12-16-2005, 05:04 AM
Rogers targets mobile spammers
"Rogers Wireless Inc. is taking aim at voicemail spammers more than a year after the federal telecom regulator denied a request from Bell Canada to ban the controversial marketing practice.
Using a process called "voicecasting," marketers use an automated dialling device to transmit thousands of advertising messages directly into phone voicemail accounts. The phones never ring, meaning consumers don't know they've received the marketing pitches until they check their voicemail messages.
In an application filed last week to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the country's largest wireless operator said mobile phone customers should not have to pay airtime charges to access marketing messages disguised as legitimate voicemail.
"Furthermore, customers receiving voicecasting calls may be subject to additional charges for roaming and long-distance when they retrieve the message," Rogers argued in the filing.
Bell complained in 2001 that voicecasters were violating the CRTC's telemarketing rules.
Telephone companies and consumer groups were shocked when the regulator disagreed, arguing in a closely watched ruling last October that there was no evidence to suggest the intrusive messages were overly annoying to consumers, particularly when compared to automated telemarketing calls.
Bell admitted later that it didn't collect enough evidence of consumer complaints â a mistake that Rogers doesn't plan to make this time around.
"It's a sufficiently big enough issue that maybe it needs to be looked at again," Dawn Hunt, vice-president of government relations at Rogers Wireless, told the Toronto Star. "There's a nuisance factor that our customers should not have to put up with."
The company said that in the three months between March and May 2005 it received 105 complaints in its call centres. But it expects that number is about 30 times larger because only a small percentage of its customer service representatives have specifically tracked voicecasting complaints.
Hunt said handling these complaints is costly for Rogers and damages the company's brand, because most people who call in wrongly believe that Rogers has profited by selling their mobile phone number to marketers without their permission.
"So we have our name at stake," said Hunt, adding that the company has had to give refunds to several customers to maintain goodwill.
"This is something I'd never heard of a year or 18 months ago."
Rogers' filing does not name specific voicemail spammers, but Toronto-based Infolink Technologies Inc. is considered one of the largest voicecasters in Canada and was at the centre of Bell's regulatory challenge.
Infolink founder Cesar Correia told the Star he was aware that Rogers was trying to revive the issue but was unavailable for further comment.
Jeff Leiper, a telecommunications analyst with the Yankee Group in Canada, said Rogers has a better case than Bell because the nuisance for wireless customers has a financial impact as well.
"The nuisance factor is much different when we're talking about wireless because it's real money out of the pocket," said Leiper, pointing out that Canada's wireless phone industry is already battling a reputation for having higher prices than other countries.
"We know that high prices are already stifling (subscriber) penetration in this country."
But even if the regulator forbids voicecasting to mobile phone customers, it doesn't necessarily translate into a ban for wireline customers, Leiper added.
"The commission has already demonstrated that it doesn't consider wireless and wireline to be functional equivalents."
It's expected that the CRTC will issue a public notice and seek comment on the junk voicemail issue. "
-- Tyler Hamilton, Toronto Star, December 15, 2005
__________________
"Rogers Wireless Inc. is taking aim at voicemail spammers more than a year after the federal telecom regulator denied a request from Bell Canada to ban the controversial marketing practice.
Using a process called "voicecasting," marketers use an automated dialling device to transmit thousands of advertising messages directly into phone voicemail accounts. The phones never ring, meaning consumers don't know they've received the marketing pitches until they check their voicemail messages.
In an application filed last week to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the country's largest wireless operator said mobile phone customers should not have to pay airtime charges to access marketing messages disguised as legitimate voicemail.
"Furthermore, customers receiving voicecasting calls may be subject to additional charges for roaming and long-distance when they retrieve the message," Rogers argued in the filing.
Bell complained in 2001 that voicecasters were violating the CRTC's telemarketing rules.
Telephone companies and consumer groups were shocked when the regulator disagreed, arguing in a closely watched ruling last October that there was no evidence to suggest the intrusive messages were overly annoying to consumers, particularly when compared to automated telemarketing calls.
Bell admitted later that it didn't collect enough evidence of consumer complaints â a mistake that Rogers doesn't plan to make this time around.
"It's a sufficiently big enough issue that maybe it needs to be looked at again," Dawn Hunt, vice-president of government relations at Rogers Wireless, told the Toronto Star. "There's a nuisance factor that our customers should not have to put up with."
The company said that in the three months between March and May 2005 it received 105 complaints in its call centres. But it expects that number is about 30 times larger because only a small percentage of its customer service representatives have specifically tracked voicecasting complaints.
Hunt said handling these complaints is costly for Rogers and damages the company's brand, because most people who call in wrongly believe that Rogers has profited by selling their mobile phone number to marketers without their permission.
"So we have our name at stake," said Hunt, adding that the company has had to give refunds to several customers to maintain goodwill.
"This is something I'd never heard of a year or 18 months ago."
Rogers' filing does not name specific voicemail spammers, but Toronto-based Infolink Technologies Inc. is considered one of the largest voicecasters in Canada and was at the centre of Bell's regulatory challenge.
Infolink founder Cesar Correia told the Star he was aware that Rogers was trying to revive the issue but was unavailable for further comment.
Jeff Leiper, a telecommunications analyst with the Yankee Group in Canada, said Rogers has a better case than Bell because the nuisance for wireless customers has a financial impact as well.
"The nuisance factor is much different when we're talking about wireless because it's real money out of the pocket," said Leiper, pointing out that Canada's wireless phone industry is already battling a reputation for having higher prices than other countries.
"We know that high prices are already stifling (subscriber) penetration in this country."
But even if the regulator forbids voicecasting to mobile phone customers, it doesn't necessarily translate into a ban for wireline customers, Leiper added.
"The commission has already demonstrated that it doesn't consider wireless and wireline to be functional equivalents."
It's expected that the CRTC will issue a public notice and seek comment on the junk voicemail issue. "
-- Tyler Hamilton, Toronto Star, December 15, 2005
__________________