Follow Us:
Rogers fires back at Virgin’s “WTF” comment!
We thought the Globalive foreign ownership issues was Canada’s version of a wireless soap opera!
It turns out it’s not and the surprising and almost awkward battle between Virgin Mobile and Rogers Wireless flamed up this morning with Virgin’s latest ad campaign hammering down the recently introduced Rogers “Government Regulatory Recovery Fee”, or in short the GRRF. Virgin’s tag line said “GRRF! WFT!… seriously Rogers. What’s the Fee?”
Sir Richard Branson himself stated “I’d like to congratulate Rogers for removing one fee that never made sense, but I’m perplexed to hear that they’ve replaced it with another equally confusing one. I suppose that they hoped by putting ‘Government’ in the title that people would assume the fee is legitimate. It clearly states in Rogers’ own advertising fine print that ‘It is not a tax or charge that the government requires Rogers to collect.‘ Are they deliberately trying to mislead the public?”
Rogers has never been one to sit back and just take it. Rogers spokesperson Keith McArthur stated “We’re flattered that Sir Richard Branson is paying such close attention to Rogers from his home in England. But the fact is that Bell – Virgin’s parent company – is the only national carrier still charging a system access fee for new customers. Who is Bell trying to kid here?”
Stay tuned for the next episode.
Discussion
18 comments for “Rogers fires back at Virgin’s “WTF” comment!”
Post a comment
- CES 2012
- Mobile News
- Airtel Wireless
- Bell Mobility News
- Chatr
- Clearnet
- Eastlink
- Fido News
- Globalive News
- Koodo Mobile News
- Mobilicity
- MTS Allstream News
- NortherTel
- PC Mobile News
- Petro-Canada Mobility
- Primus Wireless News
- Public Mobile
- Rogers Wireless News
- SaskTel News
- Shaw
- Solo Mobile News
- Speak Out Wireless News
- TBayTel
- Telus Mobility News
- Vidéotron News
- Virgin Mobile News
- WIND Mobile
- Reviews – Carrier
- Reviews – Manufacturer
- Various News
He did a nice job at sidestepping the criticism, which is unfortunate as I’d like to actually hear their response to the comments related to the misleading government aspect of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think Windmobile with knock the wind out of everyone….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also I don’t believe Bell mentions anything government related in regards to their fee unlike Rogers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bell may be Virgin’s parent company but at least Virgin does NOT charge the fee! system or government. That was one of the many reasons i left Rogers. Plus their coverage in Manitoba is not the best!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d like to see Telus jump in. They can legitimately lash at Rogers since they got rid of their SAF fee and did not replace it with another fictional fee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, instead Telus jacked all their plan fees to pretend they removed the SAF. Nice try, now it is just a hidden fee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you do the math, telus actually has not built in the complete saf into their plans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, I realize that but to say that the SAF has been removed completely is not true. It is just mostly hidden now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s not a hidden fee.
The SAF was the less than clear fee, which was mainly profit.
Now, they just got rid of the SAF and have been honest about it. By increasing their plans and making the profit the honest way, by squeezing us all the tighter.
But hey, at least I don’t see the SAF, I can respect that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Once again, Rogers have managed to make themselves look like the south end of a north-bound horse;-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!
sir Dick Bran did get put in his place though
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think he did. Sir Richard Branson (a business genius if you ask me) asked a simple question which Rogers still has failed to answer. What is the GRR, really! And how is it legal to call it “Government” Regulatory Recovery Fee when the government isn’t asking for any recovery fee. Isn’t that false advertising or ‘misleading’ to call it a government regulatory fee to make it sound more credible when really it’s a fee that just lets Rogers charge their customers whatever they want in each province and has nothing to do with the government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quite astonishing. They are both as bad as each other, only Telus can claim the moral high ground here.
Rogers’ decision to replace the SAF with another made up fee AND hike prices must be the stupidest thing they have ever done, and deserves a good mocking. But Bell aren’t the ones to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Way to go Virgin. Finally somebody has said EXACTLY what I am feeling!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a joke. Seriously, even the entire Rogers Social Media team is lost. They try to help you but in the end they just confuse you even more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” – William Shakespeare
A SAF by any other name still smells like…something not very sweet.
The name is not the issue. The fee is. What can consumers do about it? 1) Don’t buy from Rogers and Bell and 2) Tell them why you didn’t buy from them.
Step 2 is very important!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They(Rogers Telus & Bell Ltd)are just showing that they are still in competition with each other while from inside its only one company.
They stopped the Globe alive through Bureacracy and they will stop the other entrant through similar anti- competitive practices,meanwhile you will heard of such statements from them to show that they are in competition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FUNNY HOW BELL AND TELUS COPIED ROGERS AND GOT rid of there msf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0