BARKER: I would like to make a comment. This is Peggy Barker.

618 Provision of information is a consumer right, but so is education, and education is how to use the information. And I think there is a need then to explain the oversubscription and how it impacts their services and how to best assess it. I think that is a responsibility of the service provider, as well as providing the information.

619 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: And would you agree that it should be a less technical way of describing it? Or do you have any tangible ideas as to how we would get this concept across to consumers ‑‑ grass‑roots consumers who don’t come from a background where they might understand the technicalities surrounding it?

620 MS. BARKER: I think Chris Klassen ‑‑ the concept of beginning an explanation with something that is more familiar as a comparison, and information on how oversubscription would affect an individual’s access to the internet.

621 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. And the other gentleman ‑‑ I think you wanted to jump in too. And your mic is on ‑‑ we’re good, thanks.

622 MR. JOHNSTON: So, yes. A couple of comments. So, as a leader in the urban Indigenous community in Winnipeg in Manitoba, groups in society are different in some ways and have some greater challenges in parts of our system than others. And for Indigenous peoples, since I got involved with the Coalition, I’ve learned quite a bit about the participation of our leaders in these kinds of engagements, and then, you know, it’s not where it needs to be.

623 And so, Peggy mentioned education of consumers, and that’s a huge issue within the Indigenous community as a whole. And then, when you combine that with some of the things we know ‑‑ we have some of the highest rates of illiteracy, we have some of the highest rates of poverty in Canada, you know, 80 percent of us now live off reserve in cities.

624 So, there’s a lot of work ahead for the Council and other Indigenous organizations to seek resources to be able to deliver educational programs of this nature in our communities and slowly and steadily raise the level of awareness of these kinds of issues within our communities.

625 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for raising that. I really appreciate it.

626 I want to talk about speeds. One of the ways to help consumers figure out the speeds that they really need is to include information on what sort of activities a certain speed can support, and currently certain ISPs provide this type of contextualizing information in different ways, but not in a single, easily comparable way.

627 So, I’m wondering, you know, different services like streaming services, for example ‑‑ they actually tell consumers what minimum speed is required to use that service. Do you think it would make sense to require ISPs to disclose something similar ‑‑ the maximum number of users for key services? I’m wondering if you have an opinion on that?

628 MR. KLASSEN: Ms. Barker, do you care to respond?

629 MS. BARKER: Thank you. Yes, I think that kind of information would be relevant because it doesn’t really matter how many customers there are on a node if they’re all using, or none of them using high‑speed requirements like gaming and streaming movies and that kind of thing. So, I think people also need to have information about high levels of usage on a node.

630 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Did somebody else want to jump in on that, or are we good?

631 MR. KLASSEN: I will simply note ‑‑

632 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Sure.

633 MR. KLASSEN:  ‑‑ that the information that you reference when the consumer is making a decision about whether to sign up for a streaming service, for example, is valuable for them at that point in time when they’re making that marketplace decision. Comparable information about the adequacy of a service would similarly be important to them when they’re making a decision in the home internet marketplace.

634 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that.

635 All right. I want to talk about labels. We touched on it a little bit, but I want to dive down a little bit more specifically into the issues surrounding labels ‑‑ standardized labels.

636 I guess the real question here is, how much information is too much in fact? Consumers ‑‑ some people say consumers are getting enough information now. Some people say that consumers aren’t getting enough in fact. Obviously, we want to make sure that we know what should be included. We don’t want to over‑inundate consumers with information. So, I’m wondering how we ensure that what really matters to consumers is being imparted to consumers, and not technical things that matter to ISPs, for example. I’m wondering if you have any vision in your mind as to how we can ensure that the information that is being put out there is information that consumers can actually use ‑‑ that’s specific to what they need. Do you have any suggestions surrounding that?

637 MR. KLASSEN: The Manitoba Coalition would certainly agree there is such a thing as too much information on a consumer label, and that was certainly a part of their conversation before the Manitoba Public Utilities Board in the recent hearing on payday loan rates and high‑cost credit products. And you will see that informing their responses to the Commission’s questions as well, filed as Appendix A to their intervention back in February.

638 And the Manitoba Coalition will stand by their submission in response to Question 3, which identified four key subject matters as most important for consumer decision‑making, being all‑in price, broken down into one‑time fees and monthly fees, including taxes; the services included in the contract; equipment device fees; and, information about service quality and reliability related to networker service speed.

639 Recognizing that concepts like oversubscription ratio, for example, will differ widely in services available in Manitoba, and recognizing that that’s tracked on a neighbourhood level, it might be appropriate for the consumer label not necessarily to include all information relevant to a consumer’s decision‑making, but only the most important ones, and include links or references to send consumers to the appropriate place to access the rest of the information they might need.

640 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Well, you offered me a segue into my next question.

641 When you’re talking about links, that’s presupposing a certain place for these labels to be offered; right? And I’m wondering then, let’s flesh out your answer a little bit more. How do you think these labels should be provided to consumers? Should they be pre‑sale? Should they be post‑sale? Should they be digital, physical, both? Available upon request? I’m just going to throw some things out there ‑‑ and not the least of which is, of course, ASL. I mean, what thoughts do you have on how it should be provided?

642 MS. BARKER: If I could jump in there? In comparison to nutrition labelling or textile labeling, which I am more familiar with maybe, pre‑ and post‑sale are both necessary. And I think, given that every consumer learns or retains information in different ways, it needs to be provided digitally and in print.

643 I think the availability of access to interpretation of the information, both pre and post, is also necessary.

644 Thank you.

645 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for that.

646 Let's talk specifically what you would like to see on the label. You talked a bit about prices, the basic price and then the ‑‑ you know, minus the discounts. What about contract terms, things like that, things other than pricing?

647 Are there things that you think need to be on that label and like do you have a short list of information that you think ‑‑ like certain amount of information that you think needs to be on that label?

648 MR. KLASSEN: Thank for the question.

649 And though not in the form of a short list, I think that information is available in the submissions. And to summarize it today, consumers need to know what they’re getting, for how much money, and whether it’ll meet their needs. And that can be with respect to, you know, information about price, services, what’s included and what’s not.

650 And with respect to speed and reliability, we recognize that much of that information is often technical and it could be an interesting challenge for the Commission to respond to develop communication tools, whether graphics or metrics that consumers can understand, or appropriate consumer education approaches to make that information accessible.

651 And similarly, this might come into the conversation about the adequacy of speed for certain services. You know, consumers might be looking for a service that can facilitate streaming or only email and web‑based news, for example.

652 Those are some of the easy concepts for consumers to understand that might be ‑‑ might also be easy to represent in a simplified format in a label.

653 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for answering all of my questions.

654 That’s all I have, but I know my colleagues have a lot of questions as well. Thank you.

655 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo.

656 We’ll go next to Commissioner Paquette.

657 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, and welcome. Thank you for your participation.

658 You say that you base your recommendations on independent evidence and consumer researches. In fact, you referred to some research in your presentation which is, by the way, very appreciated. But you must be aware that prior to the beginning of this consultation, the Commission proceeded to a public opinion research on the transparency of the information provided to broadband consumers. And the research shows that 72 percent of the respondents say they feel either very or moderately knowledgeable about what to look for in purchasing home internet services. And on the issue of comparison, 22 percent are dissatisfied with their ability to compare the offers.

659 So some intervenors argue that it’s the proof that there’s no real problem, and I was wondering, first of all, how do you react to the result of this survey and can you tell us more about the factors that would make the result of this study different from your studies on your side and what would be relevant that is not into this study that we should be taking into account and that makes the difference between your results and the Commission’s results?

660 MR. KLASSEN: I expect Ms. Barker will be keen to respond to at least the first part of your question and I’ll be happy to follow up.

661 MS. BARKER: What I was thinking as you were asking your question is where was the survey done and it strikes me that 20 percent of dissatisfaction is a fairly high number as opposed to 70 percent being satisfied. And if those 20 percent were more highly representative of people in rural and remote areas, I think that would be really an issue.

662 Certainly here in Manitoba, the experience that people in rural and remote areas have with internet provision is quite different from people in ‑‑ within the cities. So I think I would question just how the survey was done and look more deeply into what that represented.

663 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Because you think we could have different results depending on the region where ‑‑

664 MS. BARKER: Yes.

665 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ we are.

666 Okay. I understand.

667 And are there any factors, you think, that would explain the difference that we should take into account?

668 MS. BARKER: Whether it is a wireless or cable and the extend to which the ‑‑ it is being used. Friends that live in rural Manitoba before they switched to Starlink would have ‑‑ commented that at night, you know, when people got home from school or from work, there would be a lot more use and they were ‑‑ would have really slow or unreliable contacts.

669 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

670 MR. KLASSEN: If I could follow up with an additional response.

671 To answer your first question, yes, the Manitoba Coalition is aware of and familiar with the Commission’s independent consumer research. The Manitoba Coalition designed its consumer research specifically responding to Notices of Consultation 2024 293, 294 and 295, which were released a few weeks before this one, but we were happy to see some alignment between our work and the Commission’s work when this process was initiated in early December.

672 And I think the most important distinction to draw in the information that you’re highlighting in your question is that the Commission’s figure combines the ‑‑ what, in the Manitoba Coalition’s work, are two separate categories. And so we certainly appreciate the Commission’s research indicating that in the range of 70 percent of consumers find themselves with at least an adequate understanding of their contract information.

673 Looking to the Manitoba Coalition’s research, however, distinguishing between those who understand very well and only somewhat well, only 26 percent of respondents, hardly over a quarter, indicated that they understood their internet contract terms very well. And when it’s nearly half saying that they only understand it somewhat well as well as the remainder saying they don’t understand it well at all suggests to us that the gap is larger than the 70 some‑odd percent figure from the Commission’s research suggests.

674 And the other point that we think is important to keep in mind is that even if it only a 20 or 30 percent margin needing support in making informed decisions in the marketplace, those 20 or 30 percent of consumers are relying on this Commission for support.

675 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I understand. Basically, you’re saying we shouldn't look at the somewhat well, but look at the consumers who understand very well the subscription information.

676 And maybe one last question. You also commented briefly on the FCC label. From what I understood, you’re saying that it might be a question of time before we see the result because we don’t have many results right now from this experience. And the U.S. is the only country who implemented the label.

677 I was wondering, are you aware of any post‑implementation studies that have been carried out regarding the impact of the FCC label or not or, if yes, can you tell us more about the findings?

678 MR. KLASSEN: The Manitoba Coalition isn’t aware of post‑implementation studies done with respect to the FCC’s work. We were simply highlighting the fact that the implementation of a similar tool in the food industry and in the textile industry, as we heard today, is recognized across sectors as an effective and valuable consumer tool.

679 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. No more questions.

680 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Paquette.

681 Let's go to Commissioner Desmond, please.

682 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good afternoon. I have a couple of questions on your Appendix A that is in response to the Commission’s questions in the Notice of Consultation.

683 So if I could just take you there for a moment, I wanted to turn first to page 6. And it’s the Commission Question 6.

684 And in the response that you provided, you talked about a reliability score, so rather than complex details, latency, jitter, for example, you suggested a simplified reliability score.

685 My colleague had asked you about contextual information as it related to the use of the internet, so does the service you purchase support, you know, gaming or video streams, but I think maybe what you’re suggesting here is slightly different, a reliability score.

686 So I’m wondering if you could just take a minute to expand on what you’re suggesting there.

687 MR. KLASSEN: Certainly. And thank you for the question.

688 That idea comes, I think, primarily from the Manitoba Coalition’s experience participating in regulatory processes related to Manitoba’s Crown‑owned hydroelectric utility, Manitoba Hydro. And from that context, the Manitoba Coalition is aware of standardized metrics used by utilities across Canada for sure and we think into the States as well about grid reliability, and those track the frequency and duration of electric outages. And those are valuable tools for regulators in tracking the improvements or regressions in grid reliability over time.

689 And that idea applied here might be a value for the Commission to develop a standardized tool for monitoring outages, whether duration or frequency or other metrics. You know, from the Coalition’s perspective, duration and frequency are two important things to keep in mind when assessing the reliability of a network, but that’s the idea underpinning the reliability score, that there should be some way to communicate to consumers information that aggregates broader experience tracked over time.

690 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

691 And then my second question is at page 12 of that same Appendix A. And again, it’s Question 12.

692 And the question is about measurements for rural, remote and regional differences in performance and I just wondered if you could add a little bit of colour to your response because I heard the exchange with my colleague about yes, we need to account for regional differences and rural customers and how the rural experience is quite a bit different than the urban experience, but in the response, I think you suggest maybe we don’t need to account for regional differences.

693 So I’m just wondering if you could speak to that.

694 MR. KLASSEN: Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. I’m not surprised that this came up and I think it comes down to differing interpretations of the question.

695 It’s a reality of the Manitoba consumer experience that service quality and reliability differs by region and in some places on a relatively small scale such as the neighbourhood or node level. And the Manitoba Coalition believes strongly that information about what a consumer’s own experience will be like is important and valuable for their decision‑making. And if there are metrics such as the over‑subscription ratio on a neighbourhood level that can be available to help a consumer understand what their experience will be like as informed by their geographic location, then that’s valuable and important for consumers to have.

696 And I think what the Manitoba Coalition was trying to avoid in its response to Question 12 was an approach by which a blanket statement of reliability over a broad region that accounts for or takes into account the diversity of service quality within that region would not be a granular enough approach to be of value for consumers.

697 So a general reliability score for Manitoba or for southern Manitoba or even for Winnipeg should be avoided, and that’s the point the Coalition was trying to make here in the response to number 12.

698 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. That clarifies. Thank you very much.

699 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner.

700 Let's go to Commissioner Abramson, please.

701 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. Thanks for being here, as my colleagues have said, at least virtually.

702 You’ve spoken ‑‑ I was intrigued, you know, a few times about the importance of repetitive and frequent explanations and communications as to how all this works in order to ensure consumers are well informed and you’ve spoken in particular about the role of CRTC about the role of the ISPs in performing that repetitive and frequent communication.

703 Of course, there’s a broader information ecosystem. You know, there are consumer groups like yours and consumer magazines like “Protégez‑Vous”, trade publications and, you know, third‑party shopper sites like Plan Hub and Whistle Out and so on. To what extent ought we take them into account?

704 To what extent ought we take the broader information ecosystem into account in thinking about how to achieve, if we do think we ought to achieve, that repetitive and frequent communication that you’re talking about?

705 MR. KLASSEN: Ms. Barker, do you care to lead a response?

706 MS. BARKER: Thank you.

707 There is certainly a responsibility for the education beyond the ISP, but the information that is provided by other parties depends on adequate and clear, concise information provided by the internet itself.

708 The provision by the ISP of information in a variety of ways that is correct is what is needed even if we expect some provision of education by third parties. The information given by the third parties needs to be correct, and that’s the responsibility, I would say, of the provider.

709 MR. KLASSEN: To summarize, if I might, I think the Manitoba Coalition would see the tools you’ve mentioned as potentially valuable complementary tools to a Commission‑led public education exercise, recognizing that the Commission is ultimately responsible for consumers’ interests in the marketplace and also the Commission has the tools at its disposal to monitor and track over time the extent to which communications activities are effective.

710 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks.

711 And I was intrigued by your answer here as well. I mean, you know, Ms. Barker, forgive me if I’m mischaracterizing. It sounded like you’re almost distinguishing between the raw data or information from ISPs as to their activities and sort of the activity of placing context or building knowledge around it. Is that a fair summary?

712 MS. BARKER: I think I would characterize it as the difference between information and education, yes, that the information needs to be correct, it needs to be available, and how it is presented is the education piece. And that can be done much more broadly by third parties as well as the Commission and the providers.

713 But you need to start with the correct information that can be compared across providers.

714 Thank you.

715 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

716 We’ve expressed some ‑‑ you know, we’ve had a number of questions relating to the trade‑off between complexity and consumer ability to understand. Is what you’re talking about ‑‑ is that role for third parties one of the ways in which we can kind of square that circle?

717 MS. BARKER: I think that would be fair, yes. And part of the issue is that not all consumers process information in the same way or are able to access information in the same way. It has to be done ‑‑ the provision of information and education needs to be done in a variety of formats.

718 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: All right. I’ll stop there. Thank you very much. That’s interesting.

719 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for answering our questions this afternoon.

720 As is our usual practice, we’d like to pass the mic back to you for any final thoughts.

721 MR. KLASSEN: Thank you, Mr. Vice‑Chair.

722 I’ll invite final thoughts from Ms. Barker and Mr. Johnston first.

723 Sorry to interrupt. Peggy, I think you’re still muted.

724 MS. BARKER: Thanks. Sorry about that.

725 Thanks for the opportunity to take part in the hearings today. And I think as we move forward in an increasingly complex marketplace and industry, it becomes increasingly important to provide the information for the consumer in a way that is accessible and equally available.

726 Thank you.

727 MR. KLASSEN: Mr. Johnson?

728 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. Well, ever since ‑‑ and it hasn't been that long ago that the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg joined the Coalition, and my own experience has been a powerful one in the sense that I came into this whole exercise knowing very little at all about any of this, so it’s been a real learning curve but, ultimately, valuable to our community.

729 And how that translates is I take the information that I hear in these hearings and I share that with other organizations in our community, but it also lends itself to some better strategic thinking about future activities of Indigenous leaders and organizations in terms of enhancing ‑‑ doing things that will enhance, increase our participation in Canada’s opportunities to bring positive changes in any of these given areas.

730 So it’s very encouraging, and I thank the Commission and the Coalition for enabling us to be here.

731 MR. KLASSEN: And I’ll conclude simply by thanking the Commission for your time and attention.

732 THE CHAIRPERSON: Likewise, we would like to thank you. You’ve been very generous with your time and we wish you all the best.

733 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

734 We will take a break and resume at 2:10. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 13 h 59

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 13

735 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation from Deaf Wireless Canada Committee.

736 Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

737 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Hello. My name is Jeff Beatty. I am the Chairperson of the Deaf Wireless Canada Committee.

738 Lisa?

739 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): Hello, everyone. I am Lisa Anderson. I am Past Chairperson. It’s nice to be back today. And today I am here in the capacity of a Consultant.

740 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): Hello, my name is Jessica Sergeant. I am also a Consultant.

741 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): I would like to open the discussion.

742 Good afternoon, Commissioners, Commission staff, fellow stakeholders. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and contribute meaningfully to the Telecommunications Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024‑318 proceeding.

743 Deaf Wireless Canada advances the full inclusion of Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing Canadians in all aspects of the telecommunications system. Our work is rooted in the principle of communication equity and guided by a strong Accessibility Lens, a framework that ensures accessibility is integrated from the start, not added as an afterthought.

744 The definition of the Accessibility Lens is it’s a practical tool that helps policymakers and program designers assess how decisions impact persons with disabilities. When applied to internet services, it reveals persistent structural barriers such as inaccessible information, limited customer service, unclear labels, data caps that restrict communication and inaccessible complaint systems.

745 The CRTC 2023 Policy Direction, particularly sections 2(d) and 17(c), mandate the proactive identification and removal of accessibility barriers. These are not aspirational values; they are binding regulatory obligations as ISED recommendation under section 8 of the Telecommunications Act.

746 Jessica?

747 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): This is reinforced by the Accessible Canada Act, or the ACA. Under section 5, American Sign Language and langue des signes québécoise and Indigenous Sign Language are recognized as the primary languages of Deaf People in Canada.

748 Access to internet services in sign language is a legal right, not a courtesy. The Consumer Code must embed support for sign languages at every consumer touchpoint, ensuring that Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing Canadians as equal participants in the digital economy are built into the foundation and not added after the fact.

749 Lisa?

750 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): Deaf Wireless Canada supports a Canadian version of the FCC’s broadband nutrition label but only if it’s built in from the start through a Canadian accessibility lens. Labels must be available at every stage of the consumer journey ‑‑ plan shopping, selection, support and complaints.

751 For the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing community, shopping is not just about comparing price and speed, but it’s a question: Can this plan support accessible communication? For example: Can I make a clear video call without throttling or pixelation? Will Zoom work smoothly to teach ASL or attend a job interview?

752 Those are very important.

753 Or, for example, in an emergency situation, can I reach 9‑1‑1 through Video Relay Services without freezing or dropped calls, particularly in an emergency?

754 Deaf Wireless Canada calls for broadband labels that are: visual and icon‑based; delivered in ASL and LSQ via QR codes or embedded video; written in plain language; and compatible with screen readers and tactile devices for the DeafBlind and Braile.

755 Labels must reflect real‑world usabilities, not just technical specs. Consumers need clarity, for example, a feature availability chart with checkmarks that show accessibility, good support to allow for High Definition video calls, to enable three different participants, for example, a sign language interpreter. If you are making a video remote call or using Video Relay Service, that is required.

756 Have a chart that displays whether or not the service is available or supported.

757 Jeff?

758 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): The Deaf Wireless Canada Committee recommends that the Commission mandate the following five key performance metrics on every broadband label.

759 First, download and upload speeds, actual, not advertised. For example, 100 Megabytes per second or 100 to 200 or more data usage per month. Latency. Jitter. Packet loss or uptime and reliability.

760 Critically, no throttling and no data caps. Lag and pixelation are accessibility barriers, not minor inconveniences. Without reliable high‑speed service, Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing users are shut out of essential communications.

761 Oversubscription ratios and low upload speeds do not account for this evolving reality. Deaf Wireless Canada Committee urges the Commission to require ISPs to disclose device‑load assumptions behind their service offerings and adopt an Accessibility Lens that reflects the communication needs of modern households, not outdated singular‑user assumptions.

762 There are three key accessibility gaps that still block equitable access. Those are accessibility plans, promotions and outreach and complaint systems.

763 Jessica?

764 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): For many DeafBlind, Deaf and Hard of Hearing consumers, home Wi‑Fi is a communication lifeline. They use it for Video Relay Services to communicate directly via video in ASL and LSQ. Yet today, internet accessibility plans are rare to non‑existent. And if they do exist, they are hard to find, poorly labelled or buried deep in provider websites.

765 If the data plan has caps or is throttled, that means basic communication becomes impossible. We recommend that the CRTC require unlimited high‑data internet accessibility plans tailored to the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing users; also clear, easy‑to‑find information about accessibility features and eligibility. Plans must be visible, trackable and built into comparison tools.

766 Lisa?

767 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): We hear this often. “We held an information session, we provided interpreters, but no Deaf people came.” But when you look closer, there were no ASL or LSQ promotions, no accessibility materials and no promotion within the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing networks.

768 The outreach and promotion hasn’t been made.

769 The issue isn’t a lack of interest. It is lack of access. Deaf consumers go to the stores, for example, and have no access to interpreters in order to communicate. There is no signage in ASL or LSQ. There is no mention of available or accessible or discounted plans.

770 If we don’t know a plan exists, how can we choose it?

771 Promotions must be clearly labelled as accessible or affordable, available in ASL and LSQ via video and signage, promoted through channels that reach Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing stakeholder groups.

772 As we say: “If you build it, we won’t come unless you make it accessible and tell us in our language.”

773 When it comes to accessibility gaps and the complaint systems, many Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing do not use CCTS, not because there are no problems ‑‑ there are issues and challenges ‑‑ but because that system currently the way it’s established is not accessible.

774 Your current systems assume that everyone can hear, everyone can speak, you can read and write in complex English and can navigate formal complaint forms and paperwork.

775 But for the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing, that isn’t true. The system isn’t built with us in mind, not because we don’t care but because, as much as we would like to, there is no access in order for us to participate.

776 Equity is not achieved by simply offering access. It’s achieved when people can actually find it, understand it, use it, and especially in our language and on equal terms.

777 Deaf Wireless Canada Committee recommends direct ASL and LSQ video support for complaint intake; support for Video Relay Services; assistance to help fill out the complaint forms in ASL and LSQ; have live chat or video guides; and a 10‑day resolution process for any accessibility‑related complaints.

778 Regional equity and disparities. Broadband performance can vary dramatically between urban, rural and remote areas. A plan that works in downtown Montreal may be unusable for those in Nunavut or northern Manitoba.

779 For the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing consumers, these gaps aren’t just inconvenient. They are a communication cutoff. When service is poor, video calls fail, Video Relay Services break down and emergency access disappears.

780 We urge the Commission to ensure that broadband labels include regional performance, not just national averages; clearly state the technology type, whether it’s fibre, DSL, satellite or fixed wireless; provide visual maps and ASL and LSQ explanations to show the regional differences.

781 Why this matters. If a Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing consumer chooses a plan based on a national performance label but then finds it’s unusable in their community, that’s not an informed choice. It’s a systemic failure. Geographic equity must be built into every aspect of the broadband labelling. When your internet connection is your phone line, your classroom and your emergency lifeline, reliability is not optional. That’s why equity is not just good policy, it’s the cornerstone of accessibility.

782 Lisa?

783 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): Deaf Canada Wireless urges the Commission to fully integrate the outcomes of this proceeding into the Internet Code without delay, with no carve‑outs or ambiguous language, because when it comes to the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing consumer and community, consistency equals access.

784 Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing consumers rely on predictable, enforceable standards to navigate an already complex and often inaccessible telecommunications market.

785 If we have critical protections like broadband labels, ASL and LSQ delivery, or performance metrics are treated as optional, that creates confusion, unequal treatment and ultimately, exclusion by design.

786 The Deaf Wireless Canada Committee recommends to the Commission that the Internet Code be amended to include mandatory, standardized broadband labels for all providers; required delivery in ASL and LSQ plain language, icon‑based formats and screen reader compatibility should be mandatory. And enforced mechanisms, not suggestions.

787 If a Deaf consumer choosing a plan based on a label only to find out later that the provider wasn’t required to follow the same rules, this is not consumer protection. This is systemic failure. Clear, enforceable inclusion in the Internet Code ensures accessibility is not a patchwork but a uniform standard for equity across the industry.

788 The Deaf Wireless Canada Committee thanks CTA, or the former CWTA, for providing ASL and LSQ videos for the Wireless Code and Internet Code, but we have a problem. The Deaf Wireless Canada Committee, to improve accessibility and reuse, especially for the telecom websites, urges to have the ability to edit these to short terminology‑specific clips.

789 So to have access to this terminology makes it easier to find. We made a recommendation in 2024‑293, 294, and 295, to have these available, but it was refused. We used these videos to create short clip videos that we can share amongst the community. If they were made into individual short clips instead of playlists this would improve community engagement and reduce duplication across stakeholders. And that’s a good return on investment.

790 Jessica?

791 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): When it comes to the deaf, deaf blind, and hard of hearing, we’re not asking for special treatment, we’re asking for equal access intentionally designed with accessibility at the centre. The Deaf Wireless Canada Committee’s recommendations to the CRTC is to have accessibility by design, not accommodation, and this means to be proactive, not reactive. To have things built in, not bolted on. Enforced, not optional.

792 Jeff?

793 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): In closing, Commissioners, you should have a one‑page handout that elaborates on what accessibility by design not accommodation means. It summarizes our overall points of our presentation today.

794 Thank you, and the Deaf Canada Wireless Committee looks forward to working with the Commission for next steps towards digital equality for the deaf, deaf blind, and hard of hearing. Thank you.

795 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for being here. It’s always a pleasure to see the DWCC. I’m a bit of a slow learner, but every time you appear before us I learn a little bit more sign. Today it was throttling and I liked it very much. I’ll get there. I’m learning slowly.

796 For our questions we’ll turn to ‑‑

797 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Sorry. This is throttle.

798 THE CHAIRPERSON: Throttle.

799 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Throttle, yes. (laughter)

800 THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s very apt. so for our questioning, we’ll turn first to Commissioner Abramson.

801 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. And I appreciate you showing us the sign for throttle. It does put a different twist on the network neutrality debates we once had.

802 To start I’ll perhaps give you the opportunity to connect your presentation with an emerging conversation that we've had here today. Earlier we heard that nutrition labels may not be necessary, that ISPs already disclose all of the information that consumers need including consumers specialized needs.

803 We later heard suggestion that perhaps there is adoption curve for nutritional labels, so that even not taken up immediately, overtime they seep in and become part of an information ecosystem.

804 What is your view on this?

805 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): I think nutrition labels would be a very helpful guide that will allow us to access more information. It will ‑‑ it's important to understand that we need access in two ways through the ISPs, we must be able to have an understanding of what the download speed is.

806 You have to understand that the deaf community uses video calls in order for us to communicate, so it has to be understood from our perspective on the types of requirements that are needed for us to be able to access communication.

807 It's the same idea as having a limited voice plan, it limits what you can communicate. So a nutrition label will really allow us to have a clear focus on what is being offered, so the deaf community ‑‑ deaf, deaf blind community will be able to see what is being offered from each provider.

808 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): In response to your question, the deaf, deaf blind, and hard of hearing community are visual, they are a visual community, right? So having a nutrition label is a really, really nice snapshot of a few key points that are being offered.

809 So having the ability to add icons on to those nutrition labels, like a checkmark, so accessible plan, a check mark, these are services that are provided. And then also having a QR code that can be scanned and can be linked to maybe ASL or LSQ videos in order to be able to receive more information. So those are all things that can be included on a nutrition level that I think would be a nice establishment and precedent going forward.

810 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): And Jessica here.

811 I'd just like to provide one real life example. I am an ASL teacher, so I teach ASL classes and it's very important that I see my students. In the event that some videos are throttled, that means the students that have paid for my services are not able to learn because of the freezing. So that means there is a delay, disrupts my work, it disrupts my income by having these throttles and caps in place.

812 So if there is a nutrition label then that will allow me to choose a plan that will suit the needs of what it is that I needed it for. It's the same as if you're in your car and you go through a tunnel and you lose your call. That is the same idea of being throttled during an ASL class and not being able to reach the community that I'm working with. It's unacceptable, it can't happen. We cannot have persistent throttling or pixelation and buffering through our videos.

813 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): And Jeff here.

814 One other thing I just wanted to mention is you know, thanks to COVID, Zoom and digital platforms have become prevalent, and that has incredibly improved the quality of the deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf blind community. And the CRTC Commission has now prioritized the impacts a video and seeing how they can be beneficial for all.

815 So by having a nutrition label prioritized within this category, I think would be beneficial. So for shoppers to see what is available.

816 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

817 On this topic of nutrition labels first of all thank you for very fulsome reply, 80 pages. But I want to bring you to paragraphs 103 and 104 on page 20 of your reply, which I think summarize a number of themes. I’ll read them. You said that “broadband consume labels should be persistent and discoverable”. And you said that:

“Accessibility is not achieved by availability alone. It is achieved through consistency, discoverability, and diverse format support for deaf, deaf blind, and hard of hearing users. A persistent an inclusive label empowers independent decision making, dispute resolution and full participation in the telecommunications market. Presale access in terms of informed consent, post‑sale access ensures accountability. Both are necessary.” (As read)

818 I wanted to ask you a little bit about that. And I want to start with not nutrition labels themselves, but the same principles applied to critical information summaries, which are a preexisting very important piece of how we address some of the questions that we’re talking about today, because they include key price as well as some known price information.

819 Are critical information summary is available to deaf, deaf blind, and hard of hearing users in a way that meets these principles?

820 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): So persistent and non‑hidden information is something ‑‑ persistent, discoverable, and non‑hidden information seems to be buried in websites, and it must be in an accessible format. So we at DWCC, you know, we do have concerns when it comes particularly to videos and how those can be provided and accessed.

821 The reason is that our communication is ‑‑ must be prioritized on how we receive information. So DWCC would really like to reiterate that accessibility is not achieved by having something available alone. It’s only achieved by consistency. And we do recognize that the internet has improved. It has advanced. The upload speeds are increasing and we are starting to see more consistency across the board, all across Canada.

822 But I think it’s, you know, now we’re in 2025, I think at this point it should be consistent. It should be available all the way everywhere. And if there is a defined label that is available that can establish that baseline, then I think that there’s an opportunity here to collaborate on these guides that can be made available and what can be accessed.

823 When it comes to pre and post sale, I think that the information should be the same. There should be some collaboration and consistency, regardless of whether or not it’s pre or post sale. And I think that anything less ‑‑ so he’s asking for critical information. So anything less than a critical information summary. So he had asked about critical information summaries.

824 I’m sorry, can you repeat your question again, Commissioner?

825 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. I was asking about the degree to which critical information summaries fulfill these principles even before we get to nutritional labels.

826 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Okay. So critical information summaries are important. They should be available in video. There must be a level of access for communication that must be provided for these critical information summaries in order for us to guide our decisions.

827 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): I think what’s really important is that again, to reiterate, the deaf, deaf blind, hard of hearing community are visual individuals. So even if there was something, some universal standard icons that could be easily understood, I think that would be helpful and could apply regardless of whether or not it is in CIS or whether or not it’s on a nutrition label. And I think that therefore allows it to be accessible by design.

828 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks.

829 And does persistent availability mean that you could go and download it any time from a portal? I just ‑‑ I want to make sure I’ve well understood the principle.

830 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Download from a portal, we would ‑‑ okay.

831 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): So I think that it should be able to be accessed from whichever platform we have our account with. So whichever provider we are registered with, whichever ISP, when we go into our portal, we should be able to download that information and have access to it at any time. Yes.

832 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): And Jeff here.

833 Maybe to add on to that, yes, having access to that on the portal is important, even if it’s in the mobile app. Having the opportunity to download and access that information at any moment’s notice, is a very important feature. We must be able to access that, because a lot of the times, most of our lives are on our mobile devices and we always have it in hand, and having access to that would be able to provide an improvement in how we access information.

834 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And is that what you mean when you talk about post sale availability of nutritional labels? In other words, are we talking about the ability to access post sale what was promised presale, or on the contrary, are you talking about updated performance measures?

835 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Well, I think that it should be able to reflect across the board. Before, presale, you should be aware of the contract that you’re getting into and what to expect afterwards, and then have the comparison afterwards, whether or not you’re at home or on your mobile to check to see if what was agreed upon presale is matching the expectation post sale.

836 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

837 One of the questions that we’ve been asking different consumer groups and others, is about the trade off between complexity and ease of understanding. How should we square that circle in your view? You talked about making machine readable information available, and an earlier intervenor talked the potential contributions of third parties in providing context to information. Could these help?

838 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): So I can respond by an example. I have a deaf friend who teaches a class, an ASL class. And they had expressed some frustration to me about that the video quality was slow, it was laggy, there was pixilation. So I had asked, you know, what speed? I can’t recall what the response was. So they told me and I asked my partner, I said, this is the speed they have and they said, that’s way to low. It has to be increased.

839 So I asked my partner to join the conversation and they said it should be at least 500 megabytes, I can’t remember the exact number, but I’ll throw that out there. And they said, oh, I didn’t know, I didn’t know what was needed for me to be able to provide my ASL class. I didn’t know those were the minimum requirements. And that wasn’t clearly informed to my friend.

840 So they earn their money by teaching ASL classes. So it’s ‑‑ so you know, when she was shopping for her internet plan she was looking for what was the best price, but not necessarily what was the minimum requirements for what she needed it for. So she wished she had the opportunity to have that information explained to her in order for her to make an informed decision.

841 And I think that’s important to be able to receive that information in their natural language. And also, you know, I’m not a technical expert, so I don’t necessarily understand everything that is presented to me, so sometimes I need to ask someone to explain it to me so that I'm understanding and making decisions appropriately. So once we explained this my friend then they were able to do a bit more shopping in order to find a plan that was able to the needs of what it was that they were using it for.

842 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): So whether or not something is complex or experienced ‑‑ this is from Jeff ‑‑ I think that it comes again with ‑‑ we’re teaching.

843 So when it comes to complex or ease of information it's important to understand that there has to be a translation into plain language. Things can be explained in to simple language, into a summary about what the technical components are in order to be understood. And that's a skill in order to be able to provide that type of plain language summary. When something is complex, to be translated into an understandable format.

844 The technology jargon is very complex and to be able to make it understandable is really important, because it will allow the consumers of the ISPs in order to be able to know what it is, what they're providing, what they're purchasing, and be able to have service that is needed.

845 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): So based on what Jessica and Jeff have just mentioned, this is why it's really important that we have information accessible to us in ASL and LSQ, because if we don't understand it in the written format and we can click on link to have it explained to us in our natural language then you know, this is what we're using it for, this is the minimum speed it is required for me teach an ASL class. Then once that information is provided then I'm able to make an informed choice and choose the package based on that.

846 So having access to that in a signed video is really important. It's really important that the community are able to make an informed choice when they are package shopping.

847 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

848 Speaking of complex technical details, you a few times called for five key performance metrics. Down and upload speeds, latency, jitter, packet loss, and up time. As you may know in 2018 and 2019 the CRTC issued decisions setting up parameters for almost all of those criteria and how they are to be measured as part of our establishment a baseline for universal broadband service.

849 Would these be appropriate methodologies for measuring the metrics that you've talked about in your view?

850 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): It’s funny, I remember that. I think I was here. And I remember that there has, you know, been some changes. I remember the discussion and it was a fantastic discussion.

851 We were just seeing how fast the Internet and the digital landscape was evolving. There were baselines were established, and at the same time I was thinking, you know, I don't know that the video requirements are going to meet what was established. It's great that there was a baseline, but I think that it now needs to be updated to a particular level that will allow for two‑way video communication. Make sure that all the boxes are checked, make sure that the data is supported, to make sure that it is consistent and reliable.

852 It's important ‑‑ yes, so these five key areas are important, but again, these were established in 2018, we're in 2025 now. The landscape is quite different now, so I think it is time for an update. Much of Canada and much of the world is relying on video communication, so I think with that there does need to be some update in the wording because focus is on voice. It focuses mostly on voice calls, and it's noted in the Act, and again focusing on 2016.

853 So we now have the ACA, we now have policy directives that have been passed. We are now in 2025 and voice calls, you know, if that's the only thing that’s noted in that policy, it needs to be updated to include all types of communication including video.

854 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. That’s interesting and I’ll have to go back and check on that.

855 You spoke a little bit about throttling and the apprehension that quality of service measures favour voice calls in a way that other internet traffic including video relay calls are not treated. Can you speak a little bit more about that?

856 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): So it depends on the customer, of the deaf, deaf blind, hard of hearing individual, on the plan that they have chosen. Sometimes they are unaware they have gone for the cheapest package not realizing that the speed is going to be low, and it's just going to be a basic upload download speed that will continue to cause barriers, and they don't realize that that is the issue when making phone calls.

857 Now, I'm fairly knowledgeable about, you know, what the providers offer, and the ISPs, and the speed, and the technical aspects, so I'm able to choose the right plan for me and for my needs for VRS and video calls. But that's not the case for all of the community.

858 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): So, within my household ‑‑ I’ll just use myself as an example ‑‑ both my partner and I work from home, full time. So, roughly half and half. We have many meetings online where meetings are happening, discussions are happening, ASL classes. I’m sure that maybe you guys are using video meetings more and more often; maybe only voice meetings. But my partner, if he is working from home and he has a meeting, it means he is online because he is deaf. And therefore, an interpreter is involved as well, too ‑‑ and other people potentially having their videos on.

859 And if we have a visitor come over to the house at the same time and I’m on my device and my partner’s on their device, and then our visitor is on their device, we’ve got three people, potentially four, in one place, in one apartment using video to communicate. Not one of us is using our voice to communicate.

860 So, in your own home, are you using mostly voice to communicate, or are you using mostly videos to communicate? That will depend on the throttling of the internet and how it is able to see the videos.

861 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): My mom moved into a new place and I was helping her get settled, and she had chosen a plan. It was a fibre optic plan. I helped her get it all set up and established. I tried to connect to a video call to see how it would work. My mom is now in a place where she is able to fully access video communication because of the type of technology she has, and she is able to communicate, and that is the type of thing that I would like to see for all of our community. That is so incredibly invaluable and important. Internet speed is important. There must be minimums that need to be reached in order for us to communicate clearly.

862 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): Lisa here. That’s why, when I speak about plan shopping, we are looking for high speed of upload and download to make sure that video clarity is prioritized, but oftentimes the prices don’t fit what is needed for our community. Therefore, we are paying more for accessibility. We’re paying more for communication, which isn't fair. So, that’s why we are strongly advocating for accessibility plans, to be able to provide a good internet package with necessary speeds in order for us to be able to communicate on par with the rest of the community.

863 THE INTERPRETER: And we’re just going to switch interpreters. One moment.

‑‑‑ Pause

864 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, and thank you for these answers.

865 We are growing short on time and I have not yet given my colleagues a chance to chime in. I am going to do so now.

866 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you, Commissioner.

867 Let's go to Commissioner Paquette next, please.

868 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I would like to begin by asking for clarification regarding your intervention. You mentioned that any new requirements should apply to all ISPs, subject to the Code, and that there can be no two‑tier systems for consumer protection. Are you aware that the Code applies to large ISPs and not to smaller ISPs?

869 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): The wireless companies that are smaller don’t offer the same as the larger ones.

870 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): It’s Jeff here. That is the challenge between large and smaller providers. As you know, they are trying their best to make an offering. We encourage that they elevate the quality of their internet offerings. Basically, it’s our communication access, and we need to increase that. Our expectations also are for it to get better. As an ISP service provider, they need to be looked at and evaluated, whether they are large or small, depending on the region, if they are rural or urban. I would hope that the industry is evolving.

871 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, do you think we should expect them and it should be more like an expectation than mandatory obligation for the smaller ISPs?

872 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Okay. I think essentially we have an expectation, a guarantee that a video call that’s placed is accessible, to ensure that individuals, for example those who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing that live in rural areas, really rely on the service. It’s important that it is elevated.

873 Jessica?

874 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): Well, you have to remember when we are talking about voice calls or video calls, I never use voice, for obvious reasons. So, that as an option is not there. I have one option as opposed to a regular person. So, I only have the one option ‑‑ the video call. So, I rely heavily on the internet. I have to make sure that I have full benefit of it without restriction.

875 If the video quality is low, if it’s not good, it’s a barrier. I won’t have equal access, and it can be a public safety issue for me. If the video quality is so low that I can’t access information about what’s happening in my area; if I can’t contact friends, family to find out what is happening because the video quality is so poor, then it impinges on my access to communication, and how do I access that important critical information? I don’t have the option to use voice systems.

876 So, we can’t apply the same rules for everyone. For those of us who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing, we need that access. It’s essential and critical to access information quickly, for example, in the wildfires. When it comes to those voice calls, it’s not available. It’s happened where I was driving ‑‑ well, that doesn’t count. (Laughs) If I was at home during a tornado ‑‑ there was a tornado emergency that was called ‑‑ and if I don’t have access to be able to make a voice call and the video quality is low, then how would I know to stay put? It’s important to have full access to internet. Lisa?

877 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): You had mentioned the two tiers in the Internet Code and the Wireless Code. When it comes to the accessibility plans, this is very true because the larger ISPs have a 20‑dollar accessibility plan, and the smaller ISPs have a 10‑dollar accessibility plan. But for those of us who anticipate the quality of service, we expect it to be the same ‑‑ that the quality is there to be able to place video calls. But the smaller ISPs that are offering a cheaper service or a cheaper plan ‑‑ a discounted plan ‑‑ that’s fine, but the quality has to be there. We would expect that it would be the same.

878 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, what I hear is not that it should be a simple expectation, but more a requirement that all ISPs should be required the same level of accessibility measures? Okay, thank you.

879 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): Yes.

880 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: It’s clear. Thank you very much.

881 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

882 And we will go to Commissioner Desmond for our last questions.

883 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

884 Earlier today, we heard from the Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement, and they suggested a pilot project and sort of a rollout of providing the ASL/LSQ videos, allowing for feedback so that maybe a second iteration can take place. And they also suggested an audit process.

885 I would be interested in hearing your views on those recommendations.

886 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Jeff here. I think we at DWCC look at what you’re doing. It’s important to work collaboratively, with a goal in mind. I think when it comes to pilot projects, I don’t know if that would be the appropriate answer, but I think currently we’re doing an analysis to see how we can elevate the system. If we work together, I think this will give positive outcomes. It will bring us closer to our goal. When it comes to ASL and LSQ, that’s another consideration. With what we have currently, we use video services on a daily basis. If we want to complain about the service, we need to be able to communicate that in ASL or LSQ, and technology is changing so quickly.

887 Lisa, do you have something to add?

888 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): Like I mentioned in my presentation, the complaint system needs to be improved so that the feedback system is there, it’s accessible. That’s essential ‑‑ to be provided an ASL and LSQ online so that customers can engage with someone to explain their experience, to file a complaint, to give feedback on the service. That has to be put in place. That’s a priority. Jessica?

889 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): I think we need to create continuous improvement. We need to make improves towards accessibility. If we initiate a pilot project, that will just delay accessibility. We need to have it now. We hope that you listen to our recommendations and that things will be put in place immediately, without delay.

890 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): It’s Jeff here. I prefer what you’re doing now is for things to get initiated immediately. Just do it.

891 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you very much. It looks like those are our questions.

892 As always, we would like to give you the last word, if you have any final thoughts for us.

‑‑‑ Pause

893 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): We had a discussion. Accessibility by design means that those who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing don’t need to fight for equal access. In internet service, we will get it from the outset, and that’s equality. That’s where this proceeding needs to deliver.

894 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you once again.

895 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Thank you.

896 MS. ANDERSON (interpreted): Thank you, Commissioners.

897 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will resume the hearing tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Have a great evening.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 13 pour reprendre le mercredi 11 juin 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton