dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1334

polbox
join:2002-05-28
Mississauga, ON

polbox

Member

Sharp differences surface in CRTC hearings on wireless code

GATINEAU, Que. — Consumer groups and a cellphone industry with starkly opposed views about contracts for handheld devices began to make their cases Monday as the CRTC opened public hearings on a proposed wireless code.

Representatives of three consumer groups urged the national telecom regulator to do away with three-year terms in favour of capping contracts at two years.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Consumers’ Association of Canada and Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia also oppose wireless carriers restricting the use of phones to specific countries or network providers.

And they’re against companies charging sky-high roaming fees when devices are used outside their normal coverage area.

“Consumers are sick of termination penalties designed to keep them locked into long-term contracts,” said John Lawford of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

“Consumers are tired of locked handsets. Consumers are often in shock after opening a bill where roaming charges or coverage fees have been applied.”

Contract limits are but one of several contentious issues before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission as it holds a week of hearings in Gatineau, Que., on its proposed wireless code.

The CRTC aims to set national standards for the content and clarity of cellphone contracts.

In the lead-up to the hearings, the CRTC said it heard a lot of angry comments about three-year contracts offered by wireless carriers when it was putting together a draft version of the national code for wireless services.

So far, the commission hasn’t taken up the idea of banning such contracts and has instead dealt with such issues as early termination fees, allowing the consumer to cancel service at any time.

The federal Competition Bureau said it supports measures to limit contract length.

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, which lobbies on behalf of the industry, opposes getting rid of three-year contracts.

“If that was really the choice that consumers wanted ... someone will provide it in the marketplace,” said the group’s president and CEO, Bernard Lord, the former premier of New Brunswick.

“The key thing with this code is don’t eliminate choice. Don’t have the strong arm of government and the regulator come in and say, ‘From now on, this is how it’s going to be.’

“Make sure the choices are there so consumers who want two-year contracts can get them, if they want three-year contracts they can get them, if they want unlocked phones they can get them. But don’t force people to offer it that way.”

But the consumer groups claim most carriers’ two-year plans are not true options for consumers. Most three-year plans offer deep discounts on the price of the handheld device. But the groups say two-year plans often charge a lot for the device itself on top of the monthly service fees. For that reason, many consumers opt for the three-year plans.

On the CRTC’s online forum about the draft wireless code, participants also complained about locked cellphones.

The draft code says the carrier must provide the consumer with the means to unlock the device after no more than 30 days of service, at the rate specified in the contract.

No Canadian wireless carriers currently sell unlocked phones, although there are ways to unlock a device after buying one, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association said.

That’s a failing in the market, said CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais.

“The market’s not working,” Blais said.

“If nobody’s doing it now, that means the market is not working.”

The regulator also says in the proposed code that consumers can set a cap on additional fees, which would including text messaging, data and roaming charges, for example.

The CRTC is scheduled to hear from wireless service providers — including Telus, Bell Canada and Rogers — this week.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Read more: »www.montrealgazette.com/ ··· KdTk3dAy

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

I caught the last 2 hours of this online. I have to say, as much as I hate the CRTC, they sort of impressed me slightly.

They did not take what Telus said at face value and call it a day. They called them out (sometimes drilled repeatedly) for more information pertaining to certain aspects and even demanded they provide numbers and statistics to prove their points, giving them until Feb 22nd to provide them.

It ended with one of the CRTC member's saying "You have lots of homework" to Telus. Hahaha.

Telus was squirming and full of misinformation and B.S. I can't wait to see what crap Rogers and Bell have to say.
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr to polbox

Member

to polbox
Hah! Careful what you wish for. If people think they're paying too much now, if carriers are going to be forced to cap contracts at 2 years, carriers will likely offer MUCH lower subsidies or they will increase their price plans even more.

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

said by yyzlhr:

Hah! Careful what you wish for. If people think they're paying too much now, if carriers are going to be forced to cap contracts at 2 years, carriers will likely offer MUCH lower subsidies or they will increase their price plans even more.

Something tells me it's not going to be an issue. Sounds like carrier fear-mongering truth be told.

The big 3 are ALREADY experiencing subscriber issues due to their pricing. For instance, look at the ridiculous price changes Rogers just made to wireless. There will always be those who don't care enough about prices, but people are starting to feel around their pockets.

Even if there is a jump in pricing, it won't last long when people jump ship to find alternatives. Realistically, there is no reason why any of them can't offer the 3 year subsidies at the 2 year mark, nor any reason they can't bring the price of a 2 year contract down enough to justify it.

Why can't the 2 year term be set at $149? Why is it the brand new phones are $149 on a three year term? This is the problem. We've let this bullshit go on long enough.

Edit: And in case it wasn't obvious, the U.S. has been doing exactly what I've mentioned above. New phones on 2 year contracts at $149.
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr

Member

said by nekkidtruth:

U.S. has been doing exactly what I've mentioned above. New phones on 2 year contracts at $149.

And the cheapest plan you can get in order to get a full subsidy in the US is $80, while in Canada you can get a full subsidy on a 3 year term starting at $55 . Im sure, rogers, bell, and telus don't mind charging you a mandatory $80 a month in exchange for a 2 year term.

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

said by yyzlhr:

said by nekkidtruth:

U.S. has been doing exactly what I've mentioned above. New phones on 2 year contracts at $149.

And the cheapest plan you can get in order to get a full subsidy in the US is $80, while in Canada you can get a full subsidy on a 3 year term starting at $55 . Im sure, rogers, bell, and telus don't mind charging you a mandatory $80 a month in exchange for a 2 year term.

You must not have noticed the new Rogers plans. We're ALREADY starting see those stupid prices, on 3yr contracts no less. Thankfully, some places already have other options (Wind, Mobilcity, Public Mobile). Heck, even some of the big 'uns have their own cheaper plans through child companies. Koodo, Virgin Mobile, Chatr, Fido.

They're fully capable of doing what the consumers want, they're just refusing to do it. Those new price points Rogers released recently was a nice big fat "Screw You" to it's customers.
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr

Member

said by nekkidtruth:

said by yyzlhr:

said by nekkidtruth:

U.S. has been doing exactly what I've mentioned above. New phones on 2 year contracts at $149.

And the cheapest plan you can get in order to get a full subsidy in the US is $80, while in Canada you can get a full subsidy on a 3 year term starting at $55 . Im sure, rogers, bell, and telus don't mind charging you a mandatory $80 a month in exchange for a 2 year term.

You must not have noticed the new Rogers plans. We're ALREADY starting see those stupid prices, on 3yr contracts no less. Thankfully, some places already have other options (Wind, Mobilcity, Public Mobile). Heck, even some of the big 'uns have their own cheaper plans through child companies. Koodo, Virgin Mobile, Chatr, Fido.

They're fully capable of doing what the consumers want, they're just refusing to do it. Those new price points Rogers released recently was a nice big fat "Screw You" to it's customers.

The point is there is a low end option. This does not exist in the US.

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

said by yyzlhr:

The point is there is a low end option. This does not exist in the US.

There are low end options in the U.S. as well. Just as here, they're not available everywhere. Also, something to take into consideration, most of the U.S. carriers have incredibly balanced pre-paid services. Most offering unlimited everything (aside from data). Even with only 2GB of data, the fact that everything else is unlimited creates a very attractive pre-paid option with excellent pricing.

I get it, you think you're seeing some 'bigger picture'. The reality is, you're not. You're simply seeing red, or blue....or lime green and purple....

At the end of the day, this wireless code isn't going to fix all of the problems with carriers here in Canada. But it's certainly a step in the right direction and anyone who doesn't see that, is obviously not a consumer.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

1 edit

bt

Member

said by nekkidtruth:

said by yyzlhr:

The point is there is a low end option. This does not exist in the US.

There are low end options in the U.S. as well. Just as here, they're not available everywhere.

I think you've completely missed his point.

Rogers has a $55/mo plan. On that plan, you can get the full subsidy for a smartphone on a 3 year contract.

Verizon - cheapest is $80 to get a subsidized smartphone, 1/10th the data you'd get from Rogers for $80
AT&T - cheapest is $85, 1/3rd the data of Rogers $80 plan
Sprint - $80. Unlimited data, but limited calling minutes
T-mobile - $60, but NO DATA SERVICE. Minimum with data is $80 for 2GB (no overage charges, they just throttle you after that).

That's his point. You can get a smartphone on subsidy on a $55/mo from Rogers. Total "lifetime" price for service plan (before tax) - $1980.

On 2 of the 4 big carriers in the US, you're paying minimum $80, $85 on a 3rd (and $80 on the 4th as well, if you want any data at all). The subsidized prices seemed to be higher too - on the 3 carriers that had the iPhone, the 16GB iPhone 5 was $20 more than Rogers.

So, total minimum annual cost for an iPhone 5 (pre-tax):

Rogers - $720/yr
Verizon - $1060/yr
AT&T - $1120/yr
Sprint - $1060, 2yr

You're paying almost 50% more per year MINIMUM with a US carrier for a subsidized phone. Sure, you get to upgrade with a new subsidized phone every 2 years instead of 3. But with the annual savings you could buy an unsubsidized iPhone at the year and a half mark and STILL spend less.

Edit: Let's be clear - that's a comparison of the CHEAPEST options available. When comparing the higher priced options, the US carriers high-end plans offered more value than Rogers high-end plans.

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS to nekkidtruth

Member

to nekkidtruth
The issue with flat pricing on phones with contracts is you have phone manufacturers like Apple who charge the carriers exorbitant prices for iPhones and iPads. So you will never see the prices on those, subsidized or not, come down from the carriers.

In my opinion, Canada should do what some European countries have done, just ban the practice of subsidizing phone. People have enough credit they cant afford with credit cards, mortgages, car loans, student loans, etc. Should have to buy your phone at front cost. This would eliminate contracts, eliminate consumers running into situations where they can't afford to pay their monthly bill anymore but have to continue to do so to pay their phone off.

But I sincerely doubt this will ever happen, North America has a love for credit, its our life line as a society. So they should just switch everything to tabs. Get a phone, pay nothing or some universal flat rate (lets say $149 as suggested). And every month a certain percentage is deduced from the outstanding balance of the phone. This should continue til its paid off. The only thing that is unfair about this (and is unfair now with contracts) is if someone has bought their phone and is not on contract, they pay the same monthly rate anyway despite having paid full price for their phone. There should be cheaper monthly rates for those that opt to pay full price for a phone.
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr

Member

said by TypeS:

There should be cheaper monthly rates for those that opt to pay full price for a phone.

Agreed, Rogers/Bell/Telus are already offer MTM discounts in some way shape or form. They should be more aggressive with those offers.

J E F F4
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON

J E F F4 to yyzlhr

Premium Member

to yyzlhr
said by yyzlhr:

said by nekkidtruth:

U.S. has been doing exactly what I've mentioned above. New phones on 2 year contracts at $149.

And the cheapest plan you can get in order to get a full subsidy in the US is $80, while in Canada you can get a full subsidy on a 3 year term starting at $55 . Im sure, rogers, bell, and telus don't mind charging you a mandatory $80 a month in exchange for a 2 year term.

That's BS.

You can get an iPhone 5 for $199 and $40/month for 2 years. That's WAY better than any offering from Rogers or Bell or Fido or Telus. (None have full subsidy for the best phones)

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to yyzlhr

Premium Member

to yyzlhr
Really? Is that why I currently pay less then 35, have been offered 45 and I still turned them down.

J E F F4
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON

J E F F4 to TypeS

Premium Member

to TypeS
What they should do is just simple financing. 2 or 3 year loan. No tab. Your plan is based on plan only, then finance charge of phone on top of plan. So a $600 loan on a phone would be about $19 over 3 years based on 10% financing.

Either way though, the USA carriers aren't all too interested in providing excellent plans, so Canada can follow suit and use our geography as an excuse to charge more.
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr to J E F F4

Member

to J E F F4
said by J E F F4:

said by yyzlhr:

said by nekkidtruth:

U.S. has been doing exactly what I've mentioned above. New phones on 2 year contracts at $149.

And the cheapest plan you can get in order to get a full subsidy in the US is $80, while in Canada you can get a full subsidy on a 3 year term starting at $55 . Im sure, rogers, bell, and telus don't mind charging you a mandatory $80 a month in exchange for a 2 year term.

That's BS.

You can get an iPhone 5 for $199 and $40/month for 2 years. That's WAY better than any offering from Rogers or Bell or Fido or Telus. (None have full subsidy for the best phones)

Who offers the iPhone 5 in the US at $199 on a 2 year term with a $40/month plan?
yyzlhr

yyzlhr to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

Really? Is that why I currently pay less then 35, have been offered 45 and I still turned them down.

That has nothing to do with the MTM discounts I was referencing.

J E F F4
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON

J E F F4 to yyzlhr

Premium Member

to yyzlhr
My mistake...it said $40, when I added to cart, it was an additional $40 for line access fee.
J E F F4

J E F F4 to yyzlhr

Premium Member

to yyzlhr
said by yyzlhr:

Who offers the iPhone 5 in the US at $199 on a 2 year term with a $40/month plan?

Actually looking at the US plans, we're doing okay...what's odd is that you have to go the check-out to get the full price.