Bell Heyden Greenbelt Cell Site Update

The tower for the new Bell cellular site identified in this blog and located in the North Sault area is now visible to the west of Hwy 17 North at the city limits. Today there were no cellular antennas or radio heads visible on the tower. The design is a self-supporting triangular shape similar to the ones across from Gino’s restaurant and at the Third Line and Black Road area.

There is no indication when the site work will be completed or when the site will become operational.

Is the Ontario Wireless Legislation Now Required?

As noted in this blog, a new national CRTC Wireless Code will come into effect on 02 Dec 2013.

The question I now have is what impact will this have on the proposed Ontario wireless code first announced in April 2012 and re-introduced in April 2013 with minor adjustments. This was discussed in this blog.   

Based on information available in public sources, most of the major points identified for inclusion in the Ontario legislation are included in the CRTC Wireless Code.

The only significant differences, in my opinion, are:

a     The Ontario proposal allows customers to cancel their agreement within a year of signing and get a full refund if wireless companies don't abide by all the rules in the proposed legislation. There is no similar proposal in the CRTC Wireless Code.

b.     The CRTC Wireless Code identifies how the customer complaint process will be handle d  through the  Commissioner for Complaints for telecommunications Services Inc. (CCTS)  while the Ontario proposals to date does not identify how customer complaints will be handled.

Unfortunately, neither proposal identifies what the sanctions for non-compliance are, how they will be applies, who will benefit if financial sanctions are to be applied and what the timeline for complaint resolution will be.

I am not sure the provincial legislation is any longer required except for the PR image it may create. In fact it may hurt customers more than help.

If the vendors have to create and monitor separate contracts and wording for each individual provincial jurisdiction they operate in, there is little doubt the cost of the requirement will be passed on to the customer somewhere along the chain.   

Perhaps all that is required is a one or two line bill that simply states that the CRTC Wireless Code will be the law in Ontario.  

CRTC Wireless Code Published

The CRTC released its long awaited and anticipated Wireless Code today, 03 Jun 2013.  The code will come into effect for agreements signed after 02 Dec 2013. Terms and conditions of the CRTC Wireless Code cannot be applied retroactively to existing contracts.

Like any attempt at regulation of an industry, there are good points and bad points depending on which side of the fence you are on.

I imagine the feature that will attract the greatest attention is the fact that the CRTC Wireless Code in effect does away with the three year contact without really doing away with the three year contract. Confused?  What the CRTC did was make it against the code to charge anything extra to cancel a contract after its 24^th month. Bear in mind these only impacts the revenue the vendor may have received for the remainder of the contract.

The consumer is still on the hook for the cost of any hardware subsidy they may have received.

The CRTC Wireless Code identifies how the cost of the subsidy is to be calculated based on either the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price  - the MSRP tag we are used to for other products but which is seldom charged – or the price the vendor will sell the hardware for without a contact. In either case, the bill opt out of a contract could still be hefty based on the subsidy received. 

I suspect there will still be backlash against the need for users to payback any subsidy.  The problem as I see it that people want a phone that retails for $400.00 to $700.00 to be provide for around $150.00 with the vendor absorbing the difference every time the user wants to change to phones.

The CRTC Wireless Code stipulates that the cancellation date shall be the date is notified of the request to cancel and not 30 days later. This 30 day policy was particularity annoying to users who owned their hardware and wanted to switch vendors.  

You can also get ready to receive a huge pile of paper or a large data file when you sign up for service. The list of compulsory items to be included is extensive. A current cell phone contract can run in the range of 12 to 20 pages. I suspect the new ones will be longer as they move from “legal” to “simplified” and they add all the various provincial code requirements.

One issue addressed but not resolved gives the user the right to refuse any unilateral change in contract by the vendor that does no benefit the user. The CRTC Wireless Code does not state what happens if the user refuses. Previously, a user had the right to refuse but the vendor had the option to cancel the contract and therefore the service without charge to the user. This will likely need clarification.  

Full details of the CRTC Wireless Code can be found at this website. An infographic version of the highlights is available at this website.

Batchawana Bell Cell Site in Google Maps Street View

I was playing around with Google Maps in the North Sault area when I came across this Street View of the Bell cell site called Batchawana near the intersection of Hwy 17 and Hwy 563.

I am sure it was coincidental that the Google plotting cars drove by that day but it shows the new tower under construction in the Aug/Sep 2012 timeframe. 

The pictures show a new tower under construction beside an existing tower, a reference map and detail showing the riggers climbing the tower. 

Cell Phone Legislation Overview

On Monday 29 Apr 2013, the Ontario government re-introduced consumer protection legislation affecting the wireless (cellular) industry. There is no doubt that the industry could do with a little regulatory oversight in the areas of contract clarity, billing practices and service charges, most notably cancellation fees, all areas addressed in the proposed legislation.  

On 01 May 2013, similar legislation came into effect in Nova Scotia. 

In both cases the powers behind the legislation are touting the limit of $50.00 to consumers when they cancel any future contracts with a carrier. (Sorry, the rules are not retroactive and will not apply to existing contracts.)

In some cases, this is may well be an accurate statement; in other cases it will not be. Let me explain.

There are two distinct parts that come into play for the majority of consumers when they enter into a contract. The first part is the subsidy or economic incentive provided by the vendor and applied to the cost of the phone they provide. They provide a phone at a reduced price or free in return for signing a fixed term contract, usually three or occasionally two years. The second part is the revenue expected by the vendors from the consumer over the length of the contract. Historically, carriers based the amount charged to cancel a contact on the amount of time left on the fixed length contract. The cost of the phone was not a major part of the calculation in most cases as it was folded into the monthly service costs.

The new legislation separates the two parts and makes them in effect two separate transactions. The $50.00 limit only applies to the second part; the amount of time left on the contract. The new rules still allow the vendors to recover the amount of the subsidy or economic incentive provided with the phone.

 I have not seen the Ontario formula but the Nova Scotia one appears straight forward. This is from the government's Access Nova Scotia website:

"… Nova Scotians can now cancel their contracts at any time and the government will limit what cancellation fees can be charged. There are three possible scenarios:

1. If you were given a phone for free or at a reduced cost when you signed up for a fixed term contract, the cancellation fee will be based on the value of the phone, divided over the remaining term of the contract. 

For example:

You received a $300 phone at no cost when you signed a three-year (36 month) contract.  You cancel the contract after one year (12 months). The maximum cancellation fee is $200:  300 - (300x12/36) = $200

2. If you were given a phone for no cost or at a reduced rate when you signed a no-term contract (no fixed term), the maximum cancellation fee is divided by a 48 month time period.

For example:

You received a $300 phone at no cost when you signed a no-term contract.  You cancel the contract after 12 months.  The maximum cancellation fee is $225: 
300 – (300 x 12/48) = $225. 

3. If you were not given a phone as an incentive for signing a contract and are using a phone you provided yourself, the maximum cancellation fee is $50 or 10 per cent of the remaining cost of the contract, whichever is less."

It is unclear to me whether or not the  $50.00 service cancellation fee is included in the calculations.  Regardless one could still receive a rather large bill for cancelling a contract early. Yes, it is less than the $400.00 to $600.00 charged before but it is still significant.

And guess who gets to set the initial value of the phone?  Would it surprise you to learn that the vendor sets the basic value number used in the calculation?  I checked the EastLink website and found only two smartphones that retail for less than the $300.00 used in the example. The majority were between $500.00 and $700.00. This would double the prices quoted in the government produced example. 

Even with the new legislation coming into effect across the county, I still feel the best deal is to buy a phone outright, get it unlocked and then sign up for service. Yes, I know it can be pricey, but there are a lot of good deals available in the used phone marketplace. Also, there are a number of advantages of having an unlocked phone, especially if one travels.

Deferral Account Areas Site Survey Reports

I am receiving reports that there is a third party conducting cell tower site location identification and surveys on behalf of Bell in some of the Deferral Account areas. The most recent report noted an Echo Lake locale.  

I am interested in hearing from readers if they know of any similar activity, especially in the Algoma District Deferral Account areas, namely the areas shown on the maps at this link: Echo Bay, Goulais, SSM –Airport, St. Joseph Island or Wawa. 

You can post the info in the comment section below or contact me at wlefresne@adnetalgoma.ca

Tower and Cell Site Protocol 28 Feb 2013

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and the Federationof Canadian Municipalities announced on 28 Feb 2013 they signed a joint protocol and template to address the procedure for locating  wireless (cellular) antenna and tower systems.

The template adheres to but elaborates on the Industry Canada/Spectrum Branch regulatory recommendations set out in the  guidelines. Overall I found the protocol a little easier to read and understand even if it did not add anything of consequence to the procedures.

In reality, the procedures outlined in the protocol have been followed by the wireless (cellular) industry when dealing with the locating of antenna and tower locations for some time now.  This blog gives some detail of how Bell handled one particular case.

The protocol appears to be directed more at the municipalities as it provides a template to create common procedures across the country. I know from personal experience that not all local government have identified a Designated Municipal Officer as the empowered local official as the point-of-contact for matters related to wireless site selection by both the vendor and the general public.  

The protocol is just that a protocol. It is only a guide and not compulsory or legal requirement. However, all the major vendors and Industry Canada support the protocol and encourage its adaptation and implementation by municipalities.  Nevertheless if would be useful if municipalities published a link on their website and the vendors did the same on their announcements about public consults.