dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
16

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to MaynardKrebs

Anon

to MaynardKrebs

Day 3. Live Stream

Yesterday Rogers stated that w/o a phone subsidy your plan price only drops 5-10$. I checked my wifes Rogers bill (with her permission, of course) and after the contract period it dropped by 24$. Not 5 or 10. Rogers lied again.
===

Hm, Diversity Canada is bringing up info on some Class Action which seems to be against Bell Canada.

She is arguing Prov laws need to be maintained, and is stating (paraphrase) that it's too late for them to run to the CRTC after all this time to only have fed laws apply now that laws are starting to protect people from their vulture like preying on people.

Damn. I like here. I'd buy her a glass of wine.

She provided proof that Bell is screwing people (affidavit from a class action) about Bell giving people two expiry dates on pre-paid balances.

I wasn't aware of this class-action.

BONUS POINT: ...And she is wearing a Bell Canada T-shirt while saying all this!

She rox!
KC7
join:2006-11-08
Ottawa, ON

KC7

Member

Thanks for the blow by blow.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to hm

Premium Member

to hm
said by hm :

Yesterday Rogers stated that w/o a phone subsidy your plan price only drops 5-10$. I checked my wifes Rogers bill (with her permission, of course) and after the contract period it dropped by 24$. Not 5 or 10. Rogers lied again.

$24 per month or per ANNUM?
Which phone did she have?

My issue with BYOD plans is that the prices need to be posted so that consumers can make a decision as to whether it makes most sense for them to either buy the phone outright and do BYOD plans, or to go with the subsidized pricing plans.

The other reason why pricing both ways needs to be priced is so the carriers can't under-value the subsidy, thus pushing the price of the BYOD plans up. I have some easy to implement ideas on how this can be done so that there is transparency, and fairness to both consumers & carriers.

hm
@videotron.ca

hm to hm

Anon

to hm
Eastlink (Bragg):

Not much they have added. They stated only one fed code should apply and not Prov Consumer Protection laws. Basically because it's easier for them and nothing else.

Very weak.

Eastlink is happy with the CCTS only putting out a simple, non-in-depth, yearly report that hides most of the info that you and I would find useful as consumers in a situation looking for help and/or recourse.

Eastlink stated that any material change should void your contract, contrary to what Rogers stated.

Paraphrased: Stated the consumer bought something and entered a contract expecting what they bought. Not material changes.

It should be noted, rate ($) changes are a material change.

Didn't notice anything else not already stated.

Eastlink wasn't as anal and full of lies & BS like the CWTA and Rogers. Not bad... Surprised me. They deserve a point. They seem customer focused (aside from their weak argument of opposing consumer protection laws to make their lives easier).

Mobilicity is up after lunch (1:00 or 1:30). This one should be good.
hm

hm to MaynardKrebs

Anon

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

$24 per month or per ANNUM?

24/month
Will read rest of your post when I get back... foot out the door.