What Canadian wireless consumer protection laws leave out

Like many Canadians, I occasionally have the urge (like today) to throw my mobile phone out the window, but I know that would do about as much good as counting on the government to protect my interests.

As I write these words a technician at a store for one of the big wireless carriers – who I won’t name out of fear of retribution – is trying to figure out why, for the third time, I’ve had to bring in a device I have owned for less than a year. Yes, it’s incredibly frustrating, but no more frustrating than watching the province of Ontario try and provide some false assurance to citizens that its proposed consumer protection legislation will have the slightest impact.

Instead of looking at what the new bill might change, let’s look first at what it won’t. Three-year contracts are probably here to stay. The contracts themselves, most likely, will continue to go unread, even if Ontario demands they be written in “plain language,” whatever that is. Confusion around accountability is also destined to remain, since the national telecommunications regulator, the CRTC, is working on its own code of conduct, and there are already other laws in other provinces that will look increasingly localized as the population becomes more mobile.

Even though John Lawford, executive director and general counsel of the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) welcomed the re-introduction of Ontario’s proposed legislation, which was put forth and then died after Parliament was prorogued last year, saw it as more of a piece of the overall puzzle.

“(It) will build momentum towards a strong national wireless code,” he said. The CRTC’s work would be more relevant because, assuming the carriers accept it, Lawford said it would protect consumers “at least as well or better than provincial legislation.”

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association agrees. “Most carriers' business systems are developed on a national basis, and having to adapt those systems to accommodate varying regulations in multiple regions of the country is not only burdensome, but can also be very costly,” CWTA spokesperson Marc Choma said in an e-mail.

There are just two problems: these pieces of legislation and codes of conduct seem aimed at ensuring the public and the carriers are on the same page when Canadians use mobile phones, but the use case for the devices is changing at a speed that leaves the public sector in the dust. A few years ago, most people were probably using their phones to make calls. Today it’s an app-centric world, which means it’s costly data rates are a particular pain point for consumers, not just their overall contracts.

The other problem is that, even with the best protection laws or codes in the world, there’s not much you can do if there aren’t good carrier alternatives available. Right now Public Mobile, Mobilicity and Wind Mobile are all up for sale, and it seems highly improbable we’ll see enough new entrants that can afford to bid on the next wireless spectrum auction.

If you don’t like how the dry cleaner handled your laundry, it helps to know there’s another one down the block. We don’t have that with our mobile phones. True wireless competition, if it ever manifests itself, could protect consumer rights as much as any rules and regulations could.