Summary

  • CRTC Decision 2026-232 adds a cancellation request type for wireless-provider internet services and requires each service’s unique identifier to appear on an invoice or self-service portal by 4 September 2027.
  • A customer needs one simple fact to move or cancel a service: which line on a multi-service account names the internet connection?
  • The decision sets an end date. It gives no public interim calendar and creates no public series for wrong-SPID rejections already included in monthly calculations.

Analysis: a cancellation system needs a number customers can find

One household account can hold several mobile lines, a tablet and home internet. A request to move one connection must identify that service. The account number shows who pays. It may not show which service should continue and which should end. That is the gap CRTC Decision 2026-232 addresses with a unique identifier for each service.

Under CRTC Policy 2011-191, a customer can choose a new provider and authorize it to request cancellation from the current provider. This makes switching easier. The new provider still needs a stable way to identify the service. The CRTC says that identifier can be an asset number or telephone number tied to the customer’s account.

The decision adds a new local service request activity, LNA I, for internet cancellations involving wireless service providers. It sits alongside LNA A. The old and new providers choose the appropriate process for each of five service types. The problem starts earlier: the existing service-bureau process assumed that customers knew their asset number or telephone number. The CRTC says many customers do not, because the number may be missing from an invoice or self-service portal. A number in the system gives the customer little help while it remains out of sight.

That makes the display rule the important change. Providers can route a request after it identifies the service. A code hidden in an order system can be unique and still be useless to someone trying to leave. The invoice or portal has to make the service recognizable before the customer starts the transfer.

A working group agreed. The Commission owns the rule.

The CRTC approved consensus report BPRE105a from the CISC Business Process Working Group. It adopted changes to the Canadian Local Ordering Guidelines and the Canadian Wireless Number Portability Guidelines. The order also sets onboarding contacts and service-provider identification information, routes requests to a parent where applicable, and includes wrong-SPID rejections in monthly Local Service Request rejection calculations. A business customer seeking a partial disconnection still contacts the current provider.

The CISC Administrative Guidelines describe technical and administrative work within the Commission’s jurisdiction. They call for a fair opportunity for parties to be heard and reasonable efforts to inform consumer representatives about consumer issues. They also state that CISC does not replace the CRTC’s final decision-making.

The posted CISC consensus procedure gives working-group members at least ten business days to review a report. Approval must be unanimous; a member who files no objection or dispute is treated as consenting. The Steering Committee then considers the report after another circulation period. The procedure page was last modified on 1 April 2011.

Those rules govern a working group, not a public vote among customers. The CRTC records the consensus, approves the changes and carries the authority for the binding condition. That division matters: technical agreement can settle how providers process an order, while the regulator remains responsible for requiring the process.

The public decision sets a clear deadline: wireless service providers offering standalone internet must display each identifier by 4 September 2027 under sections 24 and 24.1 of the Telecommunications Act. It sets no interim public calendar for checking whether customers can see the identifiers before that date.

Two simple measures would make the rollout visible. Providers could report when the identifier appears on the invoice or portal for each service type. The CRTC could publish aggregate counts of wrong-SPID rejections from the monthly calculations. Neither measure needs customer names, full bills or private order records. Both would show whether customers can use the new process before the deadline arrives.

The exit now has a label requirement. The public record should show when that label reaches the customer, not wait for the last day.

Sources