O O Ø O O O O
Son of Spam
Communications in the public interest? I think not.
David Colville
Vice-chairperson, Telecommunications
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
Central Building
1 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4B1
Dear Mr. Colville,
I would like to draw your attention to the Commission's recent Telecom Decision number 2004-65, where your organization granted Infolink Technologies carte blanche to continue to fill my voicemail box with their SPAM.
For once, I agree with Bell Canada’s position, although I am somewhat skeptical of their motives. I think they’re more upset that Infolink has circumvented the charge that any Call Answer subscriber must pay when using Bell’s messaging service, than they are about my being annoyed. That said, I am extremely annoyed by the service Infolink provides to companies who wish to advertise using a service for which I pay a monthly fee. I’m even more annoyed by the ads they deposit in my mailbox, and the time I have to spend removing them.
As part of my phone services, I pay Bell almost $85.00 a year (plus GST!) for my voicemail. Its intended function is to give a person who is trying to reach me the ability to leave a message in the event I am unavailable. The service has limits on the number and length of messages stored in the mailbox, which means I pay a tangible cost for any message delivered to my system. As a result, I am footing part of the bill for a service for which Infolink makes money by charging its clients to deliver their messages to my mailbox.
Voicecast messages are broadcast to the recipient’s voicemail system without regard for a target market. They are unsolicited, and paid for in part by the recipients of the messages through their monthly Call Answer subscription fees. Messages delivered to Call Answer subscribers via Voicecasting take up space on the voicemail system, and cannot at this time be blocked. Because no call is made, Caller ID services cannot identify the calling/delivering party, and the recipient must spend considerable time logging into their voicemail service to retrieve, analyze, and (usually) discard the voicecast message. Infolink’s delivery is automated and requires no effort or intervention beyond hitting the equivalent of “Send.”
The scripting of the delivered messages frequently misrepresents the service with an initial claim that someone attempted to make a call. Calabogie Peaks Resort is a subscriber to Infolink’s service in my area (and a company I will never do business with as a result), and I have received many messages that start with “Hi, this is Bill, I’m sorry to have missed you....” Despite the message’s claim, “Bill” never attempted to call me. There is no call, the phone never rings, and “Bill” doesn’t know who I am because he’s a broadcast message. Retrieving “Bill’s” message takes approximately 45–60 seconds, which may seem trivial, but it’s a minute I’ll never get back. That’s worth something to me, and your Commission should at least recognize that.
I have noted that the Commission’s findings in this matter were limited strictly to arguments put forth by Infolink and Bell Canada. I would like to call attention to the Commission’s vision statement, which appears to be “Communications in the Public Interest.” How is this in the public interest? The Voicecasting service is the equivalent of e-mail SPAM, which is why I have chosen to identify it as such. Did the commission actually ask any customers of Call Answer whether they found this type of advertising annoying, or did they just take the statistics provided by both sides who are trying to make a buck off it, and forget about the public entirely? I suspect the latter.
Contrary to their findings, I would like the Commission and you to know that I am annoyed by these messages, and find them to be intrusive and a major irritant. I do not wish to receive them on an ongoing basis, and would like Infolink’s delivery methods to be eliminated, or changed so I have control over what is delivered to my voice mailbox. I have complained to Bell Canada in the past, and have been told the matter was pending a decision by the Commission. I had hoped the Commission would first take into account the public, but that does not seem to have happened in this case, mainly because they do not appear to have actually consulted the public.
I am surprised by the short-sightedness of the Commission in this case. A decade ago e-mail SPAM was an unheard of problem, but over the years grew to a level that everyone agrees is unacceptable. While the level of Voicecast SPAM is relatively small today, I worry about what it could grow to over the next few years, especially since the Commission appears to have blessed this form of money-making by Infolink. While people may not be annoyed by it now—based on very sketchy data—once the technology takes hold that may all change. Please take the time to reconsider, and nip this in the bud now.
I understand that some people may want the advertising Infolink delivers. I understand businesses may want another avenue to advertise their service. I’m okay with that, so long as it doesn't infringe upon what I want, nor use things I pay for. In this case, it’s simple: I don’t want anything from Infolink filling my mailbox, ever. I would ask that you have the Commission reconsider this matter, and at a minimum introduce methods where Call Answer subscribers can opt out of the “service” Infolink provides to its clients at the subscribers’ expense, and provide a method where a Call Answer subscriber can identify or block messages from Infolink’s service before it is deposited in their mailbox.
I thank you for your time, and will encourage others to let you know that they are just as annoyed by this new form of advertising as I am. I am part of the public, and I expect the Commission to act in my best interests—not Infolink's nor Bell’s—in this matter.
Yours very truly,
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
PD DCLXXIII