Wireless Code Public Opinion Research – Spring 2020
Final Report

Prepared for Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Supplier name: Kantar
Contract number: 82082-200074/001/CY
Contract value: $114,337.12
Award date: November 18, 2019
Delivery date: February 21, 2020
Registration number: POR 034-19

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 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:

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
1 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4B1

Catalogue Number:
BC92-96/2020E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-33981-8

Related publications (registration number: POR 034-19):
Catalogue Number: BC92-96/2020F-PDF (Final Report, French)
ISBN 978-0-660-33982-5

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, 2020

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
  • 3.1 Wireless Data Usage
  • 3.2 Bill shock and Roaming Fees
  • 3.3 Understanding of Contracts
  • 3.4 Changes
  • 3.5 Complaints
  • 3.6 Canadians’ Wireless Plans
  • 3.7 Demographic Differences
  • 3.8 Television Service Provider Code
  • 3.9 CRTC
  • 3.10 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
    • Appendix A: Methodology
  • 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 included 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 2020 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 2020 research further explores a variety of topics such as wireless complaints, data usage, bill shock, and ease of switching service providers. This research also 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 research conducted from 2014-2019.

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 and TV services;
• 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; and
• Better understand Canadians’ perceptions of the CRTC and how they are changing over time.

1.2 Summary of Findings

Wireless Data Usage

The majority of Canadians continue to select plans that include data (83%), with a small but increasing number now opting for unlimited data plans (13% vs. 8% in 2019). Among those with data plans, virtually all (97%) take steps to manage their data so as not to incur additional costs.

Those with data plans continue to feel confident in their ability to manage their data, with the majority reporting they find it easy (81%). This is translating into fewer Canadians reporting overage fees than in previous years (41% vs. 48-49% in 2018 and 2019).

Bill shock and Roaming Fees

However, despite fewer Canadians paying overage fees overall, one-in-five (22%) Canadians continue to experience bill shock, consistent with previous years. This disconnect suggests that while Canadians are having greater success managing their data, many may not fully understand their contracts or how to manage other fees and services in a way that prevents bill shock.

Data overage fees continue to be the predominant source of bill shock but have decreased over the past year (50% vs. 56%), while unexpected set-up fees or service charges appear to be on the rise (7% in 2020 vs. 2% in 2019). Further, while most Canadians continue to report they find roaming fees clear and easy to understand (51%); international travel accounts for a greater proportion of bill shock versus last year (17% vs. 12%).

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, two-thirds (66%) of those who experienced bill shock continue to report they have had charges in excess of $50 during the past year, with most of these falling in the $50 to $100 range (55%).

Understanding of Contracts

Little has changed compared to 2019 with regard to Canadians’ understanding of their wireless contracts. The majority (57%) continue to find their wireless contract clear and easy to understand, and close to half (49%) of Canadians continue to find the explanation of cancellation fees clear and easy to understand, consistent with 2019.

However, after being in place for two years, many Canadians continue to find the explanation of the trial period somewhat unclear (41%). This may signal that general confusion continues to exist among some Canadians related to the trial period.

Changes

The number of Canadians who have changed their service provider is slowly increasing (up 4% since 2017). Overall, one-in-five Canadians report having changed their service provider in the past two years (20%). Being offered a better deal is the most commonly stated incentive to switch providers (58%), and few (14%) found the process of switching providers difficult.

Complaints

The number of complaints Canadians report making has remained stable since Fall 2016, suggesting the Wireless Code is having a positive impact for wireless consumers. Levels of complaints have decreased nine percent overall from 2014 (17% vs. 26%).

The causes of complaints have undergone a shift in the past year, likely reflecting the decrease in data overage charges noted earlier. Incorrect charges are now the leading cause of complaints (35% vs. 26% in 2019). Other causes continue to include data charges (27%) and inadequate quality of service (22%). Compared to 2019, more Canadians now cite misleading information about contract terms as a cause for complaint (19% vs. 8%).

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) responds to complaints from consumers if the consumer believes the complaint remains unresolved by the service provider. Consumers continue to primarily complain to their service providers (93%) with few of these complaints also going to the CCTS (5%).

Canadians’ Wireless Plans

Little has changed over the past year regarding the type of plans Canadians purchase. Most continue to purchase post-paid services in 2020 (89%), with few purchasing pre-paid services (10%). Similar to the past two years, many also continue to use an individual plan (65%), with one-third (33%) opting for a family plan.

Demographic Differences

A number of additional demographic analyses were also undertaken, including age, gender, education, income and language. Compared to previous years, regional differences have dissipated. Demographic differences were noted in the following areas:

Age:

Canadians aged 18-54 continue to differ than their older counterparts (55+) in a number of ways:

• Younger Canadians (18-54) continue to be more likely to have data included in their wireless plans than Canadians aged 55+ (87-92% vs. 72%);
• 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 (93-97% for 18-54-year olds vs. 85% for 55+), reducing data usage when notified (74-75% for 18-54-year olds vs. 54% for 55+), and monitoring data usage with tools (46-54% for 18-54-year olds vs. 36% for 55+); and
• Younger Canadians continue to be more likely to have experienced bill shock than those 55+ (24-27% vs. 17%);

Canadians in the youngest age cohort (18-34) differ from those 35+ in the following areas:

• Those in the youngest age group (18-34) remain more likely than their older (35+) counterparts to have paid data overage fees (48% vs. 38-40%); and
• Those in the youngest age group (18-34) are more likely to say they find their wireless contract easy to understand than those 35+ (66% vs. 51-53%).

An in-depth analysis of older Canadians (55+) was undertaken to identify any significant differences between those 55-64, 65-74, and 75+ and their younger counterparts (18-54). The analysis found that while there is some variation between the 55-64, 65-74, and 75+ age groups, overall, those 55-64, 65-74, and 75+ consistently vary in the same manner (i.e., all three age groups are higher or lower than those 18-54). Thus, to ease reader burden and ensure clarity, the older cohort in this report has been grouped as 55+.

Language:

A few notable differences exist among Canadian’s whose primary spoken language is not an official language:

• Those who do not speak an official language are more likely to experience bill shock (30% vs. 18-21%); and
• Those who do not speak an official language are more likely to have found the explanation of the trial period for new contracts unclear (55% vs. 38-39%).

Television Service Provider Code

Despite having been introduced more than two years ago, awareness of the Television Service Provider (TVSP) remains low and has declined from previous years. In 2020, fewer (13% vs 17%) can recall the TV service provider code while more do not recall it at all (60% vs 56%). This may be a function of the reduced media attention on the Code as time goes on.

Only half of TV subscribers (50%) believe they have been informed of the basic service package, 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 (55%) and few (14%) have experienced difficulties related to TV service calls. Most Canadians continue to say they have not experienced an uninformed price change to their channels or package (76%).

The number of Canadians who have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months has remained steady since 2019 (23% for both) but remains lower than in 2018 (27%). The nature of these complaints varies, but most continue to centre around incorrect charges (32%), inadequate quality of service (22%), or price (18%).

CRTC

Canadians’ understanding of the mandate and role of the CRTC has remained stable compared to 2019 and is approaching 2014 levels. Thirty-six per cent now consider themselves very well/well informed about the CRTC, compared to 38 per cent in 2014.

Canadians’ impressions of the CRTC are similar to 2019 and remain more positive than in Fall 2016 (33% vs. 29%). This may be reflecting the increase in Canadians who feel well informed about the role of the CRTC over the past two years. However, it is worth noting that 62% of Canadians say they are not well informed about the role of the CRTC, which implies that many consumers’ impressions of the CRTC are based on little to no knowledge.

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, and consequently data management, continue to be of primary importance to Canadians. An increase in the number of Canadians choosing unlimited data plans, as well as a reduction in the number of Canadians paying data overage fees, suggest Canadians are increasingly aware of and involved with plan management. This signals a positive change, however, the incidence of paying overage fees remains high. While it is possible some Canadians are comfortable with paying occasional overage fees in the interest of having a lower monthly bill, higher rates of bill shock among those who have paid overage fees in the past year suggest the Wireless Code may be able to further support some consumers in this area.
2. Despite fewer Canadians paying data overage fees overall, Canadians continue to experience bill shock on par with 2016 levels. Other factors are increasingly contributing to unexpected charges, namely international travel and unexpected set-up fees or service charges. This may be an area where the Wireless Code could further support Canadians.
3. Results suggest many Canadians do not fully understand the terms surrounding trial periods, with more consumers finding the explanation unclear than clear. This is exacerbated among those who do not speak an official language. An opportunity exists for the Wireless Code to support consumers in this area, ensuring Wireless Service Providers make better efforts to ensure the explanation of the trial period easier to understand and thus consumers can take better advantage of it.
4. The TVSP Code is starting to show its impact. The number of complaints has continued to be below 2018 levels. Little had changed in other aspects of TVSP Code; awareness continues to be low, but few are having difficulty understanding contracts or issues with service calls suggesting the low awareness is not critical. Many Canadians continue to be unaware of the basic service package and as such, encouraging service providers to draw attention to this may be beneficial to Canadians.
5. Canadians’ impressions of the CRTC have improved with time and are increasingly positive. However, many Canadians say they are not well informed about the role of the CRTC, signalling an opportunity to further educate consumers.

1.3 Methodology

The methodology was designed to ensure consistency with previous waves of Wireless Code surveys conducted from 2014-2019. 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 1,510 Canadians aged 18 years and older; 1,322 with those who have their own wireless plan and 188 with those who do not have a wireless plan. Included in this sample were Canadians who reside in cell phone only households (n=502). This sample also included Canadians that are under contract with TV service providers (n=1,060).

Interviews were conducted using a combination of random digit dialling (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 undertaken on January 10^th, 2020. No changes were made after the pre-test and as such the data were included in the final data set. The survey was in field from January 16^th – January 30^th, 2020.

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 $114,337.12 including applicable taxes.

1.5 Statement of Political Neutrality

I hereby certify as a representative of Kantar 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

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 committed to evaluating the effectiveness of the Code and to use the results in formal reviews. 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 from 2015 to 2019.

On June 15, 2017, the CRTC announced multiple changes to the Wireless Code. The information collected in the 2017 through 2019 surveys helped the CRTC assess whether Canadians were satisfied with the changes and whether further changes are required to ensure the objectives of the Wireless Code continue to be met. The Commission now 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 also explores 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 the Wireless Code POR research in 2019 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 and TV services;
• 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; and
• Better understand Canadians’ perceptions of the CRTC and how they are changing over time.

2.3 Methodological Overview

For tracking purposes and comparability over time, most questions remained the same or similar to the ones used for the 2019 Wireless Code POR survey.

A telephone survey was conducted among 1,510 Canadians age 18 years and older; 1,322 with those who have their own wireless plan and 188 with those who do not have their own wireless plan. Included in this sample were Canadians who reside in cell phone only households (n=502). This sample also included Canadians that are under contract with TV service providers (n=1,060).

Interviews were conducted using a combination of random digit dialling (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 undertaken on January 10^th, 2020. No changes were made after the pre-test and as such the data were included in the final data set. The survey was in field from January 16^th – January 30^th, 2020.

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 has incorporated these results as well as results from Spring and Fall 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 research into the 2020 report for year-over-year comparison where applicable.

3. Highlights and Strategic Implications

3.1 Wireless Data Usage

The majority of Canadians continue to select plans that include data (83%), with a small but increasing number now opting for unlimited data plans (13% vs. 8% in 2019). Among those with data plans, virtually all (97%) take steps to manage their data so as not to incur additional costs.

Those with data plans continue to feel confident in their ability to manage their data, with the majority reporting they find it easy (81%). This is translating into fewer Canadians reporting overage fees than in previous years (41% vs. 48-49% in 2018 and 2019).

3.2 Bill shock and Roaming Fees

However, despite fewer Canadians paying overage fees overall, one-in-five (22%) Canadians continue to experience bill shock, consistent with previous years. This disconnect suggests that while Canadians are having greater success managing their data, many may not fully understand their contracts or how to manage other fees and services in a way that prevents bill shock.

Data overage fees continue to be the predominant source of bill shock but have decreased over the past year (50% vs. 56%), while unexpected set-up fees or service charges appear to be on the rise (7% in 2020 vs. 2% in 2019). Further, while most Canadians continue to report they find roaming fees clear and easy to understand (51%); international travel accounts for a greater proportion of bill shock versus last year (17% vs. 12%).

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, two-thirds (66%) of those who experienced bill shock continue to report they have had charges in excess of $50 during the past year, with most of these falling in the $50 to $100 range (55%).

3.3 Understanding of Contracts

Little has changed compared to 2019 with regard to Canadians’ understanding of their wireless contracts. The majority (57%) continue to find their wireless contract clear and easy to understand, and close to half (49%) of Canadians continue to find the explanation of cancellation fees clear and easy to understand, consistent with 2019.

However, after being in place for two years, many Canadians continue to find the explanation of the trial period somewhat unclear (41%). This may signal that general confusion continues to exist among some Canadians related to the trial period.

3.4 Changes

The number of Canadians who have changed their service provider is slowly increasing (up 4% since 2017). Overall, one-in-five Canadians report having changed their service provider in the past two years (20%). Being offered a better deal is the most commonly stated incentive to switch providers (58%), and few (14%) found the process of switching providers difficult.

3.5 Complaints

The number of complaints Canadians report making has remained stable since Fall 2016, suggesting the Wireless Code is having a positive impact for wireless consumers. Levels of complaints have decreased nine percent overall from 2014 (17% vs. 26%).

The causes of complaints have undergone a shift in the past year, likely reflecting the decrease in data overage charges noted earlier. Incorrect charges are now the leading cause of complaints (35% vs. 26% in 2019). Other causes continue to include data charges (27%) and inadequate quality of service (22%). Compared to 2019, more Canadians now cite misleading information about contract terms as a cause for complaint (19% vs. 8%).

The CCTS responds to complaints from consumers if the consumer believes the complaint remains unresolved by the service provider. Consumers continue to primarily complain to their service providers (93%) with few of these complaints also going to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS) (5%).

3.6 Canadians’ Wireless Plans

Little has changed over the past year regarding the type of plans Canadians purchase. Most continue to purchase post-paid services in 2020 (89%), with few purchasing pre-paid services (10%). Similar to the past two years, many also continue to use an individual plan (65%), with one-third (33%) opting for a family plan.

3.7 Demographic Differences

A number of additional demographic analyses were also undertaken, including age, gender, education, income and language. Compared to previous years, regional differences have dissipated. Demographic differences were noted in the following areas:

Age:

Canadians aged 18-54 continue to differ than their older counterparts (55+) in a number of ways:

• Younger Canadians (18-54) continue to be more likely to have data included in their wireless plans than Canadians aged 55+ (87-92% vs. 72%);
• 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 (93-97% for 18-54-year olds vs. 85% for 55+), reducing data usage when notified (74-75% for 18-54-year olds vs. 54% for 55+), and monitoring data usage with tools (46-54% for 18-54-year olds vs. 36% for 55+); and
• Younger Canadians continue to be more likely to have experienced bill shock than those 55+ (24-27% vs. 17%);

Canadians in the youngest age cohort (18-34) differ from those 35+ in the following areas:

• Those in the youngest age group (18-34) remain more likely than their older (35+) counterparts to have paid data overage fees (48% vs. 38-40%); and
• Those in the youngest age group (18-34) are more likely to say they find their wireless contract easy to understand than those 35+ (66% vs. 51-53%).

An in-depth analysis of older Canadians (55+) was undertaken to identify any significant differences between those 55-64, 65-74, and 75+ and their younger counterparts (18-54). The analysis found that while there is some variation between the 55-64, 65-74, and 75+ age groups, overall, those 55-64, 65-74, and 75+ consistently vary in the same manner (i.e., all three age groups are higher or lower than those 18-54). Thus, to ease reader burden and ensure clarity, the older cohort in this report has been grouped as 55+.

Language:

A few notable differences exist among Canadian’s whose primary spoken language is not an official language:

• Those who do not speak an official language are more likely to experience bill shock (30% vs. 18-21%); and
• Those who do not speak an official language are more likely to have found the explanation of the trial period for new contracts unclear (55% vs. 38-39%).

3.8 Television Service Provider Code

Despite having been introduced more than two years ago, awareness of the Television Service Provider (TVSP) remains low and has declined from previous years. In 2020, fewer (13% vs 17%) can recall the TV service provider code while more do not recall it at all (60% vs 56%). This may be a function of the reduced media attention on the Code as time goes on.

Only half of TV subscribers (50%) believe they have been informed of the basic service package, 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 (55%) and few (14%) have experienced difficulties related to TV service calls. Most Canadians continue to say they have not experienced an uninformed price change to their channels or package (76%).

The number of Canadians who have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months has remained steady since 2019 (23% for both) but remains lower than in 2018 (27%). The nature of these complaints varies, but most continue to centre around incorrect charges (32%), inadequate quality of service (22%), or price (18%).

3.9 CRTC

Canadians’ understanding of the mandate and role of the CRTC has remained stable compared to 2019 and is approaching 2014 levels. Thirty-six per cent now consider themselves very well/well informed about the CRTC, compared to 38 per cent in 2014.

Canadians’ impressions of the CRTC are similar to 2019 and remain more positive than in Fall 2016 (33% vs. 29%). This may be reflecting the increase in Canadians who feel well informed about the role of the CRTC over the past two years. However, it is worth noting that 62% of Canadians say they are not well informed about the role of the CRTC, which implies that many consumers’ impressions of the CRTC are based on little to no knowledge.

3.10 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, and consequently data management, continue to be of primary importance to Canadians. An increase in the number of Canadians choosing unlimited data plans, as well as a reduction in the number of Canadians paying data overage fees, suggest Canadians are increasingly aware of and involved with plan management. This signals a positive change, however, the incidence of paying overage fees remains high. While it is possible some Canadians are comfortable with paying occasional overage fees in the interest of having a lower monthly bill, higher rates of bill shock among those who have paid overage fees in the past year suggest the Wireless Code may be able to further support some consumers in this area.
2. Despite fewer Canadians paying data overage fees overall, Canadians continue to experience bill shock on par with 2016 levels. Other factors are increasingly contributing to unexpected charges, namely international travel and unexpected set-up fees or service charges. This may be an area where the Wireless Code could further support Canadians.
3. Results suggest many Canadians do not fully understand the terms surrounding trial periods, with more consumers finding the explanation unclear than clear. This is exacerbated among those who do not speak an official language. An opportunity exists for the Wireless Code to support consumers in this area, ensuring Wireless Service Providers make better efforts to ensure the explanation of the trial period easier to understand and thus consumers can take better advantage of it.
4. The TVSP Code is starting to show its impact. The number of complaints has continued to be below 2018 levels. Little had changed in other aspects of TVSP Code; awareness continues to be low, but few are having difficulty understanding contracts or issues with service calls suggesting the low awareness is not critical. Many Canadians continue to be unaware of the basic service package and as such, encouraging service providers to draw attention to this may be beneficial to Canadians.
5. Canadians’ impressions of the CRTC have improved with time and are increasingly positive. However, many Canadians say they are not well informed about the role of the CRTC, signalling an opportunity to further educate consumers.

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 2019, fewer Canadians are aware of the Wireless Code, with more saying they do not recall hearing anything about it (49% vs. 44% in 2019), which is in-line with 2018 results (50%). This may be reflective of an ebb in media coverage over the past year.

As outlined in Table 4.1.b, age continues to play a factor in awareness of the Wireless Code. Recall is higher among middle-aged Canadians (35-54) than their younger (18-34) or older (55+) counterparts (clearly recall 31% vs. 21-22% respectively). As noted in Table 4.1.c, those with higher incomes ($100k+) are also more likely to recall the Wireless Code than those who make less than $100K (clearly recall 35-39% vs. 16-26%), as are those with a higher education level (27-29% for College or University graduates vs. 15% for those with no tertiary education).

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.

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

The percentage of Canadians choosing plans with data remains high; over eighty per cent of Canadians have wireless plans that include data (83%, consistent with 2019). Limited data plans continue to be the most common type of plan (69%), though there has been an increase in the number of Canadians with unlimited data plans (13% vs. 8% in 2019). Further, more Canadians appear to be clear about whether their plan includes data, as fewer report being unsure of their type of plan (17% in 2020 vs. 25% in 2019).

As outlined in Tables 4.2.b and 4.2.c, 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+ (87-92% vs. 72%).
• Income – Those with higher household incomes ($60K per year or more) are more likely than those in the lowest income bracket (under $40K per year) to have data included in their wireless plans (85-93% vs. 74% respectively).
• Region – Fewer Canadians in the Territories (55%) have data included in their plans compared to the rest of Canada (77-88%).

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

Consistent with previous years, the vast majority of Canadians who have data in their wireless plans try to manage or limit their data use (97%). The primary methods for doing this continue to be using Wi-Fi where available (92%), followed by reducing data when notified (68%), and/or actively monitoring data usage (45%).

As outlined in Table 4.2.1.b, younger Canadians (18-54) are more likely to employ activities to manage or limit data usage than their older counterparts (55+) (99% vs. 94%). This is also true for switching to Wi-Fi when available (93-97% for 18-54-year olds vs. 85% for 55+), reducing data usage when notified (74-75% for 18-54-year olds vs. 54% for 55+), and monitoring data usage with tools (46-54% for 18-54-year olds vs. 36% for 55+). These trends are consistent with 2019, and suggest older Canadians continue to be less likely to manage their data usage.

As expected, those who have experienced bill shock in the past are more likely to reduce data usage when notified (76% vs. 66%) and to utilize tools to help them monitor data usage (53% vs. 43%). This is outlined in Table 4.2.1.b.

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%

- Denotes 0

4.2.2 Ease of Managing Data Use

In-line with previous years, most Canadians continue to find it easy to manage their data each month. More than four-in-five Canadians (81%) consider it easy (5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7).

4.2.3 Data Overage Fees

Fewer Canadians are paying data overage fees compared to previous years. Four-in-ten (41%) have paid data overages in the past 12 months, compared to nearly half (48-49%) in 2018 and 2019. Further, data overage fees appear to be less likely to be a source of bill shock, as the incidence of paid data overages has decreased among those who experienced bill shock in the past year (69% in 2020 vs. 89% in 2019).

Age differences in data overage fees continue to exist (see Table 4.2.3.b). However, while younger Canadians (18-34) remain more likely than their older (55+) counterparts to have paid data overage fees (48% vs. 38%), the gap between middle-aged (35-54) and older Canadians is narrowing, with fewer in the middle-age cohort having paid overage fees in the past year (40% in 2020 vs. 52% in 2019).

As noted in Table 4.2.3.c, those using family plans are more likely to have incurred data overage fees in the past year (46% vs. 38%), as are those who find data management difficult (71% vs. 35% among those who find it easy).

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%

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.

4.3 Bill Shock and Roaming Fees

4.3.1 Bill Shock

Incidence

Bill shock continues to be experienced by more than one-in-five Canadians (22%). While incidence is low, this signals that despite changes to the Code in 2017, Canadians continue to experience levels of bill shock on par with that of 2016.

As in 2019, younger and middle-aged Canadians (18-54) continue to be more likely to experience bill shock than their older counterparts (24-27% vs. 17%). Further, those whose primary language is not an official language experience greater difficulty with bill shock (30% vs. 18-21%). This is outlined in Table 4.3.1.b.

As expected, bill shock continues to be higher among and those who find data management difficult (50% vs. 19%). This is also true among those with tab contracts (29% vs. 21%); see Table 4.3.1.c for details.

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.

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 previous years, most of the unexpected charges continue to be less than $50 (27%) or between $50-$100 (36%).

Reason

Data overage fees continue to be the primary stated reason for bill shock (50%), followed by international roaming fees (17%), long-distance fees and billing errors (7% each). Unexpected set-up fees or service charges appear to be on the rise (7% in 2020 vs. 2% in 2019). Complete details can be found in Exhibit 4.3.1.e below.

As noted in Table 4.3.1.f, data overage fees are more common among younger Canadians (18-34) (66%) than older Canadians (35+) (38-42%). This signals an improvement among middle-aged Canadians (35-54), who, in 2019, reported significantly higher levels of bill shock (60% vs 42% in 2020), as well as a directional decrease among older Canadians (55+) (38% in 2020 vs. 45% in 2019).

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

- Denotes 0

4.3.2 Roaming Fees

The Wireless Code requires service providers to notify customers when they are roaming and to cap data roaming fees at $100 per billing cycle, unless the customer expressly consents to pay additional charges.

Most Canadians feel they are able to manage their roaming charges while travelling and little has changed since 2016. More than half of Canadians (51%) continue to find it easy to manage roaming fees (5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7) while 19 per cent Canadians find it difficult (1, 2 or 3 on a scale of 1-7).

As outlined in Table 4.3.2.b, those who have filed complaints in the past 12 months are more likely to report difficultly managing roaming charges than those who have not (53% vs. 43%), as are those who have experienced bill shock (54% vs. 42%).

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

The Wireless Code includes several rules related to contract clarity, including requiring service providers to give customers a critical information summary that highlights the most important terms of their contract.

Canadian’s understanding of their contracts has remained steady over the past two years, with the majority (57%) 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+ (66% vs. 51-53%); see table 4.4.1.b.

As in previous years, those who have experienced bill shock are much more likely to state they find their contract difficult to understand (36% vs. 19%; 1,2 or 3 on a scale of 1-7), which may signal that confusion around contracts is contributing to bill shock. This is outlined in Table 4.4.1.b.

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. During the trial period, wireless contract holders can cancel their contract without penalty. The trial period must be a minimum of 15 days service and as of December 1^st, 2017, it must permit the customer to use up to half the voice, text, and data usage amounts included in their monthly plan.

Little has changed over the past year regarding how clear Canadians found the explanation of the trial period when they took out their wireless contract. More found it unclear (41%; 1, 2 or 3 on a scale of 1-7) than clear (35%; 5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7). A minority continue to have not read the contract (1%) or state they do not have a contract (4%) or trial period (4%).

As outlined in Table 4.4.2.b, Canadians whose primary language is not an official language are more likely to have found the explanation of the trial period unclear (55% vs. 38-39%). As with other aspects related to the ease of managing and understanding plans, Canadians who experienced bill shock are more likely to have found the explanation of the trial period unclear (55% vs. 37%), as are those who have filed a complaint in the past 12 months (58% vs. 38%). This may signal that general confusion continues to exist among some Canadians related to both setting up and later managing their contracts.

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.

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%

- Denotes 0

4.4.3 Cancellation Fees

The Wireless Code includes several rules on cancellation fees, establishing formulas for calculating the maximum cancellation fee that a service provider may charge, requiring disclosure of any fees in the contract and critical information summary, and limiting cancellation fees to two years.

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 2019, half (49%) of Canadians who have wireless plans find the explanation to be clear, while close to one-third find it unclear (30%; rated 1, 2 or 3 on a scale from 1-7). Given that this has not changed over the past two years, this signals a need for service providers to provide greater clarity around cancellation fees, or that current contracts may continue to be difficult for many consumers to understand.

4.5 Change

4.5.1 Changes to Contract

The Wireless Code prevents service providers from making changes to the key terms of postpaid contracts without the customer’s express consent and requires providers to notify customers prior to making changes to non-key terms.

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 (13%), which has remained steady over the previous two years (12-16%).

As outlined in Table 4.5.1.b, 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 (32% vs. 9%), as well as by those who report bill shock (24% vs. 10%), or those who experience difficulty managing data (24% vs. 12%). This suggests there may be a common factor for these issues, such as unexpected service changes or an unclear 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?

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 Changing Service Providers

When the Wireless Code was created in 2013, it prevented service providers from charging early cancellation fees for more than 2 years, in the interest of making it easier for consumers to switch providers to take advantage of competitive offers.

The number of Canadians who have changed their service provider is slowly increasing (up 4% since 2017). Overall, one-in-five Canadians report having changed their service provider in the past two years (20%).

Exhibit 4.5.2.a outlines the most common reasons stated for changing providers among those that have switched over the past two years. Compared to 2019, more Canadians cite including finding a better deal (58% in 2020 vs. 45% in 2019), and a lack of satisfaction with service provider (37% vs. 14%). Less common reasons include needing a new or upgraded phone (9%) or their contract ending (6%). This suggests that the Wireless Code is having a positive impact on Canadians abilities to leverage a better and potentially more economical plan.

Most continue to state that they were easily able to navigate the change process, with over four-fifths (82%) saying it was easy to switch providers (5, 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7).

Among the fourteen per cent of Canadians who found the process difficult (rated 1, 2 or 3 on a scale from 1-7), the high cost of ending their contract (30%), technical issues (23%), or difficulty retaining a phone number (17%) were the main reasons for difficulties. Further, there was a directional increase in the number who experienced difficulty retaining a phone number (17% in 2020 vs. 9% in 2019). See Exhibit 4.5.2.b for more details.

4.6 Complaints

4.6.1 Complaints in the Last 12 Months

Incidence

The incidence of Canadians who report having made complaints about their wireless services has remained stable, in-line with 2016 to 2019 results (17% vs. 17-21%) and continues to remain lower than in 2014 (26%).

Compared to previous years, regional differences have dissipated. The rest of the country is now on par with Quebec, which had fewer complaints due to Bill 60.

Not unexpectedly, those who find managing data difficult are still more likely to have made a complaint over the past year (42% vs. 14%); see Table 4.6.1.b.

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%

- Denotes 0

Reasons

There have been a number of shifts in the reasons behind complaints over the past year. Incorrect charges on bill is now the top stated reason behind complaints (35% in 2020 vs. 26% in 2019), while the number of Canadians citing misleading information about the terms of their contract has also increased over the past year (19% vs. 8%). Conversely, there has been a decrease in the number who state roaming charges (<0.5% in 2020 vs. 11% in 2019) or high prices (1% vs. 8%). Other reasons for complaints have remained steady and include data charges (27%) and inadequate quality of service (22%). Complete details can be found in Exhibit 4.6.1.c below.

Complaint Issued to Service Provider

Consistent with previous findings, more than nine-in-ten Canadians who have made a complaint made it to their service provider (93%). 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 2020 (89%). Pre-paid services are slightly above 2019 levels (10% vs 8%) but continue to be below 2015 levels (-3%). Complete details can be found Exhibit 4.7.1.a below.

While the majority of Canadians still use an individual plan (65%), family plans continue to see increased use over 2015 (33% vs. 25%) but have remained fairly stable since 2018 – yearly details can be found in Exhibit 4.7.1.b.

Promotion through Employer or Association

Only a small number of Canadians (8%) have a wireless plan that is part of a promotion through their employer or an association they belong to. While this number has remained relatively stable from year to year there has been an overall increase in employer/associations promotions compared to 2015 (8% vs 5%). As in previous years, 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 (11% vs. 5-8%) 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 also more likely than women to have these types of plans (11% vs. 5%), as are Quebeckers (12% vs. 3-9%). More details can be found in Table 4.7.1.e and 4.7.1.f below.

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.

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 0

4.7.2 Plan Inclusions

Minutes, Texts and Data

The composition of service features on wireless plans has remained stable over the past year. While the majority of wireless plans continue to include text messaging (93%) and calling minutes (86%), the number of people with data has not increased and is starting to level out in 2020 with more than eight in ten (83%) having data included in their wireless plans.

4.7.3 Devices

Phone included or Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)

BYOD rates remain similar to 2019, with just over one-third (36%) bringing their own device. In 2020, demographics do not play a role in relation to bringing your own device however, as noted in Table 4.7.3.a, Canadians who have individual and/or prepaid plans are more likely to BYOD (41% vs 28% and 60% vs 33% respectively).

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 pay full price (13%), while many were given a discount on the device (37%) or choose a tab balance (41%). 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.

In 2020, slightly more are electing to pay full price (+2%) while fewer (-5%) are being given a discount and slightly more are starting a tab balance (+3%) compared to 2019.

As noted in Table 4.7.3.d, tab balances continue to be more prevalent among younger Canadians (18-54; 44-54%) than older Canadians (55+; 31%). While a discounted phone is much more prevalent in Saskatchewan (59% vs 25-33%) than the rest of Canada.

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, the 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 two years ago, awareness remains low and has declined from previous years. In 2020, fewer (13% vs 17%) can recall the TV service provider code while more do not recall it at all (60% vs 56%). This is likely a function of the reduced media attention on the Code as time goes on.

As outlined in Table 4.8.1.b, 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 (71% do not recall vs. 55-59%), as are those with no tertiary education (71% vs. 54-60%). Official language no longer plays a role in awareness in 2020 with those speaking English or French having similar TVSP awareness levels (57% vs. 58% do not recall).

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.

- Denotes 0

4.8.2 Clarity of TV Contracts

Clarity of contracts has remained consistent over the last three years. With over half of Canadians continuing to report they find their TV contracts clear and easy to understand (54%; rated 5, 6 or 7 on a scale from 1-7) and only a small portion (21%; rated 1, 2 or 3 on a scale from 1-7) finding contracts difficult to understand. This is consistent with findings over the last two years however, in 2020 demographic disparities seem to exist. As noted in Table 4.8.2.a, those living in the Prairies (61% vs 43-58%) and those with lower household incomes (<40K) (66% vs 50-54%) are more likely to find their TV contracts clear and easy to understand. Further, those who recall the TVSP Code are also more likely to find their TV contacts clear and easy to understand (62-68% vs 49%).

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.

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

- Denotes 0

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). Reports of being aware of the basic service package have remained steady since 2017, with half of TV service subscribers reporting they were informed (50%) while slightly more than one-third (36%) do not believe they were informed of the basic service package. Service providers are required to inform new and old clients about the basic service, regardless of when their contracts were signed which suggests that consumer are still not being actively directed to the information on the basic service package.

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. This requirement continues to work well, as few Canadians report problems related to service calls (14%). Interestingly, some groups are more likely to experience service call related problems:

• Men are more likely than women to experience problems (17% vs 12%);
• Those living outside of the Prairies or Quebec (16-24% vs 9-10%); and
• Households making greater than 40K annually (15-20% vs 7%).

Complete details can be found in Table 4.8.4.b below.

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?

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

- Denotes 0

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 an uninformed price change (76%). However, a small but significant minority (16%) continue to report uninformed price changes continue to occur.

4.8.6 Complaints

The number of Canadians who have made a complaint about their TV services in the past 12 months has remained steady since 2019 (23%). The nature of the complaints vary, but most continue to centre around incorrect charges (32%), inadequate quality of service (22%), price (18%), changes to their contract without notice (12%) or misleading terms (10%). There have been significant increases in complaints related to incorrect charges (+12%) compared to 2019 however all other complaints have remained statistically similar.

As with wireless services, and as noted in Table 4.8.6.b those in Quebec are less likely to have made a complaint than those in other regions of Canada (12% vs. 26-30%).

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.

** Very Low Base < 30

- Denotes 0

4.9 CRTC

4.9.1 Canadians’ Understanding of the CRTC Mandate

Canadians’ understanding of the mandate and role of the CRTC has remained stable compared to 2019 and is approaching 2014 levels. Thirty-six per cent now consider themselves very well/well informed about the CRTC, compared to 38 per cent in 2014.

In 2020, gender no longer plays a role in how informed one considers themselves to be about the CRTC however, Canadians aged 35+ continue to report being better informed about the CRTC’s role than their younger counterparts (40% vs. 26%). Further, University educated Canadians as well as Canadians living in high income households ($100k+) also continue to be more likely to consider themselves informed (43% vs. 29-36% and 43-49% vs. 31-34%). Complete details can be found in Tables 4.9.1.b and 4.9.1.c below.

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 similar to 2019 and remain more positive than in Fall 2016 (33% vs. 29%; rated 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale). Again, this may be reflecting the increase in Canadians who feel well informed about the role of the CRTC over the past two years. However, it is worth noting that 62% of Canadians say they are not well informed about the role of the CRTC, which implies that many consumers’ impressions of the CRTC are based on little to no knowledge.

As noted in Table 4.9.2.b, demographics play a considerable role in perceptions of the CRTC. Older Canadians (35+) (34-37% vs. 29%) and Quebeckers (43% vs 30-35%) have more positive perceptions of the CRTC compared to their counterparts. Further, consistent with previous years, those who consider themselves very well or well informed about the CRTC’s role are more positive about the organization (47-54% vs. 16-28%).

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 still no more likely to say their opinion of the CRTC has changed in 2020. Few report an improved (7%) or worsened (5%) opinion, with most remaining the same (74%). As stated previously, given that most Canadians continue to state that they are not well informed about the CRTC’s role, this is unsurprising. In 2020, demographics play little role in overall opinions of the CRTC.

Appendix A: Methodology

4.10 Methodological Overview

Survey Administration

A telephone survey was conducted among 1,510 Canadians aged 18 years and older; 1,322 with those who have their own wireless plan and 188 with those who do not have their own wireless plan. Included in this sample were Canadians who reside in cell phone only households (n=502). This sample also included Canadians that are under contract with TV service providers (n=1,060).

Interviews were conducted using a combination of random digit dialling (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 undertaken on January 10^th, 2020. No changes were made after the pre-test and as such the data were included in the final data set. The survey was in field from January 16^th – January 30^th, 2020.

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 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 10^th, 2020 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 2.5%. In 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.

5. 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 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 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?

• Calling minutes [Interviewer note: If unsure about the meaning, say “This is what you need to make or receive phone calls.”]
• 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.”]
• 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 ASKQWC4A 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 a 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. [ASK if answered “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.
• Unlimited data: Any complaints related to the perceived definition of unlimited data or the way in which unlimited data is delivered.

WHO DID YOU COMPLAIN TO?

WC7. [ASK If answered “Yes” to B11a] Who did you complain to? Was it your service provider, the Commission 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 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.
• 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/].