Wireless Code Public Opinion Research – Spring 2019
Final Report

Prepared for Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Supplier name: Kantar TNS
Contract number: 82082-190126/001/CY
Contract value: $105,021.83
Award date: November 16, 2018
Delivery date: February 27, 2019
Registration number: POR # 084-18

For more information on this report, please contact the CRTC at: communications@crtc.gc.ca

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) commissioned Kantar TNS to conduct a public opinion research survey to obtain tracking data on how consumers understand their wireless service contracts and their related rights as well as to further explore a variety of topics such as wireless complaints, data usage, bill shock, and ease of switching service providers. This wave of research will again explore Canadians perceptions of the CRTC as well as issues related to the TV Service Provider Code. This publication reports on the findings of this research.

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Permission to Reproduce

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the CRTC. For more information on this report, please contact the CRTC at communications@crtc.gc.ca or at:

Catalogue Number:
BC92-96/2019E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-30163-1

Related publications (registration number: POR # 084-18):
Catalogue Number: BC92-96/2019F-PDF (Final Report, French)
ISBN 978-0-660-30164-8

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, 2019

Table of Contents

• 1. Executive Summary
  • 1.1. Research Purpose and Objectives
  • 1.2. Summary of Findings
  • 1.3. Methodology
  • 1.4. Contract Value
  • 1.5. Statement of Political Neutrality
• 2. Foreword
  • 2.1. Background
  • 2.2. Research Objectives
  • 2.3. Methodological Overview
• 3. Highlights and Strategic Implications
• 4. Wireless Code
  • 4.1. Recall of the Wireless Code
  • 4.2. Wireless Data Usage
    • 4.2.1. Activities to Manage or Limit Data Use
    • 4.2.2. Ease of Managing Data Use
    • 4.2.3. Data Overage Fees
  • 4.3. Bill Shock and Roaming Fees
    • 4.3.1. Bill Shock
    • 4.3.2. Roaming Fees
  • 4.4. Understanding of Contracts
    • 4.4.1. Understanding of Contract
    • 4.4.2. Trial Period
    • 4.4.3. Cancellation Fees
  • 4.5. Change
    • 4.5.1. Changes to Contract
    • 4.5.2. Service Provider Changes
  • 4.6. Complaints
    • 4.6.1. Complaints in the Last 12 Months
  • 4.7. Canadian’s Wireless Plans
    • 4.7.1. Type of Plan
    • 4.7.2. Plan Inclusions
    • 4.7.3. Devices
  • 4.8. Television Service Provider Code
    • 4.8.1. Recall of Television Service Provider Code
    • 4.8.2. Clarity of TV Contracts
    • 4.8.3. Awareness of Basic Service Package
    • 4.8.4. Service Calls
    • 4.8.5. Changes in Price
    • 4.8.6. Complaints
  • 4.9. CRTC
    • 4.9.1. Canadians’ Understanding of the CRTC Mandate
    • 4.9.2. Impression of the CRTC
  • 4.10. Methodological Overview
• 5. Appendix B: Survey Instrument

1. Executive Summary

1.1. Research Purpose and Objectives

The Wireless Code, which was established in 2013 by the CRTC, is a mandatory code of conduct for wireless service providers and applies to all retail mobile wireless voice and data services provided to individual and small business consumers in Canada. The Wireless Code applied to all wireless contracts as of June 3, 2015.

The CRTC committed to evaluating the effectiveness of the Wireless Code and the first review was completed in 2017 to assess whether the Wireless Code meets and continues to meet its objectives, which includes ensuring that consumers are empowered to make informed decisions about wireless services. On June 15, 2017, the CRTC announced multiple changes to the Wireless Code, which came into effect on December 1, 2017.

The information collected in the 2019 Wireless Code public opinion research (POR) will help the CRTC assess whether Canadians are satisfied with the changes and whether further changes are required to ensure the objectives of the Wireless Code continue to be met. The 2019 research further explores a variety of topics such as wireless complaints, data usage, bill shock, and ease of switching service providers. This wave of research further explores Canadians perceptions of the CRTC as well as issues related to the TV Service Provider Code.

The methodology was designed to ensure consistency with previous iterations of Wireless Code PORs conducted from 2014-2018.

This research was designed to address the following objectives:

• Better understand some of the issues that affect Canadians the most as it relates to their wireless services to support the ongoing evaluation of the Wireless Code.
• Obtain data to assess whether the Wireless Code continues to meet its objectives, which include ensuring that consumers are empowered to make informed decisions about wireless services.
• Better understand Canadians’ perception of the CRTC and how it is changing over time.
• Better understand issues that affect Canadians the most as they relate to their television services.

1.2. Summary of Findings

Wireless Data Usage

The composition of wireless plans has changed over the past year, with Canadians increasingly selecting plans that include data (83% compared to 70-76% in previous years). The majority of wireless plans continue to include limited data – a mere eight per cent of Canadians have unlimited wireless data, and nearly all Canadians with limited plans take steps to manage their data so as not to incur additional costs (97%).

The majority of Canadians continue to report they find it easy to manage their data (77%), with many relying on switching to Wi-Fi (92%) as a means of data management. Despite this, a considerable portion (48%) of Canadians with wireless contracts report having paid data overages in the last 12 months, a finding that has remained consistent over the past three years. This suggests that data management in a way that does incur additional costs continues to occur for many Canadians.

Bill shock and Roaming fees

One quarter of Canadians (25%) continue to experience bill shock suggesting that there is continued room for improvement in this area. Bill shock is more prevalent among those with shared or family plans than those with individual plans (31% vs. 23%), as well as those on tab contracts compared to those who are not (30% vs. 22%). Similar to previous years, data overage fees are the predominant source of bill shock and have increased over the past year (56% vs. 43%), while international roaming and long-distance fees continue to be secondary sources of bill shock.

The amount of unexpected charges varies greatly – from less than $50 to over $1,000 per billing cycle, however, there is a directional decrease in the number of bills exceeding $250. Most of the unexpected charges continue to be $100 or less (64%).

Interestingly, even though Canadians are more likely to report data overages as the primary source of bill shock, they tend to express a greater ease for managing data compared to managing roaming fees while travelling. This disconnect suggests that Canadians may still not fully understand how to manage their data in a way that prevents bill shock. Only half (53%) of Canadians report they find it easy to manage roaming fees, while less than a fifth (16%) find it difficult to manage roaming fees while travelling.

Understanding of Contracts

Little has changed compared to 2018 regarding Canadians’ understanding of their wireless contracts, with the majority (61%) continuing to find their wireless contract clear and easy to understand.

However, despite having been in place for over a year, the trial period explanation is somewhat unclear to many Canadians, with only one-third indicating it was clear and easy to understand (32%). Canadians also continue to have some challenges related to the explanation of cancellation fees. Close to one-in-three (30%) find the explanation unclear, an increase over 2018 findings (26%).

Changes

When it comes to changes to contracts, a small but significant portion of Canadians state that changes to wireless services were made without expressly making them aware of the new terms and conditions (16%), an increase from 2018 (12%).

Consistent with 2018, only a small number of Canadians (18%) have switched service providers in the last two years, with the main reason being to obtain a better deal (45%). A minority of those who switched providers found this process difficult (11%), with one-third of switchers indicating that the process was difficult due to the high costs of ending their contract (32%).

Complaints

Canadians are making fewer complaints than in the past, suggesting the Wireless Code is having a positive impact for wireless consumers. Levels of complaints have remained steady over the past year, decreasing six percent overall from 2014 (20% vs. 26%). The leading reasons for complaints continue to be data overage charges (27%), incorrect charges on bills (26%), inadequate quality of service (17%), and roaming charges (11%). Consumers continue to primarily complain to their service providers (95%) with few of these complaints (3%) also going to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS). The CCTS responds to complaints from consumers if the consumer believes the complaint remains unresolved by the service provider.

Canadians’ Wireless Plans

The type of plans Canadians purchase has undergone some change since 2016. While most continue to purchase post-paid services in 2019 (90%), fewer have purchased pre-paid services in 2019 (8%) compared to 2018 (12%), a decline that has continued steadily since Fall 2016 (16%).

Further, while the majority of Canadians continue to use an individual plan (67%), family plans continue to see increased use compared to 2015 (32% vs. 25%).

Demographic Differences

A number of additional demographic analyses were also undertaken, including age, gender, education, income and language. Differences between demographic groups have dissipated compared to 2018, particularly when it comes to income and education level, suggesting that the Wireless Code is having a positive impact on creating equitable outcomes for Canadians.

Demographic differences tend to persist in the following areas:

Age:

Canadians aged 18-54 are substantially different than their older counterparts (55+) in a number of ways:

• Younger Canadians continue to be more likely to employ activities to manage or limit data usage. This is true for switching to Wi-Fi when available (94-97% for 18-54-year-olds vs. 86% for 55+), using tools to track data (47-56% for 18-54-year-olds vs. 37% for 55+) as well as reducing data usage when notified (70-74% for 18-54-year-olds vs. 53% for 55+);
• They are more likely to have text (98% vs. 88%), calling minutes (86-90% vs. 79%) and data (88-91% vs. 74%) included in their wireless plan. However, older Canadians are increasingly including these options in their wireless plans;
• They continue to be more likely to experience bill shock than their older counterparts (18-54: 26-30% vs. 55+:20%), primarily driven by data overages. Relatedly, they are also more likely to have made a complaint in the past 12 months (22-23% vs. 16%);
• Those in the youngest age group (18-34) are more likely to find their wireless contract easy to understand than those 35+ (67% vs. 54-56%); and
• They are more likely to have a tab contract (38-48% vs. 30%).

Region:

Quebecers differ from those in other regions of Canada in a few key ways

• Quebecers are less likely to make complaints compared to those in other regions of Canada (11% vs. 19-30%);
• Quebecers are more likely to have an individual than shared or family plan (80% vs. 48-65%); and
• Quebecers are less likely to have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months (16% vs. 26-38%).

Television Service Provider Code

Despite having been introduced more than a year ago, awareness of the Television Service Provider (TVSP) remains low. The number of Canadians who do not recall hearing or seeing anything about the TVSP Code has remained steady compared to 2018 (56%).

Similarly, only half of TV subscribers (52%) believe they have been informed of their entry-level service offering, despite the requirement that all customers should have been informed. Given that this has remained steady over time, it may signal issues with the way in which the information is being disseminated to Canadians.

At an overall level, most Canadians continue to find their TV contracts clear and easy to understand (54%) and few (14%) have experienced difficulties related to TV service calls. TV subscribers are usually informed of price changes (71%), though this has decreased somewhat compared to 2018 (76%).

Interestingly, the number of Canadians who have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months has increased compared to 2018 (27% vs. 23%). The nature of these complaints varies, but most center around incorrect charges (20%), inadequate quality of service (17%), changes to their contract without notice (13%), or price changes/high prices (12%).

CRTC

Canadians’ understanding of the mandate and role of the CRTC has improved compared to 2018. Thirty-six per cent now consider themselves very well or well informed about the CRTC, compared to 29 per cent in 2018. These levels are comparable to 2015, when knowledge levels were at their highest (38% very well/well informed).

Canadians’ impressions of the CRTC are less neutral than they were in 2018, and show slight improvements from Fall 2016. This is likely a product of the increase in Canadians who feel well informed about the role of the CRTC.

Strategic implications

The results of this research provide evidence that suggests the Wireless Code continues to have positive impacts on Canadians. It also provides information to be considered for future updates of the Wireless Code and/or the Television Service Provider Code.

1. Data continues to be increasingly important to Canadians, particularly those in older age cohorts, and thus effective and accessible methods of data management continue to be of primary importance. A considerable portion of Canadians still pay overage fees with data overages being the main cause, implying Canadians continue to struggle with data management and changes to the Wireless Code may be able to further support consumers in this area.
2. A sizeable number of Canadians still experience bill shock. Those who experienced bill shock are more likely to report difficulty with management and understanding of their wireless and television contracts. While causation cannot be established, it is possible that these charges are a result of some Canadians experiencing greater difficulty with management of their contracts, and/or that incurring these overage charges has made this group feel like they have less control over or understanding of their services. This suggests that those who have experienced bill shock continue to lack the clarity and tools they need to effectively manage their services and are at risk of incurring future overage charges. Given that data overage and roaming charges are primary causes of bill shock, there may be ways for the Wireless Code to further assist Canadians with managing these fees.
3. The explanation of cancellation fees and the trial period needs to be clearer and more easily understood by Canadians, as Canadians are finding these areas increasingly difficult to understand. Results suggest that there continues to be a number of Canadians who do not fully understand these aspects of their contracts.
4. The lack of changes in understanding of the TVSP Code suggest there is room for improvement in relation to the clarity of contracts, informing customers about the basic cable package and general awareness of the TVSP Code.
5. Understanding of the CRTC is still somewhat low, and even among those who are well informed perceptions are mixed. This implies that the need to improve understanding of the CRTC and its role, as well as address public perceptions.

1.3. Methodology

The methodology was designed to ensure consistency with previous waves of Wireless Code surveys conducted from 2014-2018. The sample was split into two distinct segments: Canadians who currently have a personal (or retail) wireless plan covering services such as voice, text and data and Canadians who do not currently have a personal (or retail) wireless plan. A telephone survey was conducted among 1,524 Canadians aged 18 years and older; 1,322 with those who have their own wireless plan and 202 with those who do not have a wireless plan. Included in this sample were Canadians that are under contract with TV service providers (n=1,107), along with Canadians who reside in cell phone only households (n=516).

Interviews were conducted using a combination of random digit dialing (RDD) for the landline sample frame and pre-screened cell-phone only (CPO) sample. The RDD approach ensures that all telephone numbers are given an equal probability of being selected thereby minimizing sampling bias for this portion of the sample. Random sampling for CPO households is cost prohibitive and as such pre-screened CPO sample was used for the CPO household subsample.

A pre-test consisting of 10 completed English interviews and 10 completed French interviews was completed before fielding the survey on January 21^st, 2019. No changes were made after the pretest and as such the completes were included in the final data set. The survey was in field from January 22^nd – February 6^th, 2019.

Due to the inclusion of pre-screened cell phone only sample, the sample is a non-probability sample and as such margin of error does not apply.

1.4. Contract Value

The total contract value for the project was $105,021.83 including applicable taxes.

1.5. Statement of Political Neutrality

I hereby certify as a representative of Kantar TNS that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Tanya Whitehead

Kantar TNS

Senior Director, Public Practice Leader

2. Foreword

2.1. Background

The Wireless Code, which was established in 2013 by the CRTC, is a mandatory code of conduct for wireless service providers. The Code serves two primary goals: to ensure consumers are empowered to make informed decisions about wireless services; and to make it easier for consumers to take advantage of competitive offers. The Code includes provisions that address clarity; contracts and related documents; changes to contracts; bill management; mobile device issues; and cancellation.

The Code applies to all retail mobile wireless voice and data services (wireless services) provided to individual and small business consumers in Canada. The Code applies to all wireless contracts as of June 3, 2015.

The CRTC has committed to evaluating the effectiveness of the Code and to use the results in formal reviews and the first formal review was completed in 2017. The review of the Wireless Code over time assesses whether it meets and continues to meet its objectives, which includes ensuring that consumers are empowered to make informed decisions about wireless services. Benchmarks were collected in 2014 and further tracking was conducting in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

On June 15, 2017, the CRTC announced multiple changes to the Wireless Code. The information collected in the Fall 2017 survey helped the CRTC assess whether Canadians were satisfied with the changes and whether further changes were required to ensure the objectives of the Wireless Code continued to be met. The Commission needs to obtain an additional year of data to continue tracking the Code’s effectiveness and Canadians’ opinions over time.

2.2. Research Objectives

The overall objective of this research was to obtain tracking data on how consumers understand their wireless service contracts and their related rights as well as to further explore a variety of topics such as wireless complaints, data usage, bill shock, and ease of switching service providers. This wave of research will again explore Canadians perceptions of the CRTC as well as issues related to the TV Service Provider Code.

To ensure consistent tracking and comparability over time, the survey used for Wireless Code POR in 2018 was used with minimal changes.

More specifically, the survey was designed to address the following objectives:

• Better understand some of the issues that affect Canadians the most as it relates to their wireless services to support the ongoing evaluation of the Wireless Code.
• Obtain data to assess whether the Wireless Code continues to meet its objectives, which include ensuring that consumers are empowered to make informed decisions about wireless services.
• Better understand Canadians’ perception of the CRTC and how it is changing over time.
• Better understand issues that affect Canadians the most as they relate to their television services.

2.3. Methodological Overview

For tracking purposes and comparability over time, most questions remained the same or similar to the ones used for the 2018 Wireless Code POR survey.

A telephone survey was conducted among 1,524 Canadians age 18 years and older; 1,322 with those who have their own wireless plan and 202 with those who do not have their own wireless plan. Interviews were conducted using a combination of random digit dialing (RDD) for the landline sample frame and pre-screened cell phone only households (CPO) sample. Since this survey included pre-screened sample it is considered a non-probability sample and as such margin of error does not apply and conclusions from these results cannot be generalized to any population.

A pre-test consisting of 10 completed English interviews and 10 completed French interviews was completed before fielding the survey on January 21^st, 2019. The survey was in field from January 22^nd – February 6^th, 2019.

A detailed methodology can be found in Chapter 4.10.

Please note: Analysis was undertaken to establish the extent of the relationship among variables such as gender, age, region, level of education attained, language spoken, household income, type of plan (family vs. individual; prepaid vs, postpaid; employee; limited vs. unlimited data; tab contract), ease of managing data, recall of Television Service Provider code, informed role of the CRTC, complaints, bill shock, and CPO sample. Only differences significant at the 95% confidence level are presented in this report. Any differences that are statistically significant between subgroups are indicated with an uppercase letter to refer to the applicable column.

The numbers presented throughout this report are rounded to the closest full number. Due to this rounding, in some cases it may appear that ratings collapsed together are different by a percentage point from when they are presented individually, and totals may not add up to 100%. Also, the data for 2014 and 2015 was taken directly from the 2014 and 2015 Wireless Code Public Opinion Research reports. Kantar TNS has incorporated these results as well as results from Spring and Fall 2016, 2017 & 2018 research into the 2019 report for year-over-year comparison where applicable.

3. Highlights and Strategic Implications

Wireless Data Usage

The composition of wireless plans has changed over the past year, with Canadians increasingly selecting plans that include data (83% compared to 70-76% in previous years). The majority of wireless plans continue to include limited data – a mere eight per cent of Canadians have unlimited wireless data, and nearly all Canadians with limited plans take steps to manage their data so as not to incur additional costs (97%).

The majority of Canadians continue to report they find it easy to manage their data (77%), with many relying on switching to Wi-Fi (92%) as a means of data management. Despite this, a considerable portion (48%) of Canadians with wireless contracts report having paid data overages in the last 12 months, a finding that has remained consistent over the past three years. This suggests that data management in a way that does incur additional costs continues to occur for many Canadians.

Bill shock and Roaming fees

One quarter of Canadians (25%) continue to experience bill shock suggesting that there is continued room for improvement in this area. Bill shock is more prevalent among those with shared or family plans than those with individual plans (31% vs. 23%), as well as those on tab contracts compared to those who are not (30% vs. 22%). Similar to previous years, data overage fees are the predominant source of bill shock and have increased over the past year (56% vs. 43%), while international roaming and long-distance fees continue to be secondary sources of bill shock.

The amount of unexpected charges varies greatly – from less than $50 to over $1,000 per billing cycle, however, there is a directional decrease in the number of bills exceeding $250. Most of the unexpected charges continue to be $100 or less (64%).

Interestingly, even though Canadians are more likely to report data overages as the primary source of bill shock, they tend to express a greater ease for managing data compared to managing roaming fees while travelling. This disconnect suggests that Canadians may still not fully understand how to manage their data in a way that prevents bill shock. Only half (53%) of Canadians report they find it easy to manage roaming fees, while less than a fifth (16%) find it difficult to manage roaming fees while travelling.

Understanding of Contracts

Little has changed compared to 2018 regarding Canadians’ understanding of their wireless contracts, with the majority (61%) continuing to find their wireless contract clear and easy to understand.

However, despite having been in place for over a year, the trial period explanation is somewhat unclear to many Canadians, with only one-third indicating it was clear and easy to understand (32%). Canadians also continue to have some challenges related to the explanation of cancellation fees. Close to one-in-three (30%) find the explanation unclear, an increase over 2018 findings (26%).

Changes

When it comes to changes to contracts, a small but significant portion of Canadians state that changes to wireless services were made without expressly making them aware of the new terms and conditions (16%), an increase from 2018 (12%).

Consistent with 2018, only a small number of Canadians (18%) have switched service providers in the last two years, with the main reason being to obtain a better deal (45%). A minority of those who switched providers found this process difficult (11%), with one-third of switchers indicating that the process was difficult due to the high costs of ending their contract (32%).

Complaints

Canadians are making fewer complaints than in the past, suggesting the Wireless Code is having a positive impact for wireless consumers. Levels of complaints have remained steady over the past year, decreasing six percent overall from 2014 (20% vs. 26%). The leading reasons for complaints continue to be data overage charges (27%), incorrect charges on bills (26%), inadequate quality of service (17%), and roaming charges (11%). Consumers continue to primarily complain to their service providers (95%) with few of these complaints (3%) also going to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS). The CCTS responds to complaints from consumers if the consumer believes the complaint remains unresolved by the service provider.

Canadians’ Wireless Plans

The type of plans Canadians purchase has undergone some change since 2016. While most continue to purchase post-paid services in 2019 (90%), fewer have purchased pre-paid services in 2019 (8%) compared to 2018 (12%), a decline that has continued steadily since Fall 2016 (16%).

Further, while the majority of Canadians continue to use an individual plan (67%), family plans continue to see increased use compared to 2015 (32% vs. 25%).

Demographic Differences

A number of additional demographic analyses were also undertaken, including age, gender, education, income and language. Differences between demographic groups have dissipated compared to 2018, particularly when it comes to income and education level, suggesting that the Wireless Code is having a positive impact on creating equitable outcomes for Canadians.

Demographic differences tend to persist in the following areas:

Age:

Canadians aged 18-54 are substantially different than their older counterparts (55+) in a number of ways:

• Younger Canadians continue to be more likely to employ activities to manage or limit data usage. This is true for switching to Wi-Fi when available (94-97% for 18-54-year-olds vs. 86% for 55+), using tools to track data (47-56% for 18-54-year-olds vs. 37% for 55+) as well as reducing data usage when notified (70-74% for 18-54-year-olds vs. 53% for 55+);
• They are more likely to have text (98% vs. 88%), calling minutes (86-90% vs. 79%) and data (88-91% vs. 74%) included in their wireless plan. However, older Canadians are increasingly including these options in their wireless plans;
• They continue to be more likely to experience bill shock than their older counterparts (18-54: 26-30% vs. 55+:20%), primarily driven by data overages. Relatedly, they are also more likely to have made a complaint in the past 12 months (22-23% vs. 16%);
• Those in the youngest age group (18-34) are more likely to find their wireless contract easy to understand than those 35+ (67% vs. 54-56%); and
• They are more likely to have a tab contract (38-48% vs. 30%).

Region:

Quebecers differ from those in other regions of Canada in a few key ways

• Quebecers are less likely to make complaints compared to those in other regions of Canada (11% vs. 19-30%);
• Quebecers are more likely to have an individual than shared or family plan (80% vs. 48-65%); and
• Quebecers are less likely to have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months (16% vs. 26-38%).

Television Service Provider Code

Despite having been introduced more than a year ago, awareness of the Television Service Provider (TVSP) remains low. The number of Canadians who do not recall hearing or seeing anything about the TVSP Code has remained steady compared to 2018 (56%).

Similarly, only half of TV subscribers (52%) believe they have been informed of their entry-level service offering, despite the requirement that all customers should have been informed. Given that this has remained steady over time, it may signal issues with the way in which the information is being disseminated to Canadians.

At an overall level, most Canadians continue to find their TV contracts clear and easy to understand (54%) and few (14%) have experienced difficulties related to TV service calls. TV subscribers are usually informed of price changes (71%), though this has decreased somewhat compared to 2018 (76%).

Interestingly, the number of Canadians who have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months has increased compared to 2018 (27% vs. 23%). The nature of these complaints varies, but most center around incorrect charges (20%), inadequate quality of service (17%), changes to their contract without notice (13%), or price changes/high prices (12%).

CRTC

Canadians’ understanding of the mandate and role of the CRTC has improved compared to 2018. Thirty-six per cent now consider themselves very well or well informed about the CRTC, compared to 29 per cent in 2018. These levels are comparable to 2015, when knowledge levels were at their highest (38% very well/well informed).

Canadians’ impressions of the CRTC are less neutral than they were in 2018, and show slight improvements from Fall 2016. This is likely a product of the increase in Canadians who feel well informed about the role of the CRTC.

Strategic implications

The results of this research provide evidence that suggests the Wireless Code continues to have positive impacts on Canadians. It also provides information to be considered for future updates of the Wireless Code and/or the Television Service Provider Code.

1. Data continues to be increasingly important to Canadians, particularly those in older age cohorts, and thus effective and accessible methods of data management continue to be of primary importance. A considerable portion of Canadians still pay overage fees with data overages being the main cause, implying Canadians continue to struggle with data management and changes to the Wireless Code may be able to further support consumers in this area.
2. A sizeable number of Canadians still experience bill shock. Those who experienced bill shock are more likely to report difficulty with management and understanding of their wireless and television contracts. While causation cannot be established, it is possible that these charges are a result of some Canadians experiencing greater difficulty with management of their contracts, and/or that incurring these overage charges has made this group feel like they have less control over or understanding of their services. This suggests that those who have experienced bill shock continue to lack the clarity and tools they need to effectively manage their services and are at risk of incurring future overage charges. Given that data overage and roaming charges are primary causes of bill shock, there may be ways for the Wireless Code to further assist Canadians with managing these fees.
3. The explanation of cancellation fees and the trial period needs to be clearer and more easily understood by Canadians, as Canadians are finding these areas increasingly difficult to understand. Results suggest that there continues to be a number of Canadians who do not fully understand these aspects of their contracts.
4. The lack of changes in understanding of the TVSP Code suggest there is room for improvement in relation to the clarity of contracts, informing customers about the basic cable package and general awareness of the TVSP Code.
5. Understanding of the CRTC is still somewhat low, and even among those who are well informed perceptions are mixed. This implies that the need to improve understanding of the CRTC and its role, as well as address public perceptions.

4. Wireless Code

4.1. Recall of the Wireless Code

The Wireless Code came into effect in 2013 and was updated in 2017. As a result, the Wireless Code now ensures that customers will be provided with unlocked devices, gives families/share plans more control over data overages, sets minimum usage limits for the trial period that correspond to at least half of the monthly usage limits of the customer’s plan, and clarifies that data is a key contract term that cannot be changed during the commitment period without the customer’s consent.

Compared to 2018, more Canadians are aware of the Wireless Code, with fewer saying they do not recall hearing anything about it (44% vs. 50% in 2018). There is higher awareness of the Wireless Code among men than women (clearly recall 32% vs. 24% respectively) and those with a higher education level (clearly recall 31-33% for College or University graduates vs. 16% for those with no tertiary education). Those with higher incomes ($100k+) are also more likely to recall the Wireless Code than those who make less than $100k (36-44% vs. 21-28%).

QWC1. In 2013 a Wireless Code came into effect establishing guidelines for wireless service providers. The Code ensures that wireless consumers are empowered to make informed decisions and that there is a more competitive wireless marketplace. The Code was updated in 2017 to end unlocking fees and offer longer trial periods for new contracts. To what extent, if any would you say you recall hearing or seeing anything about this Code? Would you say you clearly recall, vaguely recall or do not recall?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

* Denotes less than 1%

4.2. Wireless Data Usage

Wireless plans that include data continue to be increasingly common in Canada; over eighty per cent of Canadians have wireless plans that include data (83% compared to 76% in 2018). A quarter of Canadians (25%) are unsure if they have limited or unlimited data. Limited data plans are the most common type of plan (67%), with most limited data plans including 4-9 GB or 10-100GB (25% and 16% respectively). Few (8%) Canadians have unlimited data plans.

A variety of demographic factors continue to influence whether or not Canadians have wireless plans that include data:

• Age – Younger Canadians (18-54) continue to be more likely to have data included in their wireless plans than Canadians 55+ (88-91% vs. 74%). However, wireless plans with data are on the rise among older Canadians (60% in 2018 vs. 74% in 2019).
• Education – those with higher levels of education are more likely to have data included in their wireless plan (87% college, 86% university vs. 73% high school).
• Income – those with higher household incomes ($60K per year or more) are more likely to have data included in their wireless plans than those with lower household incomes (88-91% vs. 74-80%).
• Region - those who live in the Prairies are more likely than those who live in the Atlantic, Ontario, or BC regions to have an unlimited data plan (14% vs. 3-6%). Those in Quebec are also more likely to have unlimited data plans (11%) than those who live in BC (3%), and, while not significant, more likely to have these plans than those in the Atlantic and Ontario regions (4-6%).

QB2a. Which of the following are included in your wireless plan?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

QB2a. Which of the following are included in your wireless plan?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B .

QB4. Some wireless plans have unlimited data and some have limited data. When a plan includes a monthly data limit, you may have to pay data overage fees if you use more data in a month than is included in your plan.

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B .

4.2.1. Activities to Manage or Limit Data Use

The vast majority of Canadians who have data in their wireless plans try to manage or limit their data use (97%). The primary method for doing this continues to be using Wi-Fi where available (92%). Compared to 2018, Canadians are less likely to state they reduce data use when notified (66% vs. 74%) or actively monitoring data usage (47% vs. 66%). This suggests Canadians increasingly rely on switching off their data usage, rather than actively reducing or tracking their usage.

As in 2018, younger Canadians (18-54) are more likely to employ activities to manage or limit data usage than their older counterparts (55+) (99-100% vs. 92%). This is also true for switching to Wi-Fi when available (94-97% for 18-54-year olds vs. 92% for 55+), reducing data usage when notified (70-74% for 18-54-year olds vs. 53% for 55+), and monitoring data usage with tools (47-56% for 18-54-year olds vs. 37% for 55+). This suggests older Canadians may be less aware of ways they can manage their data usage.

As expected, those who have experienced bill shock in the past are more likely to reduce data usage when notified (75% vs. 62%), suggesting that they may be depending on this strategy to avoid reoccurrence of bill shock.

QB5a. Which of the following activities, if any, do you use to manage or limit your data use? Select all that apply.

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B .

* Denotes less than 1%

4.2.2. Ease of Managing Data Use

In-line with 2018, most Canadians continue to report they find it easy to manage their data each month. More than three-in-four Canadians (77%) consider it easy (5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7).

4.2.3. Data Overage Fees

While the majority of Canadians consider it easy to manage their data, close to half (48%) continue to have paid data overages in the past 12 months, in-line with overages in 2018 and Fall 2016 (46-49%). Furthermore, those who have experienced bill shock are significantly more likely to have paid data overage fees (89% vs 36%) suggesting that some Canadians are, experiencing difficulty managing their data in a way that prevents additional fees, and that this has not improved with time. Others however, may be choosing to pay additional data fees as and when needed to reduce overall costs. Most of those (62%) that have paid data overages have done so only once or twice in the past 12 months.

Unlike in 2018, demographics play little role in data overage fees, with the exception of older Canadians (55+) who are less likely to have paid data overages in the past year than younger Canadians (42% vs. 51-52%). This is likely a function of lower data usage by older Canadians rather than better management.

As in 2018, those who find data management difficult are more likely to have paid data overage fees in the past 12 months (74% vs. 41%).

QB8. In the past 12 months, how often have you paid data overage fees?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

* Denotes less than 1%

4.3. Bill Shock and Roaming Fees

4.3.1. Bill Shock

Incidence

The overall incidence of bill shock continues to be low, with a small but significant portion of the population continuing to experience it in 2019 (25%). This suggests that despite changes to the code in 2017, Canadians continue to experience levels of bill shock on par with that of 2016.

Younger Canadians (18-54) continue to be more likely to experience bill shock than their older counterparts (26-30% vs. 20%). Not unexpectedly, bill shock is higher among and those who find data management difficult (54% vs. 21%).

Plan type also appears to play a role in bill shock, as those on family plans are more likely to experience bill shock compared to those on individual plans (31% vs. 23%), as are those with tab contracts (30% on tab contract vs. 22% not on tab contract). Interestingly, although few Canadians have unlimited data plans, twenty per cent of those with unlimited data also report experiencing bill shock, signaling that the importance of addressing bill shock in all areas: data, minutes and texting.

QB10. During the last year, have you experienced ‘bill shock’, meaning a surprisingly high bill?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

*Denotes less than 1%

QB10. During the last year, have you experienced ‘bill shock’, meaning a surprisingly high bill?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

*Denotes less than 1%

Amount

The wireless code mandates that providers must suspend data overage charges once they exceed $50 unless an authorized user consents to paying additional fees. Despite this, Canadians continue to experience a range of unexpected charges, varying from less than $50 to over $1,000 per billing cycle. As in 2016 and 2018, most of the unexpected charges continue to be less than $50 (26%) or between $50-$100 (38%). While not significant, we are starting to see the amount of the unexpected charge is beginning to decline over time.

Reason

As in 2018, data overage fees are the main reason for bill shock and appears to be on the rise over the past year (56% in 2019 vs. 43% in 2018). Data overage fees are higher among younger Canadians (18-54) (60-64%) than older Canadians (55+) (45%), and not unexpectedly, those who report difficulty managing data (75% vs. 51% who find it easy).

Bill shock caused by long-distance fees, minute overage fees and international roaming fees has declined in 2019 (9%;2%; 12% respectively, vs. 14%; 5%; 19% in 2018).

QB10a. [If answered “Yes” to B10] What was the main reason for the ‘bill shock you experienced?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

4.3.2. Roaming Fees

Most Canadians feel they are able to manage their roaming charges while travelling and little had changed since 2016. More than half of Canadians (53%) continue to find it easy to manage roaming charges (5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7) while 16 per cent Canadians find it difficult (1, 2 or 3 on a scale of 1-7) to manage roaming fees.

Unsurprisingly, those who have made a complaint (31%) are more likely to find it difficult to manage roaming charges than those who have not (12%), as are those who have experienced bill shock compared to those who have not (33% vs. 11%).

QB9. If you use your plan while traveling, you may be charged roaming fees. How easy do you find it to manage your roaming charges when you are traveling?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

4.4. Understanding of Contracts

4.4.1. Understanding of Contract

Little has changed compared to 2018 regarding Canadians’ understanding of their wireless contracts, with the majority (61%) continuing to find their wireless contract clear and easy to understand (5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7). This is especially true for those aged 18-34 when compared to those aged 35+ (67% vs. 54-56%).

Not unexpectedly, those who have experienced bill shock are much more likely to state they find their contract hard to understand (1,2 or 3 on a scale of 1-7), which may signal continued confusion among those with past negative billing experiences (40% vs. 14%) or that finding their contract confusing is a precursor to bill shock.

WC10. Do you find your contract clear and easy to understand? Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely unclear and difficult to understand and 7 means extremely clear and easy to understand.

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B

4.4.2. Trial Period

Since 2013, the Wireless Code has required service providers to include a trial period for new contracts that includes an early cancellation fee. During the trial period, wireless contract holders can cancel their contract without penalty. This trial period must be a minimum of 15 days service and as of December 1st, 2017, it must permit the customer to use up to half the voice, text, and data usage amounts included in their monthly plan.

As in 2018, Canadians were asked how clear their explanation of the trial period was when they took out their wireless contract. Compared to the previous year, Canadians are more likely to believe the explanation of their trial period was unclear (40% vs. 34%; 1, 2 or 3 on a scale of 1-7). A minority continue to have not read the contract (2%) or state they do not have a contract (4%) or trial period (5%).

4.4.3. Cancellation Fees

Most service providers require customers to pay a cancellation fee if they cancel their contracts before the agreed upon end date. This needs to be carefully explained to the consumer for them to be fully aware of the implications of early cancellation. Consistent with 2018, half (50%) of Canadians who have wireless plans find the explanation to be clear, while there is an increase in the number who find it to be unclear (30% in 2019 vs. 26% in 2018; rated 1, 2 or 3 on a scale from 1-7). This signals a need for service providers to provide greater clarity around cancellation fees, or that current contracts may be difficult for the average consumer to understand.

4.5. Change

4.5.1. Changes to Contract

A small but significant portion of Canadians state that changes to wireless services were made without expressly making the consumer aware of the new terms and conditions (16%), an increase of four percent from 2018 (12%). As in 2018, changes to wireless services without expressly making the consumer aware of the new terms and conditions is reported more often by those who have made a complaint in the last 12 months (31% vs. 12%) as well as by those who report bill shock (32% vs. 11%), which suggests both may be a product of an underlying factor, such as unexpected service changes or an unclear contract.

Exhibit 4.5.1.b. Changes to contract without disclosure of changes in terms and conditions by complaint and bill shock

WC11. Have you ever become aware that your service provider changed your plan without expressly making you aware of how the terms and conditions had changed?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

4.5.2. Service Provider Changes

Few Canadians report having changed their service provider in the past two years (18%). This remains consistent with the previous year’s results.

Among those that have changed their provider, most cite finding a better deal (45%), and a small proportion state lack of satisfaction with service provider (14%) or needing a new or upgraded phone (9%) as reasons. Most also state that they were easily able to navigate this process, with over four-fifths (83%) saying it was easy to switch providers (5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7).

Among the eleven per cent of Canadians who found the process difficult (rated 1, 2 or 3 on a scale from 1-7), most state that the high costs of ending their contract (32%) or technical issues (16%) were the reasons for difficulties. While technical issues are stated as reasons less often in 2019 compared to 2018 (16% vs. 49%), while high costs are stated more often (32% vs. 14%), these results should be interpreted with caution due to a small sample size.

4.6. Complaints

4.6.1. Complaints in the Last 12 Months

Incidence

The incidence of Canadians who have made complaints about their wireless service has remained stable, increasing slightly but not significantly compared to 2018 (20% vs. 18%) and continuing to remain lower than in 2014 (26%).

As found in 2018, Quebecers are least likely to make complaints compared to those in other regions of Canada (11% vs. 19-30%). This is likely due to the provincial consumer protection legislation that Quebec has had in place since 2009 - Quebec’s Bill 60. Younger Canadians (18-54) are also more likely to have made a complaint than those 55+ (22-23% vs. 16%).

Not unexpectedly, those who find managing data difficult are still more likely to have made a complaint over the past year (52% vs. 15%).

QB11a. Have you made a complaint about your wireless services in the past 12 months?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

*Denotes less than 1%

QB11a. Have you made a complaint about your wireless services in the past 12 months?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

*Denotes less than 1%

Reasons

The top reasons behind complaints have remained consistent with those stated in 2018, including:

• Data charges (27%)
• Incorrect charges on bill (26%)
• Inadequate quality of service (17%)
• Roaming charges (11%)
• Misleading information about the terms of contract (8%)
• High prices (8%)

Compared to 2018, Canadians in 2019 are more likely to cite incorrect charges on their bill (26% vs. 17%) or problems with their phone/device (6% vs. 1%) as reasons for their complaint.

Complaint Issued to Service Provider

Consistent with previous findings, more than nine-in-ten Canadians who make a complaint make the complaint to their service provider (95%). Few complaints are escalated to the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTS) (3%), which is mandated to review complaints from customers who are unsatisfied with how their complaint was addressed by their service provider.

4.7. Canadian’s Wireless Plans

4.7.1. Type of Plan

The majority of Canadians continue to purchase post-paid services in 2019 (90%). Significantly fewer report purchasing pre-paid services in 2019 (8%) compared to 2018 (12%), a decline that has continued steadily since Fall 2016 (16%).

While the majority of Canadians use an individual plan (67%), family plans continue to see increased use over 2015 (32% vs. 25%).

Demographics tend to play a role in the type of plan that Canadians choose. More specifically, Quebecers are much more likely than those in other regions to use an individual plan (80% vs. 48-65%) and younger Canadians (18-34) are more likely to have an individual plan compared to their older counterparts (32-36%).

QB1a. Is it an individual plan or a family or shared plan?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

* Denotes less than 1%.

Promotion through Employer or Association

Only a small number of Canadians have a wireless plan that is part of a promotion through their employer or an association they belong to. Those aged 35-54 are more likely to have a promotion through an employer or association compared to older (55+) or younger (18-34) Canadians (10% vs. 4-5%) which is likely due to more Canadians in this age group being in the workforce and thus having access to an employee purchase plan. Men are more likely than women to have these types of plans (8% vs. 5%), as are those with incomes above $60k compared to those making less than $60k (9-10% vs. 3%).

QB1d. Is your plan part of a promotion through your employer or an association you belong to, sometimes also called an employee purchase plan?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

* Denotes less than 1%.

QB1d. Is your plan part of a promotion through your employer or an association you belong to, sometimes also called an employee purchase plan?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

4.7.2. Plan Inclusions

Minutes, Texts and Data

The composition of service features on wireless plans has shifted over the past year. While the majority of wireless plans continue to include text messaging (94%) and calling minutes (84%), data is now much more likely to be included in wireless plans (83% vs. 76% in 2018), an increase of thirteen percent since 2015.

Not unexpectedly, younger Canadians (18-54) continue to be more likely to have text (98% vs. 88%), calling minutes (86-90% vs. 79%) and data (88-91% vs. 74%) included in their wireless plan. There is, however, an increased uptake among older Canadians (55+) of text messages (88% vs. 80%) and data (74% vs. 60%) compared to last year.

QB2a. Which of the following are included in your wireless plan?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

* Denotes less than 1%.

4.7.3. Devices

Phone included or BYOD

Nearly one third of Canadian wireless plans include a new phone purchased from a wireless provider (63%). Where the 2018 results showed a prevalence among older (55+) Canadians for bring your own device (BYOD) plans, this is not the case in 2019. However, those living in the Prairies are much more likely to have a BYOD plan (76% vs. 53-63% in other regions). Canadians who have individual plans are more likely to purchase a new device (36%) than those with family plans (29%).

WC4. When you signed up for your latest wireless plan, did you bring your own device, or did you buy a new phone from your wireless provider?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B .

Among those who purchased a new phone, few paid full price (11%), while most were given a discount on the device (42%). An alternative option, called a tab balance, involves the purchase of a phone at a reduced upfront cost, with the leftover cost added to an individual’s monthly bill to pay down this balance. Four in ten (38%) chose this option when purchasing a device.

Tab balances are much more common among younger Canadians (18-54; 38-48%) than older Canadians (55+; 30%), as well as in the Atlantic provinces (52%) than in Quebec, Ontario, or the Prairies (34-40%).

WC4a. [ IF QWC4 is Buy a new phone from your wireless provider] Did you:

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B .

** Very Low Base < 30

4.8. Television Service Provider Code

4.8.1. Recall of Television Service Provider Code

In September 2017, a Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code came into effect establishing guidelines for television service providers. The TVSP Code ensures that television consumers are empowered to make informed decisions and that there is a more competitive television marketplace. Despite having been introduced more than a year ago, awareness remains low. Only 17 per cent clearly recall the TV service provider code while another 25 per cent can vaguely recall the code. More than half of Canadians do not recall hearing or seeing anything about this code (56%).

Demographics continue to play a role in recall of the TVSP Code, as Canadians aged 18-34 are still less likely to be aware of the TVSP Code (73% do not recall vs. 52-54%), as are those with no tertiary education (68% vs. 52%). Language also appears to play a role, as French speaking Canadians are less likely than English speaking Canadians to recall the TVSP Code (61% vs. 52%).

TVSP1. In September 2017, a Television Service Provider Code came into effect establishing guidelines for television service providers. The Code ensures that television consumers are empowered to make informed decisions and that there is a more competitive wireless marketplace. To what extent, if any would you say you recall hearing or seeing anything about this Code? Would you say you clearly recall, vaguely recall or do not recall?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

4.8.2. Clarity of TV Contracts

Over half of Canadians continue to claim they find their TV contracts clear and easy to understand (54%; rated 5, 6 or 7 on a scale from 1-7) with only a small portion (23%; rated 1, 2 or 3 on a scale from 1-7) finding it difficult to understand. This is consistent with findings in 2018, although in 2019 there are fewer disparities between demographics, including region and language.

4.8.3. Awareness of Basic Service Package

The TVSP Code requires television service providers to ensure that customers are aware of the availability, price and content of their entry-level service offering (i.e., basic service package). Close to half of TV service subscribers believe they were informed of this (52%) while one-in-three (31%) do not believe they were informed even though service providers were required to inform new and old clients, regardless of when their contracts were signed. These results are consistent with findings in 2018, suggesting that while this information may be available to consumers in some form, they are not being actively directed to it.

4.8.4. Service Calls

The TVSP Code requires television service providers to provide customers with a timeframe for when a service call to a residence will begin, explain potential charges associated with the service call, and explain how they may cancel or reschedule the service call. As in 2018 this appears to be working well, as few Canadians report problems related to service calls (14%).

4.8.5. Changes in Price

Service providers are not allowed to change the price of a TV channel or package of channels without informing their customers. When asked if their service provider had changed the price of their channels or packages without informing them, most Canadians continue to say they have not experienced this (71%). However, a small but significant minority believe this has occurred (19%).

4.8.6. Complaints

The number of Canadians who have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months has increased compared to 2018 (27% vs. 23%). The nature of the complaints vary, but most center around incorrect charges (20%), inadequate quality of service (17%), changes to their contract without notice (13%), or price changes/high prices (12%).

As with wireless services, those in Quebec are less likely to have made a complaint than those in other regions of Canada (16% vs. 26-38%).

TVSP6. Have you made a complaint about your TV services within the last 12 months?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B .

4.9. CRTC

4.9.1. Canadians’ Understanding of the CRTC Mandate

Canadians’ understanding of the mandate and role of the CRTC has improved compared to 2018, though it remains lower overall since 2014. Thirty-six per cent now consider themselves very well/well informed about the CRTC, compared to 29 per cent in 2018.

Men continue to consider themselves better informed about the role of the CRTC (40% vs. 32%), though understanding among women has increased significantly over the past year (32% vs. 23%). Likewise, Canadians aged 35+ continue to be better informed about the CRTC’s role than their younger counterparts (38-40% vs. 28%). Younger Canadians however, have shown a significant lift in understanding compared to 2018 (28% vs. 17%).

University educated Canadians as well as Canadians living in high income households ($150+) also continue to be more likely to consider themselves informed (40% vs. 31-35% and 49% vs. 29-40%).

QC1. Overall, how informed are you about the mandate and role of the CRTC?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

QC1. Overall, how informed are you about the mandate and role of the CRTC?

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

4.9.2. Impression of the CRTC

Canadians’ impressions of the CRTC are less neutral than they were in 2018, and have improved from Fall 2016 (34% vs. 29%; rated 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale). This may be reflecting the increase in Canadians who feel well informed about the role of the CRTC over the past year. However, as in 2018 it is worth noting that two thirds of Canadians say they are not well informed about the role of the CRTC, which implies that consumers’ impressions of the CRTC are based on little to no knowledge.

Consistent with 2018, those who consider themselves very well or well informed about the CRTC’s role are more positive about the organization (49-54% vs. 14-30%).

QC2. What is your impression of the CRTC?  Would you say it is:

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

Despite an upward trend in impressions of the CRTC, Canadians are not any more likely to say their opinion of the CRTC has changed in 2019. Few report an improved (8%) or worsened (7%) opinion, with most remaining the same (72%). As stated previously, given that most Canadians continue to state that they are not well informed about the CRTC’s role, this is unsurprising.

Age appears to be a factor in improved opinion, with those 18-34 more likely to say their opinion has improve versus those 55+ (12% vs. 5%), likely reflecting a spike in feeling informed among this age group.

Opinion in the territories is significantly lower than that of other regions (19% vs. 5-9%), however, these results should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size.

Language is also a determining factor in changed opinion, with Anglophones more likely to report a decline in opinion than Francophones (8% vs. 3%). Again, being informed of the role of CRTC has an impact on opinion, though in contrast to 2018 those who report being very well informed are now more likely to say their opinion has declined (13% in 2019 vs. 4% in 2018). See exhibit 4.9.2.f. for more information.

QC3. Over the past year, would you say your impression of the CRTC has:

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

QC3. Over the past year, would you say your impression of the CRTC has:

Note: Letters denote statistically significant difference. For example, if there is a B then the result is significantly higher than the corresponding result in column B.

Appendix A: Methodology

4.10. Methodological Overview

Survey Administration

A telephone survey was conducted among 1,524 Canadians aged 18 years and older; 1,322 with those who have their own wireless plan and 202 with those who do not have a wireless plan. Interviews were conducted using a combination of random digit dialing (RDD) for the landline sample frame and pre-screened cell phone only households (CPO) sample. Included in this sample were Canadians that are under contract with TV service providers. Natural fall-out resulted in 1,107 respondents who subscribe to cable, satellite or IPTV TV services, along with 516 Canadians who reside in cell phone only households.

A pre-test consisting of 10 completed English interviews and 10 completed French interviews was completed before fielding the survey on January 21^st, 2019.

The survey was in field from January 22^nd to February 6^th, 2019. Since this survey included pre-screened sample it is considered a non-probability sample and as such margin of error does not apply and conclusions from these results cannot be generalized to any population.

To allow for regional analyses, regional quotas were also set as follows:

Survey data were weighted using the 2016 Census statistics with regard to region, age, gender and language. Further details about the methodology follow.

Questionnaire

This is a tracking survey and the overall objectives have not changed, although some questions were removed or added to the survey since the fall 2016 wave. CRTC provided Kantar TNS with both English and French versions of the survey. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Pre-test

A pre-test was undertaken on January 21^st, 2019 obtaining 10 English and 10 French completed interviews. The results were reviewed to ensure the survey was working as expected and that the questions were being interpreted as expected. Based on the results of the pre-test, minimal changes were required for the survey and as such the results of the 20 completes were included in the final data set.

Sample Design and Selection

A regionally stratified sample was drawn to achieve completions among Canadians who have a wireless plan that is not paid for by their employer and those who do not have any wireless plan. The sample was regionally stratified to ensure regional quotas were met.

A landline sample was provided by an internal random number generator that randomizes the last four digits of the phone number based on known area code/exchange combinations. Landline respondents were screened to ensure they qualified for the study. The person answering the phone was selected for the study if they were 18 years of age or older. Regional quotas were assigned by those with and without personal wireless plans.

Survey Administration

The telephone survey was conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. CATI ensures the interview flows as it should with pre-programmed skip patterns. It also controls responses to ensure appropriate ranges and data validity. Sample is imported directly into the survey to ensure accurate recording of sample variables such as region. The system also controls automated scheduling and call-backs to ensure all appointments are adhered to.

Surveys were conducted in English or French as chosen by the respondent. Interviewing was conducted by fully trained interviewers and supervisors. A minimum of five per cent of all interviews were independently monitored and validated in real time.

All participants were informed of the general purpose of the research, they were informed of the sponsor and the supplier and that all of their responses would be confidential.

Margin of Errors

Since this survey included pre-screened sample it is considered a non-probability sample and as such margin of error does not apply and conclusions from these results cannot be generalized to any population.

Weighting

Data were weighted by region, age, gender and language using 2016 Census Data.

Response Rate

A total of 116,827 Canadian phone numbers were dialed, of which n=1524 completed the survey. The overall response rate achieved for the study was 2.79%. The following table outlines the sample disposition and response rate as per the MRIA guidelines.

Non-response Bias

The response rate for this survey was 2.79%.n order to maximize response TNS undertakes the following:

• A minimum of 8 callbacks were made before retiring a number.
• Call backs are rescheduled at different times and days in order to maximize the possibility of an answer.
• Appointments and call backs are offered at flexible times so respondents may take the survey at the most convenient time.

Tabulated Data

Detailed tables are included under separate cover.

Appendix B: Survey Instrument

Background Information for the Interviewers

The Wireless Code came into effect in 2013 and was updated in 2017.

• Here are the main features of the Wireless Code (2013): The Wireless Code makes it easier for individual and small business consumers to get information about their contracts with wireless service providers and about their associated rights and responsibilities, establish standards for industry behaviour, and contribute to a more dynamic marketplace. The Code significantly limits the early cancellation fees that are currently sought by retail wireless service providers, which will enable consumers to take advantage of competitive offers at least every two years. The Wireless Code requires service providers to unlock wireless devices, to offer a trial period for wireless contracts, and to set default caps on data overage charges and data roaming charges.
• Here are the main updates to the Wireless Code (2017): The Code now ensures that customers will be provided with unlocked devices, gives families more control over data overages, sets minimum usage limits for the trial period that correspond to at least half of the monthly usage limits of the customer’s plan, and clarifies that data is a key contract term that cannot be changed during the commitment period without the customer’s consent.

The TV Service Provider Code came into effect in 2017.

• Here are the main features of the TV Service Provider (TVSP) Code (2017):The Code makes it easier for Canadians to understand their television service agreements and empowers customers in their relationships with TVSPs (i.e. your cable, satellite or IPTV provider). Among other things, the Code requires TVSPs to ensure written agreements and offers are clear. It also sets out new rules for trial periods for persons with disabilities, changes to programming options, service calls, service outages and disconnections.

Section A: Introduction and Screening

Hello/Bonjour. My name is _______________ and I am calling from Kantar TNS on behalf of the Government of Canada. We are conducting a survey with Canadians 18+ to get their attitudes and opinions towards issues of importance to Canadians. Would you prefer that I continue in English or French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais?

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Please be assured that your responses are confidential and will not be reported individually nor attributed to you personally. The information will be used to develop communications related policy. The survey will take 15 minutes or less to complete.

[IF ASKED: Kantar TNS is a professional research company hired by the Government of Canada to conduct this survey]

[ASK ALL] A1b. Do you have your own cell phone, smartphone or other wireless device? In other words, a phone that is not paid for by your employer?

HV1. Hidden Variable: CPO Household

RECORD FROM SAMPLE

YES - CPO Household

NO

A1d. Does your household subscribe to a cable, satellite or IPTV TV service?

[IF ASKED: IPTV is a different way of getting traditional TV, similar to cable or satellite TV. IPTV is different from Netflix or other streaming services. (IPTV does not include Netflix)]

A2. Are you or is any member of your household or immediate family employed in any of the following businesses? [READ LIST]

Section: Wireless Code

[ASK ALL]

I. RECALL OF WIRELESS CODE

WC1. In 2013 a Wireless Code was created to make wireless contracts clearer, limit early cancellation fees, and to contribute to a more competitive wireless marketplace. In 2017, the Code was updated to end unlocking fees. To what extent, if any would you say you recall hearing or seeing anything about this Code? Would you say you clearly recall, vaguely recall or do not recall?

PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTION:

IF NO AT A1B AND YES AT A1D SKIP TO SECTION TVSP Code

IF NO AT A1B AND NO AT A1D SKIP TO SECTION CRTC

II. TYPE OF WIRELESS CONTRACT

The next few questions are about your cell or wireless phone service contract or plan.

[Interviewer note: If say “I don’t have a plan/I have pay-as-you-go/month-to-month,” say: “this question is about your service agreement or plan, regardless of whether you have signed a contract for a specific time period, are month-to-month or use pre-paid cards.”] 

INDIVIDUAL, FAMILY AND SHARED PLANS

B1a. Is it an individual plan or a family or shared plan? 

[Interviewer note: If unsure about the difference, say “Do you pay only for one person (which is an individual plan) or do you share a plan with your family and pay together (which is a family plan)?”]

WC2. [ASK If answered “family/shared plan” to B1a] 

How many members are on your shared plan?

MONTHLY, PREPAID, AND PAY-AS-YOU-GO PLANS

B1c. And, is it a monthly plan, or a prepaid or pay-as-you-go plan?

[Interviewer note: If unsure about the difference, say “If you pay your bill after you use your wireless service, it’s a monthly or post-paid plan. If you pay before you use your wireless service, it’s a prepaid or pay-as-you-go plan.“]

CORPORATE CONTRACTS (EMPLOYEE PURCHASE PLANS)

B1d. Is your plan part of a promotion through your employer or an association you belong to, sometimes also called an employee purchase plan?

III. SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE WIRELESS PLAN

(TEXT, VOICE, DATA)

DISPLAY: Now I would like to ask you a few questions about the services that are included in your wireless plan.

B2a. Which of the following are included in your wireless plan? 

1. Calling minutes [Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning, say “This is what you need to make or receive phone calls.”] 
2. Text messages [Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning, say “This can include both text messages and multimedia messages, like pictures or video sent via text.”] 
3. Data [Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning of data, say “This is what you need to browse the Internet, access applications or your emails with your wireless device.”] 

PROGRAMMING NOTE: PLEASE ALLOW YES NO AND DON’T KNOW AS OPTIONS

IV. DEVICES

PHONE INCLUDED WITH CONTRACT (BYOD, TAB CONTRACTS, AND OTHER DEVICE SUBSIDIES)

WC4. When you signed up for your latest wireless plan, did you bring your own device, or did you buy a new phone from your wireless provider?

[Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning of bring your own device, say “bring your own device is where you already own your mobile device and are simply purchasing the cellular service from a wireless company.”

PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTION: ONLY ASKWC4A IF QWC4 is Buy a new phone from your wireless provider

QWC4A: Did you:

INTREVIEWER INSTRUCTION: If unsure about the meaning of a tab balance, say “Tab balances are when you buy a phone at a reduced upfront cost and the leftover cost of the phone goes onto your account, creating a tab balance. Each month, a percentage of your monthly bill is used to pay down your tab”]

V. DATA SERVICES

[ASK If answered “Data” to B2a] 

Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about the data services that are included in your wireless plan.

DATA PLANS

B4.   Some wireless plans have unlimited data and some have limited data. When a plan includes a monthly data limit, you may have to pay data overage fees if you use more data in a month than is included in your plan.

How much data is currently included in your plan each month?

[Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning of data, say “This is what you need to browse the Internet, access applications or your emails with your wireless device when it is not connected to wifi.”]

[DO NOT READ LIST]

PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTION: PLEASE PROGRAM TO ALLOW NUMBERICAL ENTRY AS FOLLOWS

_____Mega Bytes (MB) – DO NOT ALLOW ENTRY UNDER 100

_____Giga Bytes (GB) – DO NOT ALLOW ENTRY OVER 100

Unlimited

None – no data in plan

Don’t Know

[Interviewer note: If respondent indicates an number under 100 MegaBytes please ask them if they mean MegaBytes or GigaBytes. If there is confusion, please code as Don’t Know”]

HOW TO MANAGE DATA USE

PROGRAMMING NOTE: PLEASE ALLOW YES NO AND DONT KNOW AS OPTIONS

B5a. [ASK If do not answer “Unlimited or None” to B4] Which of the following activities, if any, do you use to manage or limit your data use? Select all that apply.

EASE OF MANAGING DATA

WC6. [ASK If answered “Data” to B2a and not code 3 (NO DATA) at B4] 

How easy do you find it to manage the data used by yourself and/or your family each month? 

Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely difficult and 7 means extremely easy.

[Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning of data, say “This is what you need to browse the Internet, access applications or your emails with your wireless device.”]

DATA OVERAGE FEES

B8. [“Data” to B2a and not code 3 (NO DATA) at B4.] In the past 12 months, how often have you paid data overage fees? 

READ LIST

[Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning of data, say “This is what you need to browse the Internet, access applications or your emails with your wireless device.”]

VI. BILL SHOCK

B10. During the last year, have you experienced ‘bill shock, meaning a surprisingly high bill?

READ LIST

REASON FOR BILL SHOCK

B10a. [If answered “Yes” to B10] What was the main reason for the ‘bill shock you experienced?

DO NOT READ LIST – SELECT ALL THAT APPLY

INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT SAYS ‘ROAMING/ROAMING FEES, CLARIFY WHETHER THIS WAS WITHIN CANADA OR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY

AMOUNT OF BILL SHOCK

B10b. [If answered “Yes” to B10] What was the amount of the unexpected charges on your bill?

READ LIST

ROAMING FEES WHILE TRAVELING

B9. If you use your plan while traveling, you may be charged roaming fees. How easy do you find it to manage your roaming charges when you are traveling? 

Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely difficult and 7 means extremely easy.

VII. COMPLAINTS

B11a. Have you made a complaint about your wireless services in the past 12 months?

SUBJECT OF COMPLAINTS

B11b. [ASK If answered “Yes” to B11a] What was your complaint about? READ LIST IF NEEDED CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY

NOTES TO INTERVIEWER: PLEASE FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE FOLLOWING BEFORE INTERVIEW READ IF REQUIRED

• Misleading information about terms: Some examples are what is included in a contract or how the contract should be interpreted, or whether the providers conduct meets its contractual obligations, or misunderstandings about the particulars of a contract or term.
• Misleading or aggressive sales practices: Some examples include salespeople providing details of wireless products or services you are not interested in or which end up being false, promotional offers changing over the course of the term, rebate or discount offers where terms differ from the original information provided by the service provider, or technical support representatives trying to sell you products or services during the support call or interaction.
• Incorrect charge: Some examples include complaints about customers having agreed to one price and subsequently being charged more, being overcharged due to either a billing system error or a price that is different than advertised, or about being billed for per-use services which they claim they did not use.
• Early cancellation fee: This would be a complaint about the amount or the legitimacy of an early cancellation fee charged to the customer when they cancel their service.
• Inadequate quality of service: This can include the installation, repair or disconnection of service, including the quality of the service or unreasonable interruptions to service and transfers of service from one provider to another.
• Credit or refund not received: This is fairly straightforward – refunds would normally be due upon cancellation of a service.
• Data charges: Any complaints relating to a customer’s data plan or data services, including disputes over data overage fees, the ability of multiple users on family or shared plans to consent to exceeding data overage caps.
• Breach of contract: This would include disputes about compliance with terms and conditions of a customer’s contract.
• Change to contract without notice: This is when a service provider changes a material term in a customer’s contract without providing notice.
• Credit reporting: This issue relates to a customer’s credit score and/or debt collection. For example, a customer is overbilled in error and does not pay the outstanding amount, this may impact their credit or they may have to deal with debt collection agencies while the complaint is being addressed. 

WHO DID YOU COMPLAIN TO?

WC7. [ASK If answered “Yes” to B11a] Who did you complain to? Was it your service provider, theCommission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services, also knowns as the CCTS, or both?

VIII. CLARITY AND EXPLANATIONS

Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about how clear and easy you find your wireless contract to understand.

EXPLANATION OF TRIAL PERIOD

WC8. The Code requires service providers to include a trial period for new contracts that include a device. During the trial period, you can cancel your contract without penalty. This trial period now has to be half of a month of service and include half the service included in your monthly plan.

How clearly did your service provider explain the trial period to you?

Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely unclear and 7 means extremely clear.

EXPLANATION OF CANCELLATION FEES

WC9. When you signed your contract or accepted your service agreement, how clearly did your service provider explain any fees that would apply if you cancel your contract or agreement early? Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely unclear and 7 means extremely clear.

WC10. Do you find your contract clear and easy to understand? Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely unclear and difficult to understand and 7 means extremely clear and easy to understand.

IX. CHANGES

CHANGES TO YOUR CONTRACT

WC11. Have you ever become aware that your service provider changed your plan without expressly making you aware of how the terms and conditions had changed?

[ASK ALL]

CHANGING SERVICE PROVIDERS

WC16. Have you changed wireless service providers in the last two years?

REASONS FOR CHANGING SERVICE PROVIDER

WC12. [If answered “Yes” to WC16] Why did you change service provider? (DO NOT READ LIST - SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

EASE OF SWITCHING

WC13 [If answered “Yes” to WC16] How easy or difficult was it to switch service providers? Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely difficult and 7 means extremely easy.

REASONS SWITCHING WAS DIFFICULT

WC14. [If answered 1,2 OR 3 at WC13] Was there a reason why switching providers was difficult for you? (DO NOT READ LIST – SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

Section: TVSP Code

ASK TVSP CODE section if yes at A1d

The next few questions are about your TV service provider. By this we mean your cable, satellite or IPTV provider. Please do not include streaming services such as Netflix

INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTION: IF RESPONDENT INDICATES THEY DO NOT HAVE CABLE, SATELITE OR IPTV SERVICES SKIP THIS SECTION

TVSP1. In September 2017, a Television Service Provider Code came into effect establishing guidelines for television service providers. The Code ensures that television consumers are empowered to make informed decisions and that there is a more competitive wireless marketplace. To what extent, if any would you say you recall hearing or seeing anything about this Code? Would you say you clearly recall, vaguely recall or do not recall?

TVSP2. To what extent do you find your TV contract clear and easy to understand? Please use a 7-point scale where 1 means extremely unclear and difficult to understand and 7 means extremely clear and easy to understand.

TVSP3. The TVSP Code requires television service providers to provide a customer with a timeframe for when a service call to a residence will begin, explain potential charges associated with the service call, and explain how you may cancel or reschedule the service call. Have you experienced problems related to service calls?

TVSP4. The TVSP Code requires television service providers to ensure that customers are aware of the availability, price and content of their entry-level service offering, also known as the basic service package. Has your service provider informed you about their entry-level offering? This may have been by email, on the phone or via your monthly billing?

TVSP5. In the past twelve months, has your TV service provider changed the price of a TV channel or package of channels without informing you in advance?

TVSP6. Have you made a complaint about your TV services within the last 12 months?

SUBJECT OF COMPLAINTS

TVSP6b. [ASK If answered “Yes” to TVSP6] What was your complaint about? READ LIST IF NEEDED CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY

NOTES TO INTERVIEWER: PLEASE FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE FOLLOWING BEFORE INTERVIEW READ IF REQUIRED

• Misleading information about terms: Some examples are what is included in a contract or how the contract should be interpreted, or whether the providers conduct meets its contractual obligations, or misunderstandings about the particulars of a contract or term.
• Misleading or aggressive sales practices: Some examples include salespeople providing details of television products or services you are not interested in or which end up being false, promotional offers changing over the course of the term, rebate or discount offers where terms differ from the original information provided by the service provider, or technical support representatives trying to sell you products or services during the support call or interaction.
• Incorrect charge: Some examples include complaints about customers having agreed to one price and subsequently being charged more, being overcharged due to either a billing system error or a price that is different than advertised, or about being billed for per-use services which they claim they did not use.
• Early cancellation fee: This would be a complaint about the amount or the legitimacy of an early cancellation fee charged to the customer when they cancel their service.
• Inadequate quality of service: This can include the quality of the service, unreasonable interruptions to service, disconnections, and issues transferring service from one provider to another.
• Credit or refund not received: This is fairly straightforward – refunds would normally be due upon cancellation of a service.
• Breach of contract: This would include disputes about compliance with terms and conditions of a customer’s contract.
• Change to contract without notice: This is when a service provider changes a material term in a customer’s contract without providing notice, including changes to television programming options (e.g. channels provided or rate increases).
• Credit reporting: issues related to a consumers credit score and/or debt collection. For example, a customer is overbilled in error and does not pay the outstanding amount, this may impact their credit or they may have to deal with debt collection agencies while the complaint is being addressed. 
• Installation: issues related to the installation of services.
• Service calls: issues related to service calls, including repair services, such as failure to arrive within the promised timeframe or charges related to service calls.

Section CRTC: CRTC ASK ALL

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission or CRTC is an independent agency of government, responsible for regulating Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications systems.

C1. Overall, how informed are you about the mandate and role of the CRTC? (READ LIST)

C2. What is your impression of the CRTC?  Would you say it is: (READ LIST)

[Repeat CRTC definition, if necessary: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission or CRTC is an independent agency of government, responsible for regulating Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications systems.

C3. Over the past year, would you say your impression of the CRTC has:  (READ LIST)

[Repeat CRTC definition, if necessary: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission or CRTC is an independent agency of government, responsible for regulating Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications systems].

Section: Demographics

Thank you, now we have a few questions for classifications purposes. Please be assured that your responses will remain confidential.

D1. Record gender [DO NOT ASK]

D2. Can you tell me, in what year were you born?

_____________ [RECORD YEAR TO CALCULATE AGE] DK/refused D3 [IF D2 = DK/refused] For classification purposes, could you tell me whether your age is: [READ LIST]

[ASK ALL]

D4.  In which province or territory do you live? [READ LIST]

D5. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed? [READ IF NECESSARY - CODE ONE ONLY]

D6. What is your mother tongue, that is, the language you first learned at home? 

(DO NOT READ)

[CODE ONE ONLY]

D7. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes? [READ - CODE ONE ONLY]

D8. Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status? Are you…? [READ - CODE ONE ONLY]

Those are all the questions I have for you today. Thank you for your time on this important study! The results, once compiled, can be found on the Library and Archives website. [ IF ASKED:  at  https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/].