Canada’s telecom regulator has rejected attempts by the country’s largest carriers to reshape a proceeding examining newly introduced customer fees.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) dismissed procedural requests from BCE Inc. (TSE: BCE) (NYSE: BCE), Rogers Communications Inc. (TSE: RCI.B) (NYSE: RCI) and Telus Corp (TSE: T) (NYSE: TU) in an August 14 decision.
The case will examine whether device handling, setup, shipping and SIM charges violate federal rules intended to make switching providers cheaper.
The CRTC opened the proceeding after staff warned the companies that several new charges appeared inconsistent with Telecom Regulatory Policy 2026-43. That policy changed the Wireless Code and Internet Code to prevent providers from imposing fees that act as barriers to switching or cancelling service.
BCE introduced a CAD$40 device-handling fee for customers who buy phones through a wireless plan. Meanwhile, Telus added a CAD$15 charge for physical SIM cards or eSIMs.
Rogers also introduced several charges, including a CAD$40 device setup fee and CAD$25 shipping fee. The company also added a SIM-related charge.
Before launching the proceeding, CRTC staff told the carriers that device handling, setup and SIM fees appeared outside permitted exemptions. Those exemptions apply to optional services and products rather than costs tied to switching providers.
However, Telus challenged the process on July 17 and asked the CRTC to divide the proceeding into two stages. It also sought the removal of certain commission staff from the file.
Telus argued that staff had shown bias through earlier compliance letters and public comments. Subsequently, Bell and Rogers supported Telus’s procedural requests.
Read more: Chinese AI chip companies report immense sales growth in H1
Read more: Government testing finds Anthropic AI tried to deceive humans with fake identities
Telus wanted separate stages to determine if violations occurred
The CRTC rejected that argument and found that staff had not improperly prejudged the case. Staff compliance letters identified potential problems but did not make binding legal findings, according to the regulator.
Additionally, the commission said its staff cannot decide whether a company broke the rules or impose penalties. Only appointed commission members hold that authority.
Telus also wanted separate stages for deciding whether violations occurred and determining possible penalties. The company argued that considering both questions simultaneously could create unfair prejudice.
However, the CRTC rejected that request because carriers can address both compliance and potential penalties in their submissions. The regulator also found that companies received enough information to understand the allegations against them.
Consumer groups failed to secure their preferred procedural changes as well. The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications and Public Interest Advocacy Centre requested a two-day oral hearing.
The groups argued that a hearing would create a more complete public record. However, the CRTC decided written submissions could adequately address the dispute.
The regulator described the proceeding as a focused question about compliance with one provision of the Telecommunications Act. Consequently, it saw no need to add an oral hearing.
The Forum also objected to carriers receiving the final opportunity to respond in written submissions. The CRTC again sided with the companies on that procedural issue.
It said carriers deserve greater procedural protections because they could face financial penalties. In addition, the regulator said that arrangement does not prevent consumer groups from participating meaningfully.
Read more: South Korea’s AI bubble bursts, stock market plunges with US$2T lost
Read more: Meta bets on open-weight AI with Muse Spark 1.2 and Glimmer launch
Initial interventions are due August 31
Bell, Rogers and Telus could ultimately face monetary penalties and orders requiring them to change their practices. The CRTC has not yet decided whether any company violated the rules.
Meanwhile, the regulator rescheduled deadlines that it suspended in late July while considering the procedural challenges. Initial interventions are now due August 31, with final replies scheduled for September.
The decision keeps the case moving but leaves the central question unresolved: whether the new fees actually violate federal telecom rules. The CRTC must still assess each charge and determine whether enforcement action is warranted.
Separately, the CRTC ruled August 14 that Bell’s temporary phone-locking policy violated existing wireless rules. However, it temporarily allowed carriers across the industry to lock newly financed devices for up to two days.
The commission’s junk-fee proceeding will continue through written submissions over the coming weeks.
.
