NAPO
National
Anti-Poverty
Organization
ONAP
Organisation
Nationale
anti-pauvreté
Access
to Public Payphones: NAPO calls for regulatory action
by Pippa Lawson
The days of widely available public payphones may soon be over, if telephone companies have their way. With the increasing popularity of cell phones, phone companies are finding that they can’t make as much money on payphones. This has prompted companies to remove public phone units that cost more to operate than they deliver in revenues. The result is an approximately .3% net reduction in the number of public payphones each year.
In response to this trend, the CRTC started a proceeding to consider whether access to payphones is a problem, and if so, how that problem should be addressed. Together with l’Union des Consommateurs and the Consumers’ Association of Canada, NAPO intervened in this proceeding. The “Consumer Groups” were represented by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).
The Consumer Groups commissioned two surveys in order to assess the problem of payphone access. The first was a nation-wide telephone survey conducted by EKOS Research and the second was a targeted survey of low- income persons in selected locations (e.g., food banks) across the country. The survey results included the following:
§ Payphone service is considered an important public service by almost everyone.
§ While a significant proportion of all Canadians (49%) use payphones at least occasionally, a much larger proportion of low-income Canadians (88%) use them. Well over half (59%) of respondents to our low-income survey said that they use payphones at least once a week, and 22% said that they use payphones daily.
§ Not surprisingly, people without home phone or wireless service rely heavily on payphones: 93% of the 131 “phoneless” respondents to our survey reported using a payphone at least occasionally, and 82% said that when they need to make a phone call, they go to a payphone. Seventeen percent (17%) said that they use payphones to receive calls.
§ Low-income payphone users said the main reason they use payphones is “no other option” (71%).
§ Low-income Canadians are more likely than others to use payphones for important personal and emergency calls, and less likely than others to use payphones for convenience calls.
§ A significant minority of users is dissatisfied with the availability of payphones. They report frustration as a result of payphone removal or difficulty finding a payphone when they need one.
The Consumer Groups called for new rules to ensure that payphones are provided where they are needed. Specifically, we called for new rules requiring payphone companies to notify affected communities before they remove payphones, and to seek financial support from local businesses or municipalities to keep unprofitable phones in operation.
The cost of using a payphone is an important issue of the proceedings. Currently, the Consumer Group is opposed to increasing payphone rates or home phone rates in order to subsidize the provision of unprofitable payphones. Instead, we called for tracking of consumer complaints so that payphone needs can be better identified and assessed. If problems persist after three years of tracking problems, then the CRTC should consider establishing a mandatory regime under which companies can be required to provide payphone service in specific locations.
How people pay for their calls is another issue. The two surveys showed that most people use coins to make payphone calls, and that many are frustrated by payphones that don’t accept cash. As a result, we argued that every payphone location should include a coin-operated payphone, except where specifically approved otherwise by the CRTC.
Telephone companies also want to be able to charge for local directory assistance, which is free right now. We argued that directory assistance should continue to be free from all payphones, since not all phones have print directories, and many people needing to make a payphone call only have a quarter (directory assistance from land phones costs 75¢ to $1, depending on the province).
The CRTC will likely make a ruling sometime over the next in several months. In the meantime, PIAC and NAPO are working together on a new proceeding related to the quality of phone service.
The partnership between NAPO and PIAC around issues in the ever-developing field of telecommunications is a long one – over 30 years old. As new issues are constantly surfacing, NAPO and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre will continue to work together to ensure poor people’s voices and concerns are heard and considered in this area.