Canadian telecom service providers need labels, not loopholes

If you are among the 84% of Canadians who say they would first try to resolve a complaint directly with their telecom service provider, here is a follow-up question: where would you go if that didn't work?

Don't worry if you don't know – even though service providers have a responsibility to tell you, we know that most don't.

"When asked why they didn’t submit a complaint," says a recent study on telecom complaints to the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS), the organization resolving complaints about telecom services in Canada, "respondents often cited they were not aware/did not know about the CCTS (71%)."

This is dispiriting, given that last year, less than half of the consumers who reached out to their providers got a resolution to their complaint. Sadly, 97% of those consumers were not told about the CCTS by their telecom provider, despite firm obligations for service providers to do so.

It is par for the course that consumers face basic and unnecessary barriers when navigating telecoms in Canada, even as connectivity becomes increasingly central to economic and social participation. This is just as true when making complaints about services as when selecting phone or internet plans.

Today, on World Telecommunications Day, we have an opportunity to change that by reaffirming a basic commitment that Canadians should not only be connected but also informed. Too many Canadian consumers face too many unnecessary knowledge barriers when dealing with service providers.

Rather than mandating this information be made more available, the government seems intent on giving telecom companies free advertising to present themselves as model corporate citizens, as the federal government routinely does, for example, by promoting Bell's "Let's Talk" Day for free across their social media channels. Not a bad deal for a company that is already one of the largest recipients of government contracts.

The relationship between government officials and major telecommunication service providers already epitomizes regulatory capture. One of our recent ministers, who held the portfolio responsible for regulating this industry, joined the Rogers C-suite two years after leaving office. The industry minister who followed him swiftly approved the Rogers-Shaw merger, further consolidating monopoly power in the sector.

There have been some bright lights in recent years, like the appointment of someone with a competition background as the Chairperson of the CRTC. However, the deck is stacked against public interest and civil society groups advocating for companies to make it easier to understand plans, pricing, and obligations, or to make complaints.

Obfuscation tactics and a lack of access to clear, easy-to-understand information are a persistent barrier. This is particularly true in the mobile services market, where comparing plans across providers can be difficult, even for well-informed users navigating vague marketing language, inconsistent disclosures, and incomplete information.

To help address this issue, our organizations, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic and OpenMedia, recently called for the CRTC to implement standardized labels for mobile and internet services.

These labels would present key terms such as pricing, data limits, contract lengths, and overage charges in clear, consistent, and comparable formats. They are conceptually similar to nutrition labels on food products and inspired by a compelling idea: consumers should understand what they are buying.

The CRTC recently proposed such labels for home internet services. However, their proposal does not currently extend to mobile services. This omission leaves a significant gap, affecting a service essential to most Canadians. The same standards should cover both.

Survey data and complaints confirm that mobile customers frequently encounter problems with unclear billing practices, unexpected charges, and confusion about plan terms. The CRTC could prevent these issues by mandating standardized, accessible information. The evidence also suggests that consumers want this type of reform to make more informed decisions when comparing plans. This would encourage providers to compete in terms of service quality and price.

Telecom service providers should also present this information in machine-readable formats to allow third-party comparison tools to support consumer choice and improve market transparency more broadly, building tools that help average Canadians.

Just as consumers expect clear labelling for other basic goods and services, they should be able to expect clarity when selecting a phone or internet plan. Standardized, enforceable labelling requirements are a practical and overdue step toward greater fairness in Canada’s telecom market.