yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON |
to le hm la
Re: Did the CRTC allow Telco's/CellCo's to Steal Peoples' Money? I think so.My point is that customers who were not aware of the expiration dates were upset that they were not told, they were not upset at the policy itself. Once they understood, they were fine with it, in my experience.
I find the rules around prepaid balance expiration are pretty clear, but some people just won't understand the first time for a myriad of reasons such as language barriers or an outright refusal to read any accompanying documentation. |
|
| yyzlhr |
to sbrook
said by sbrook:yyzlhr said "The UK is a completely different situation..."
Ummm ... no, not really. The cost of wages, taxes and real estate for towers, and electricity in the UK make it a very expensive place to do business. Moreover, because of the terrain, coverage is very spotty on all the networks. You're still ignoring the fact that they have double the population. Makes it easier to make money based on volume instead. |
|
 sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2014-Mar-10 2:11 pm
And how many carriers are there in the UK?
T-mobile
Orange
O2
Vodafone
3
EE
And how many piggybacking carriers (SIM only) are there
LeBara
LycaMobile
Tesco
Carphonewarehouse (talkmobile)
Virgin
4G
and a few others
With all those carriers, and SIM only carriers, double the population is irrelevent.
We have Robellus and their own SIM only carriers (FIDO, Mike, Koodo, Virgin), and the independents who are there by the skin of their teeth.
The bottom line is we're being gouged for service because they can. Remember, retail rates have never been regulated (and once regulated wireline rates are being deregulated and people are getting ripped off there too now) |
|
1 recommendation |
le hm la
Anon
2014-Mar-10 2:38 pm
said by sbrook:We have Robellus and their own SIM only carriers (FIDO, Mike, Koodo, Virgin), and the independents who are there by the skin of their teeth. And who are geographically isolated. The difference isn't population, yyzlhr, the difference is the choices people can make. If there were more competition, Rogers would likely be forced to change its tune just to be competitive. Instead of using every conceivable trick, deception, and confusion in the rule book to steal peoples money. The argument of population density, and the other argument about the costs of the phone numbers are a fallacy. |
|
 DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
4 edits |
said by le hm la :....If there were more competition, Rogers would likely be forced to change its tune just to be competitive, instead of using every conceivable trick, deception, and confusion in the rule book to steal peoples' money.... Once again, 'Robellus' does these things to us BECAUSE THEY CAN, and because they have INSUFFICIENT MOTIVATION/INCENTIVE TO STOP - such as competition, regulation, and/or better consumer protection laws. And the few Canadian affiliate (MVNO) players who do any better for us are not sufficiently well-known to make a dent on the status quo, cannot afford to advertise enough to MAKE that dent, and if they did make a dent, their respective incumbent would surely buy them out to silence them and their improved fairness. Also, please, we should not single out Rogers in either our pro nor con remarks. They might be part of our individual experiences, but all 3 Cellular incumbents in Canada behave in essentially the same manner - arrogant and greedy - and disrespectful of morals, ethics, and their customer bases. |
|
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON |
to sbrook
You've inflated your list there. Orange UK and T-Mobile UK have merged and formed EE. They still operate 3 separate brands, but they are all one company. Excluding the MVNOs, the UK only has one more carrier compared to Canada for a population that is twice the size. |
|
|
| yyzlhr |
to le hm la
said by le hm la :said by sbrook:We have Robellus and their own SIM only carriers (FIDO, Mike, Koodo, Virgin), and the independents who are there by the skin of their teeth. And who are geographically isolated. The difference isn't population, yyzlhr, the difference is the choices people can make. If there were more competition, Rogers would likely be forced to change its tune just to be competitive. Instead of using every conceivable trick, deception, and confusion in the rule book to steal peoples money. The argument of population density, and the other argument about the costs of the phone numbers are a fallacy. Geography has a lot to do with why we don't have a solid 4th national competitor. |
|
| |
le hm la
Anon
2014-Mar-10 3:31 pm
said by yyzlhr:Geography has a lot to do with why we don't have a solid 4th national competitor. Bad politics, regulatory red-tape by the big 3, court attacks by the big 3, and the harper gov's fubared approach to it the past few years is why we don't have a solid 4th national competitor, or solid smaller competitors that are not artificially isolated. That is in addition to the big 3 pricing them out with such things as roaming or tower sharing. Once again you bring up fallacy. All the above has nothing to do with the "geography" or "population density" (or the cost of a phone number being 100$ for some, 1300$ for another, or 5$ for someone else). |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada
1 edit |
to yyzlhr
said by yyzlhr:Geography has a lot to do with why we don't have a solid 4th national competitor. Yes, I agree that it's a factor, but not the sole nor leading one, as pointed out in the immediately above post. And most of the same other factors are why insufficient competition also holds true for our Internet, except that there, we generally only have 2 wired incumbent providers in any given zone. |
|
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON |
yyzlhr
Member
2014-Mar-10 3:47 pm
said by Davesnothere:said by yyzlhr:Geography has a lot to do with why we don't have a solid 4th national competitor. Yes, I agree that it's a factor, but not the sole nor leading one, as pointed out in the immediately above post. And most of the same other factors are why insufficient competition also holds true for our Internet, except that there, we generally only have 2 wired incumbent providers in any given zone. Never said it was the only factor but it's a pretty big one that can't simply be overcome by better regulation. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
said by yyzlhr:Never said it was the only factor but it's a pretty big one that can't simply be overcome by better regulation. Agreed that there is no single 'magic bullet'. But anything/everything could help or hurt what choices are offered to consumers, each factor in its own way. |
|
sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
1 edit |
to yyzlhr
You can't ignore the MVNOs because they are WIDELY used there, unlike here.
Canada has (apparently) 11 MNOs and 30 MVNOs
The UK has 5 MNOs and 90 MVNOs
of course 8 of Canada's 11 are nearly insignificant compared to Robellus
and the use of MVNOs here is close to insignificant.
So, bottom line is the UK geography plays NO part ... competition is alive and well.
Even the UK MNOs look at the MVNOs as competition and produce at least plans. |
|
| |
le hm la
Anon
2014-Mar-10 4:44 pm
said by sbrook:You can't ignore the MVNOs because they are WIDELY used there, unlike here. It's the next logical evolution here in order to bring choice and fairness. Is that not already a fight going on? In order to have choice and stop the deception and wallet raping the Gov will have to bring in faux competition exactly like landline, which is forced wholesale. |
|
loyd
join:2012-09-24
Toronto, ON |
to BrianON
said by BrianON:The common $100/year top up means $8.35+tax minimum outlay per month for phone service which is much less than any monthly cell phone plan or a land line. I don't see the problem. Some options are even cheaper. Actually, I think Speakout (7-11) now has 1yr on all to-ups so your minimum cost of live phone service will be $2.08. $1.25 will be eaten by monthly network fee so you get 3 min talk or 8 outgoing SMS every month and unlimited non-billed incoming. I myself am with Speakout and very light cell user and spend less than $40-50/yr per number (3x). Been with Speakout for years, before that Fido $25/m and my pattern did not change, so who was ripping me? Monthly plan I almost never used or PAYG plan I top up what I need? Buy any Rogers or unlocked phone, get a SIM and top up and you are in. I don't use this, because $0.10 savings with my 20 texts per month is not worth the trouble, but if you are heavy texter and don't mind loosing reply/thread capability, free online text to cell (worldwide) operator: » www.afreesms.com/intl/canada |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
THAT's it !
Instead of what they do now, if they all charged us a $1.25 per month network fee on any dormant accounts that month, THAT would be close to a fair shake for consumers.
Or make that the minimum charge per month, if you do use less minutes than what would cost $1.25 each month on your plan.
OK, everyone ? |
|
| Davesnothere |
to loyd
Are you saying that my current 2008 vintage Rogers phone out to work with Speakout if I simply changed the SIM ? |
|
loyd
join:2012-09-24
Toronto, ON |
loyd
Member
2014-Mar-10 6:51 pm
said by Davesnothere:
Are you saying that my current 2008 vintage Rogers phone out to work with Speakout if I simply changed the SIM ? Yes Btw. no itemized billing. Download an app that will keep track and compare every few months, but I never caught them skimming. |
|
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON |
to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:
THAT's it !
Instead of what they do now, if they all charged us a $1.25 per month network fee on any dormant accounts that month, THAT would be close to a fair shake for consumers.
Or make that the minimum charge per month, if you do use less minutes than what would cost $1.25 each month on your plan.
OK, everyone ? Or why can't speakout offer their one year validity and the Big 3 can continue with what they currently do and customers can decide for themselves? |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
said by yyzlhr:Or why can't speakout offer their one year validity and the Big 3 can continue with what they currently do and customers can decide for themselves? Because of my 2nd paragraph in the linked up-thread post. » Re: Did the CRTC allow Telco's/CellCo's to Steal Peoples' Money? I think so.And all involved parties know it. Would not surprise me if it was part of the ToS between them. |
|
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON |
yyzlhr
Member
2014-Mar-10 10:54 pm
7-11 and Petro Canada can in fact do more marketing if they want to. These are huge corporations and they certainly have the money to do so. Why should one corporation have to change their policies just because another one chooses not to make themselves well known? Also why can't consumers just do more research? Most consumers research everything they purchase including food, drugs, cars, television. Why should a cell phone service be any different? Why does someone else always have to do something for you? Why can't people start taking responsibility for their own actions? |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada |
Yes, many consumers COULD do more 'due diligence' than is often the case.
I think that those two MVNOs are more interested in selling to their existing customer bases, at least so far, and that form of cross-promotion is actually effective, but to a smaller target market than mass ads, though that business model costs them little for adding a display in each store location.
The ones at Petro-Can stores look fairly professional, though staff knowledge varies.
I should add that I have been advised in another forum/thread here that their SIMs ought to work in my current Rogers phone, if I wish to keep it when I eventually go shopping again in earnest. |
|
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON |
to sbrook
said by sbrook:You can't ignore the MVNOs because they are WIDELY used there, unlike here.
Canada has (apparently) 11 MNOs and 30 MVNOs
The UK has 5 MNOs and 90 MVNOs
of course 8 of Canada's 11 are nearly insignificant compared to Robellus
and the use of MVNOs here is close to insignificant.
So, bottom line is the UK geography plays NO part ... competition is alive and well.
Even the UK MNOs look at the MVNOs as competition and produce at least plans. Never said that there was no competition in the UK. Geography plays a huge part. If you take a look at 3, they started operations in 2003. In 2004 they already covered 80% of the UK with HSPA. There is simply no way anyone can come into Canada and cover 80% of our population in one year and make money. Even Bell and Telus had to work together to simply overlay their network with HSPA within a year. A large corporation going it alone from scratch simply isn't going to happen here. |
|
