Follow Us:
TELUS on Rogers recent CRTC request “runs counter to everything we are striving for as an industry”
Update: It seems as though Rogers withdrew their CRTC application today. However, read below for bits of the proposed filing.
Yesterday Rogers filed a request to the CRTC that basically is asking for all the carriers to ensure all customer balances are at $0.00 before porting their number to the new carrier of choice. Apparently it’s costing Rogers “millions of dollars each year” when customers comes over with balances.
In the application Dawn Hunt, Vice-President Regulatory for Rogers stated that “Rogers requests that the Commission order that the new wireless carrier will be responsible for the unpaid balances owed by the wireless customer that the customer fails to pay after receiving their final invoice. This requirement will apply only for wireless-to-wireless ports.”
In addition, the applications says “Circumstances have changed since the implementation of Wireless Number Portability (“WNP”) as more and more customers are porting their numbers with unpaid balances that include both charges for wireless usage and early cancellation charges… Customers porting-out mid-contract with unpaid balances are costing Rogers, and most probably other wireless carriers as well, millions of dollars each year. The task of collecting these unpaid balances is made much more difficult once a customer ports their number to a new carrier as the relationship has been terminated.”
With this news we reached out to the carriers. Bell is currently “reviewing the application” and we’re awaiting a response from WIND. Telus has responded to the Rogers application and has stated “TELUS doesn’t agree with Rogers’ proposal at all. It’s not consumer focused, it’s not transparent, doesn’t promote consumer choice and runs counter to everything we are striving for as an industry”. Even on the Twitter page of Michael Hennessy (TELUS’ Senior Vice President of Regulatory and Government Affairs) said the filing is a “Silly idea”.
So this begs the real question for the filing. If a major carrier like TELUS thinks it’s a silly idea and boldly states they don’t agree. Is the real reason about market share and keeping shareholders happy?
Read the entire Rogers submission here at the CRTC (PDF)
Discussion
13 comments for “TELUS on Rogers recent CRTC request “runs counter to everything we are striving for as an industry””
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
rogers should apply fair amount of ecf and no one would feel reluctant in paying the huge fees…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They are looking for ways to keep the “3-year Contract” sales model alive and viable.
People switch…get their $500 early cancellation fee final bill, and realize it’s for a phone that costs $300 retail. It’s laughable and since they have already replaced Rogers they have very little incentive to pay…nevermind incentive to pay an outrageous fee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most likely. This their own fault for the horrible way they go about device and contract pricing. It’s really due to the 3 year contracts. If they scrapped that and used methods that they do in Europe, this wouldn’t be as big a problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rogers has withdrawn the application according to Greg from Cartt
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It costs them millions of dollars in ETFs that’s all, because of the insane and outrageous $400 max and $100 minimum ETFs they and Bell charge.
Get a collections department if it bothers you…wait they already do, the same one that calls me 3 days after my bill is due
Crooks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe it an alarm that a new regulation should put forth.
Regulate the termination fees: they can’t be more than the actual subsidy, and they have to be waived if the service suck, if the carrier decide to change the contract, etc.
Regulate the subsidies and the contracts: if the subsidy for a device is 300$, then no getting a device but a contract should be a 300$ rebate on the duration of the contract, pro-rated in case of early termination. The subsidy is determined based on the price of the device without contract.
Regulate the advertising of prices: if you advertise a plan price, it should be all inclusive, and including without contract, unlike it is today with the nickel and diming, and the premium put on for NOT signing a contract (device or not)
Of course none of this can be put forth with a prorogued parliament (no bill can be voted) and a CRTC whose decision clearly always balance in favor of the big telcos and not the consumers like it should.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“TELUS doesn’t agree with Rogers’ proposal at all. It’s not consumer focused, it’s not transparent, doesn’t promote consumer choice and runs counter to everything we are striving for as an industry”
..says the company that is also supports 3yr contracts and leading the charge against the new carrier (WIND) before they existed..
But anyways, Rogers is stupid. TELUS is stupid. Bell is stupid. All this ‘take as much of our customers money and sue each other to ensure everything stays as unfairly profitable as possible’ is stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Hub, agree on every single point. The wireless industry has been getting a free ride from the government, CRTC, and, sadly enough, even Canadians. Regulations along the lines suggested make sense and are fair. Too bad fair is not what the carriers want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A lot of you are missing the point. This is not solely about trying to recover termination fees, but also just regular unpaid bills.
Lets forget about termination fees for now. If a customer doens’t pay their bill for 3 months should they be able to walk away from it? Or should they be required to be up-to-date on their payments before porting?
The biggested incentive for a customer to pay their bill is to keep their phone working. Once they port to another carrier what leverage does Rogers have over them? Collection agencies? That option is slow, expensive and not reliable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is agreed that unpaid bills are undesirable. But why drag CRTC in it? It’s not their jurisdiction to regulate collection of money owed.
It’s also better to collect the amount as quickly as possible.
Suppose this idea actually went through, what stops a customer from switching and just getting a new number? Before porting came along that’s what alot of people did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How could they make you pay all balances before “Allowing” you to port ?? Are They gunna hold your Number for Ransom ?? That Would take Months “Minimum” before fanal totals balances “Could” be releaced and settled..
Logically it Would be Impossible!
“think about it, if you can not get your final balances untill your number is Canceled, Ported or Transered, And you can not port or transfer your number if it is canceled..
Logically it Would be Impossible!
people that are Not going to pay Rogers when they leave, Damn shure ain’t gunna pay them just because they won’t give them there numbers..
Come on, Seems like there just trying to attack Small Companies etc that depend on there business numbers.. basically trapping them to be in forever! Completely Changing tha Regulations allowing us to take our numbers with us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
serves rogers right. a customer only goes through the trouble of leaving a provider if its the last resort and at that time i’d love to stick it to them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From what I read the proposal didn’t prevent people from porting their number if they owed money to their old carrier. It made the new carrier responsible for collecting the debt.
I’m sure it would still be open to abuse but it does kind of make sense. It would make a carrier think twice about taking on a customer if they had to pay off the old debt for them. Though I don’t know why they would want a customer that was so willing to jump ship midcontract.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0