It's 'open season' on consumers

Blaming telecommunications service providers for trying to make money is hardly worthwhile. The companies are, after all, required by law to generate maximum returns for their shareholders.

So if customers are angry and feeling ripped off by those companies, where should they direct their displeasure? At the people who let them get away with it, according to Charlie Angus, the federal New Democratic Party's spokesman for digital issues and MP for Timmins-James Bay in Ontario.

The 47-year-old Angus has been a prodigious writer, with five books under his belt, as well as an active musician as part of the Juno-nominated folk-rock band Grievous Angels. But he has also scored points as a parliamentarian — in 2006, after only two years in politics, he was named one of the 10 most effective opposition MPs by the Toronto Star, and he was picked "best constituent representative" by Maclean's magazine last year.

Angus has been vocal in his criticism of the government on telecommunications issues, particularly for its inaction over phone and cable companies' interference in internet traffic. In May, he tabled a private member's bill seeking to enshrine "net neutrality" rules, which would limit how much control service providers have over the internet.

The problems with service providers, however, extend far beyond trying to control internet access, he says. Angus discussed the current state of the Canadian telecommunications market with CBCNews.ca.

CBCNews.ca: How would you characterize the state of the telecommunications market?

Angus: Across Canada, we're seeing immense frustration from consumers, who feel that they're being ripped off. It's open season on consumers. We don't see any accountability, we see all kinds of predatory pricing practices and, of course, with the whole issue of internet throttling we're seeing the telecoms putting their fingers into all areas of consumer life. People are frustrated.

CBCNews.ca: Are consumers protected at all from these sorts of things?

Angus: I really think the example of the whole text-messaging debacle — where not only are we one of the only countries in the world without protection against spam, we now have to pay to be spammed — is indicative of the situation. Our Minister [of Industry Jim Prentice], the man who is supposed to represent consumer interests and who said he was going to stand up to the telecoms, ended up getting spanked like a bad school boy. He ended up putting out a press release that says how great the telecoms are for spamming us. We aren't being protected. At the end of the day, as much as we talk about allowing industry to grow and be competitive, there has to be someone who ensures there are rules, and that has to fall to the government.

CBCNews.ca: The Liberals and Conservatives have taken successive steps over the years toward deregulation. Has that been the right move?

'Our Minister ... ended up getting spanked like a bad school boy.' —on Jim Prentice and text messaging fees

Angus: We're not seeing a market that is offering consumers the kind of choice that was promised. We still have a few large giants who basically have had their obligations cut. In an era of deregulation, what's in it for the consumer? Who's standing up for the person who is getting locked into an onerous long-term contract, who is paying some of the highest cellphone rates in the world and who is charged for every incoming spam message?

CBCNews.ca: The Conservatives have particularly pushed the ideology of market forces. Are all these class-action lawsuits and protests market forces at work?

Angus: We have a minister who has made it clear from the get-go that he doesn't have any role representing consumers, so consumers are taking other steps to protect their interests, whether it's lawsuits or Facebook groups. But it shouldn't have to happen. Putting some clear and simple rules in place certainly isn't going to affect the bottom lines of the telecoms, but they will certainly protect the consumer. We were told we'd be protected by the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, but this has been a complete non-entity. Canadians don't feel like they have someone they can go to, they don't even know there's someone out there to take their complaints. Canadians are frustrated because there's nobody out there standing up saying, "Wait a minute, these prices, this kind of game playing shouldn't be allowed."

CBCNews.ca: The Liberals eliminated the position of minister of consumer affairs back in 1995. Was that a bad idea? Should that cabinet post be reinstated?

Angus: When so many consumers are dependent on telecommunications services, somebody has to be protecting them. I would believe the industry minister could handle this himself if he had a little bit of backbone. Unfortunately, Jim doesn't seem like he has the stomach to stand up to the telecom giants, and I'm not really sure why. Is it just pure ideology that is allowing his voters to be exposed to these practices? I don't understand what the downside for Jim Prentice is. It isn't rocket science to put together a few simple rules that won't impede the companies from making money to any degree.

CBCNews.ca: Is this a partisan issue? Should political differences be put aside in order to somehow protect consumers?

Angus: The Conservative party ran on protecting Canadians, but they've made it very clear that they're little better than waiters for large corporate interests, whether it's the oil sector or the telecommunications sector. Jim Prentice has sent a really clear message. He doesn't have the stomach or the interest to stand up for Canadians. The toughest he's going to get is putting out a press release saying how great the telecoms are. I would say that has to be an ideological position, because it doesn't make sense from any other perspective. We're paying an industry minister to represent Canadians, and he's refusing to do that. Perhaps the Conservative ideology is allowing the telecommunications industry to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, but I think a reasonable approach is to say you can have a thriving market, you can have competition and you can also have consumer protection. You just sometimes need the government to lay a few, basic ground rules to make sure that happens.

CBCNews.ca: What about the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the federal Competition Bureau? How would you rate their track records?

'The Competition Bureau has been pitiful. The CRTC is hamstrung in that they do not have all the tools in their toolbox.' —on consumer protection agencies

Angus: The Competition Bureau has been pitiful. The CRTC is hamstrung in that they do not have all the tools in their toolbox. [CRTC chairman Konrad] von Finckenstein has said this before — in order to be able to get the cable companies or phone companies to account, it's an issue of regulation. You need to give the CRTC a few more tools so they can keep the telecoms in line when they're acting against the interests of the public.

CBCNews.ca: Like the ability to fine companies?

Angus: Yes, and again, why have a regulator if the regulator can't really do anything? Monetary penalties is the only way you can bring the giant cable and telephone companies back into line when they really egregiously step over the line. The CRTC should have these tools to ensure compliance.

CBCNews.ca: The CRTC's head telecommunications commissioner is a former Rogers executive, while the competition commissioner also held a top job at Bell. Obviously, these individuals bring practical telecommunications experience to their respective regulatory bodies, but is there also a conflict of interest?

Angus: I'm certainly concerned about the conflict because I don't see anyone within these organizations to represent the public's interest. At the end of the day, these companies are allowed a tremendous amount of leeway to make money using the public infrastructure. Who's there at the table that's going to balance the public interest with the legitimate right of the companies to make money? I'm certainly worried when we see the former heads of these companies that are engaged in dubious practices against consumers watching over the same [companies].

CBCNews.ca: What sort of action should be taken, then?

Angus: The public is clamouring for basic ground rules. It's been impressive to see how quickly the public has been responding, whether it's on the onerous contracts for cellphones, text-message cash grabs, the issue of net neutrality. Consumers want some clear rules that protect their interests. Jim Prentice is basically a political vacuum, and that's encouraged the telecoms to go further than they otherwise might have. From the New Democratic point of view, we're looking to be able to offer the kind of tools that the CRTC needs and to remind Jim Prentice that he has regulatory powers. If he doesn't know what those powers are, we'll certainly spell them out for him, and then when we get to having it debated in the public realm, people will say, "Look, it's not all that difficult to change the Telecommunications Act to protect us." We want to start and lay some really simple regulatory suggestions for the government to take.

CBCNews.ca: The Conservatives and Liberals seem to be in favour of lifting the restrictions on foreign ownership of telecommunications companies, which many have suggested is the root of all these problems. How does the NDP feel about that?

'I would be very wary of putting a "for sale" sign up without having a game plan in place.' —on lifting foreign ownership restrictions

Angus: The issue … is very problematic because the telecommunications industry is fully vertically integrated, so that they are now running our television stations, radio stations and newspapers. If you take out the foreign-ownership restrictions and AT&T or some other U.S. conglomerate swallows up that Canadian telecom, then we're going to end up with a situation where we have U.S. or foreign interests controlling our broadcast as well. That's highly problematic, because these guys do the bare minimum at the best of times to provide Canadian voices and content as to their obligations. It's like pulling teeth to get them to even live up to that. If it's being run by foreign companies, you'll see a major move to undermine what's left of Canada's cultural sovereignty. The argument is a bit of a false one in that I don't think any of these companies are even close to their foreign-ownership restrictions as it is, so why should we put a "for sale" sign on what's left of the Canadian industry?

CBCNews.ca: But Canada has some of the most restrictive foreign-ownership rules in the developed world. Foreign ownership hasn't eliminated local cultures in our peer countries. The argument against restrictions is that they create a walled garden where your local companies have it cozy, so they have less incentive to compete against each other.

Angus: What concerns me is that because we have moved so much toward vertical integration, we have to have a plan in place for what we're going to do with the broadcast element of it. When the Telecommunications Act was being defined, it was always considered that it was in the nation's interest to be in charge of its own telecommunications industry. Are we going to get better competition coming out of the U.S.? There could be an argument for that, but it's certainly a Pandora's box. I would be very wary of putting a "for sale" sign up without having a game plan in place. With a Conservative government, certainly there wouldn't be a game plan in place.