dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1906
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

R.I.P. - CRTC Wireless Code - Incumbents Win

CRTC Defenseless After Tories Walk Away From Wireless Code Challenge
»www.huffingtonpost.ca/20 ··· 729.html

Note to incumbent customers - all your 24 month contracts have been unilaterally altered to 36 month contracts effective immediately

Farchord
Lost somewhere.
join:2004-08-28
Shawinigan, QC

Farchord

Member

Yeah.....

*sigh*.....

No comments on this...

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
A little too early for the melodramatics no?

If I understood the article correctly, the appeal is about retroactively applying the code for current customers instead of applying to new contracts after June 2015.

WhaleOilBee
What a long strange trip it's been
join:2011-08-02
Manotick, ON

WhaleOilBee to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
The only way for the people to win this war is to use their wallets as a weapon.

As long as people are willing to fork out big $$$ for the latest gadgets, and absolutely must have a text & data plan to check their social media every 10 minutes, regardless of where they are - then the Telco's are not going to change their pricing policy. They will only do that if they experience mass cancellations.

So, either 'go without', or quit complaining about the cost - because as long as you're still paying it - it ain't going down!

In the words of Kevin O'Leary: "it's all about the money".

TOPDAWG
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB

TOPDAWG to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
I don't get it. WTF is the point of the CRTC if they can't even use their own lawyers in a case? They have to have them come from someone else? WTF is the point of having some group who has no power other then to act the fool and force company's to show cdn content but not protect the customers?
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to WhaleOilBee

Member

to WhaleOilBee
Use their wallets as a weapon... and who exactly are we going to flock to to get what we want?

2013 Marketshare:
Rogers Wireless 34.14%
Telus Mobility 28.51%
Bell Mobility 28.40%

In my area the only other providers are virtual providers where the majority of the money goes back to one of those three companies.

I don't have a fancy phone (LG-C660R) or a fancy plain (cheapest possible) but using your logic I'll never be able to get those if I actually want them because there's no one who actually offers them at a reasonable price.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to MaynardKrebs

MVM

to MaynardKrebs
Yeah, you're exaggerating a lot here. The incumbents weren't even challenging the code itself, only (as TypeS pointed out) the retroactive clause. In fact, the incumbents pushed to get the wireless code, because they were hoping that it could supersede the various provincial codes, which costs them money by having different requirements in different provinces.

The retroactive clause is in fact a temporary thing anyhow; it's irrelevant in the long term, because eventually, all customers will fall under the code when their contracts renew.

The CRTC's chair put out a statement about this very ruling two days ago... so this Huffington Post article is old news:
said by JP Blais :

In 2013, Bell Canada, Rogers, Telus and other wireless companies appealed the final implementation date of the CRTC’s wireless code. This date is intended to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the code’s protections at the same time. The companies tried to strike the CRTC’s arguments in their entirety.

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision, issued on April 29, 2014, set aside portions of the CRTC’s arguments. However, the CRTC notes that in his ruling, Justice Pelletier wrote that ‘the issue with the CRTC’s memorandum is not the content of the memorandum per se but the fact that the CRTC cannot be the one to make the arguments...’

The wireless code, which came into force on December 2, 2013, ensures that Canadian consumers are informed of their rights and contributes to a more dynamic wireless market.


BGB
Wants moar interwebz
Premium Member
join:2009-07-09
Waterloo, ON

BGB to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs
Started a thread in Canpol to discuss the political portion of this.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

Teddy Boom to TypeS

Premium Member

to TypeS
said by TypeS:

A little too early for the melodramatics no?

Maybe.. I don't understand why retroactivity is a good thing ever, really. Like I said here about a completely different issue:
»Re: 60/10 - when can we see those speeds on start?
said by TOPDAWG:

I don't get it. WTF is the point of the CRTC if they can't even use their own lawyers in a case?

It's a good question..
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

Yeah, it would be like the Competition Bureau being forced to hire an ambulance chaser shyster to argue a competition case.

WhaleOilBee
What a long strange trip it's been
join:2011-08-02
Manotick, ON

WhaleOilBee to JMJimmy

Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Use their wallets as a weapon... and who exactly are we going to flock to to get what we want?

2013 Marketshare:
Rogers Wireless 34.14%
Telus Mobility 28.51%
Bell Mobility 28.40%

In my area the only other providers are virtual providers where the majority of the money goes back to one of those three companies.

I don't have a fancy phone (LG-C660R) or a fancy plain (cheapest possible) but using your logic I'll never be able to get those if I actually want them because there's no one who actually offers them at a reasonable price.

I have a pre-paid President's Choice Mobile plan. I buy a $100 top-up card once a year, so my cost is ~ $9.00 / month. It's a phone, period. I can call home when I'm going to be late, or if I want to check if the wife needs something from the store I'm in. I use very minimal amounts of data for outbound texts. At the end of the year, I still have a balance that rolls over if I top-up before it expires.

I didn't say don't buy any phone plan, but why do people want to pay so much for plans that include pathetic amounts of data with high overage fees just to be instantly connected? Fuck it. It can wait till I get home.

I have an iPod Touch that has a VOIP client that I can use with WiFi. If I really really need to check something on-line while driving around town, there's usually a free WiFi hot-spot ( or price of a coffee ) somewhere not too far.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to WhaleOilBee

Member

to WhaleOilBee
said by WhaleOilBee:

As long as people are willing to fork out big $$$ for the latest gadgets, and absolutely must have a text & data plan to check their social media every 10 minutes, regardless of where they are - then the Telco's are not going to change their pricing policy.

That and stop entering contracts. If you want the latest useless little trinket phone then buy it outright.

pstewart
Premium Member
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON

pstewart

Premium Member

said by peterboro:

said by WhaleOilBee:

As long as people are willing to fork out big $$$ for the latest gadgets, and absolutely must have a text & data plan to check their social media every 10 minutes, regardless of where they are - then the Telco's are not going to change their pricing policy.

That and stop entering contracts. If you want the latest useless little trinket phone then buy it outright.

Yup absolutely! I love the latest toys - and I am willing to pay the price for them. So when I want a new cell phone, I buy them outright - no silly contracts, sales gimmicks etc. Yes I do not get some special promo stuff but I don't care.

I look at cell phone purchases like buying a new IPad or a small computer purchase every 2 to 3 years. That's just my take on it.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

Then you can call your service provider each month and say, "what will you do for me today so I don't leave you".

pstewart
Premium Member
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON

pstewart

Premium Member

hehe - yeah. You can tell that customer reps at some of the larger wireless providers do not like it when people are contract less - they have to be nice ever time you call
ings
Premium Member
join:2004-12-22
Toronto, ON

ings to peterboro

Premium Member

to peterboro
said by peterboro:

That and stop entering contracts. If you want the latest useless little trinket phone then buy it outright.

+1 and that's what my family did last fall.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to WhaleOilBee

Member

to WhaleOilBee
said by WhaleOilBee:

I have a pre-paid President's Choice Mobile plan. I buy a $100 top-up card once a year, so my cost is ~ $9.00 / month. It's a phone, period.

Same for me: Fido (Rogers) $100/year prepaid plan - I use about 100 minutes/year of talk time.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to WhaleOilBee

Member

to WhaleOilBee
PCM is a virtual provider and pre-pay or not the bulk of the money still goes to the big 3. If more people start switching to those plans then they'll just raise the access fees for the virtual providers and get their money that way.

The problem is that your argument is circular and you'd never be able to get new features that you might actually find useful. For me I don't want my phone constantly connected but I would find data very useful. On many occasions I've had the need for it and getting around not having it has caused serious inconveniences. I would not connect to a free wifi hotspot for security/privacy reasons
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

Court rules that CRTC must stay out of appeal against its new wireless code
»ca.finance.yahoo.com/new ··· 929.html

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled this week that the country's telecom regulator could not argue on its own behalf in an appeal by Canada's major service providers over the start date for the wireless code, which is set to kick in by June of next year.

The decision appeared at first blush to be a procedural one based on a technicality.

But sources familiar with the case say the regulator had little choice but to advocate for itself after discovering that federal lawyers would not be present.

Critics say the decision leaves the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission unable to defend against attacks aimed at rendering the code useless to all but new customers of the big wireless service providers.

...But federal lawyers were not among a long list of respondents to the appeal, which included several provincial and territorial governments, consumer groups and individuals.

"By failing to intervene now, especially in this court process, they're actually letting the code be gutted," Thibeault said in an interview.

...Tuesday's decision was brought about after the CRTC filed a response to the initial appeal application in an attempt to explain its reasoning for the wording of the wireless code.

The carriers objected, saying the CRTC had overstepped its bounds by advocating on its own behalf. The court agreed.

"Under the law the CRTC is supposed to be neutral and to leave it to others to defend the correctness of its decisions," said a source familiar with the appeal who asked not to be identified.

In response to the ruling, CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais noted that while it made clear the commission cannot advocate for itself in an appeal, the court did not reject its overall legal argument.

"Yo, Stevie. Howz abouts cutting us incumbents a little slack. Say youz dontz sends da lawyers and den youz tellz da CRTC dat dey cant youz der own lawyers. Workz for us."

The absence of any federal lawyers from Industry Canada or the CRTC at the Court will be played up by the incumbents as Ottawa doesn't even believe this case should go forward.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Yeah, you're exaggerating a lot here.

Yea, that's what this and the new Canpol thread seems to be... is there any reason why I should care about this? I read posts here and the hot aired Huffington Post and I'm not entirely sure how this even matters to me.

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

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

Realistically, if you're still on a 3-year contract that would take you well past June 1st, 2015, you would be interested in the outcome of this battle.

Otherwise, the rest is all hyperbole and fear-mongering. As much as it pains me to say this, the incumbents aren't after the Wireless Code in it's entirety here (in fact they seem to love it and have used it against us in most cases), they just don't want to retroactively apply it to those who are still under 3-year terms. It could easily be argued from both sides, but I don't think it's going to make a huge difference one way or the other with regards to the actual issue at hand.

The incumbents will either have to apply the Wireless Code June 1st to all accounts, or they won't. If they don't have to, sorry but you're stuck in your 3-year contract (which isn't a huge deal since pretty much any change to your account usually forces you into a new 2-year contract).

rogersmogers
@108.170.167.x

rogersmogers to pstewart

Anon

to pstewart
said by pstewart:

hehe - yeah. You can tell that customer reps at some of the larger wireless providers do not like it when people are contract less - they have to be nice ever time you call

They don't care, and this is coming from someone who was one of them reps. We don't care what you have really.

pstewart
Premium Member
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON

pstewart

Premium Member

said by rogersmogers :

said by pstewart:

hehe - yeah. You can tell that customer reps at some of the larger wireless providers do not like it when people are contract less - they have to be nice ever time you call

They don't care, and this is coming from someone who was one of them reps. We don't care what you have really.

Maybe I should have said that last time I did call into a wireless rep that they pretended to care at least
nauru0
join:2011-02-02

nauru0 to InvalidError

Member

to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

said by WhaleOilBee:

I have a pre-paid President's Choice Mobile plan. I buy a $100 top-up card once a year, so my cost is ~ $9.00 / month. It's a phone, period.

Same for me: Fido (Rogers) $100/year prepaid plan - I use about 100 minutes/year of talk time.

So after tax, you are paying about $1.15 per minute to make local calls.

You would be better off getting a US sim card. That's how bad it is for light users in Canada, it's cheaper to go with a foreign carrier like Telestial and be roaming 100% than actually use a Canadian company for telephone service.

Foreign carriers also have the added benefit of not only being cheaper for light use (around 50 cents per minute to call anywhere in Canada, from Canada, with minimum annual top up between $10 and $50) but also do not charge sales tax.

WhaleOilBee
What a long strange trip it's been
join:2011-08-02
Manotick, ON

WhaleOilBee

Member

.20/minute. The minutes roll over if you top up before they expire.
Grappler
join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON

Grappler to nauru0

Member

to nauru0
said by nauru0:

said by InvalidError:

said by WhaleOilBee:

I have a pre-paid President's Choice Mobile plan. I buy a $100 top-up card once a year, so my cost is ~ $9.00 / month. It's a phone, period.

Same for me: Fido (Rogers) $100/year prepaid plan - I use about 100 minutes/year of talk time.

So after tax, you are paying about $1.15 per minute to make local calls.

You would be better off getting a US sim card. That's how bad it is for light users in Canada, it's cheaper to go with a foreign carrier like Telestial and be roaming 100% than actually use a Canadian company for telephone service.

Foreign carriers also have the added benefit of not only being cheaper for light use (around 50 cents per minute to call anywhere in Canada, from Canada, with minimum annual top up between $10 and $50) but also do not charge sales tax.

Well now that is about the dumbest argument ever!! Yes they may be paying about $1.00/minute, however the most they pay is about $100.00/year, for all of only 100 minutes of talk time ever used, averaging 8 minutes/month.

At the current plan rate of say $30/month, the cost per minute is approximately $3.50/minute, hence for that 100 minutes of usage they have now paid $360.00/year.

As for a U.S. Sim card maybe the hassel of driving to the U.S.A. is just too much.

WhaleOilBee
What a long strange trip it's been
join:2011-08-02
Manotick, ON

WhaleOilBee

Member

said by Grappler:

Yes they may be paying about $1.00/minute, however the most they pay is about $100.00/year, for all of only 100 minutes of talk time ever used, averaging 8 minutes/month.

No, $0.20/minute = $0.20/minute no matter how you do the math. To get the best deal, you pre-pay for 500 minutes that expire in one year. The math says that's about 40 minutes/month. Where can you get a monthly plan for ~$9/month that allows 40 minutes with carry-over of unused minutes?