Follow Us:
MPP on the carriers device unlock policy: “consumers are tired of being gouged”
Ontario Liberal MPP David Orazietti recently introduced Bill 133 that’s taking aim to stop “unfair practices” by wireless carriers. Some of his objective are to reduce cancellation fees, make contracts easier to understand and force carriers to unlock devices when they’re paid for (after the contract period is completed). Various carriers such as Rogers, Fido and TELUS all have come forward with a $50 charge that gives customers the option to unlock their device.
Orazietti stated in a released that “The recent decision by Telus Mobility to offer unlocking as a paid service falls well short of providing customers with any meaningful new consumer protections. Telus’ decision fails to recognize that a device that has been paid for in full should automatically be accessible to the owner at no additional cost… Under Telus’ new rules, owners of many Smartphone models, such as the iPhone, the Samsung Elevate and the Samsung Advance as well as owners of older cell phone models will not be eligible to have their devices unlocked. When it comes to addressing unfair business practices, the major wireless service providers still have a very long way to go and frankly consumers are tired of being gouged by these companies.”
Thoughts?
Source: SooToday
Discussion
51 comments for “MPP on the carriers device unlock policy: “consumers are tired of being gouged””
Post a comment
- CES 2012
- Mobile News
- Airtel Wireless
- Bell Mobility News
- Chatr
- Clearnet
- Eastlink
- Fido News
- Globalive News
- Koodo Mobile News
- Mobilicity
- MTS
- NorthernTel
- 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
Some one is finally paying attention.
Wtg Orazietti!!
Like or Dislike:
63 
3
GIVE THEM HELL!!!!
Like or Dislike:
56 
3
jellmo and others, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought part of Bell, Telus and Rogers getting their spectrum licenses meant they had to provide rural service as well? If such is true, urban concentration only benefits the new entrants while the incumbents are indeed affected by Canada’s geography.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Totally Agree! Why is it that we pay more in Canada than any other country for our cell phone rates?! Something has to be done about this, and this is a good first step!
Like or Dislike:
54 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
18 
45
@schoo
The problem with that notion is that despite the fact that we have such a low population and a large land area, much of that land is sparsely populated.
The population base of major Canadian cities is easily large enough to offset the cost of these advancements. Population and land area has nothing to do with it.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
17 
36
for sure I get where your coming from, but look at it this way, I crunched some numbers, and before the new laws came into effect(back in june 2010) vs now, there is a big difference in price…if I would have decided (with the same phone I have now) to cancel my contract, before the new law in june 2010, it would have cost me 640$ (32 months left on contract) and now, only 300…thats half price.. which is a good thing, and I believe they wanna bring contracts down to 2 and 1 year contracts, because we are the only country to still offer 3 year contracts, and in this world, and this economy, 3 years, just isnt cutting it.
Like or Dislike:
39 
0
In an earlier article, the issue was about reducing cancellation fees not eliminating them. The article stated that for the same phone, the cancellation fee in Canada was $125 more than in the US.
Like or Dislike:
19 
0
What if you DON’T get an exspensive phone? Do you feel it’s justified to pay a cancellation fee 2 to 4 times higher then the actual cost of the phone?
He’s not saying the EFC should be lower then the cost of the phone, he’s saying the fee should be fair and not a flat out rip off to both company and consumer.
Like or Dislike:
26 
0
The cancellation fee should reflect the benefit of the phone subsidy received, and nothing more. Telus is on the side of angels in this respect with their new cancellation policy ($50 admin fee notwithstanding). And Quebec definitely got it right with bill 60, which basically makes the cancellation fee equal to the pro-rated phone subsidy.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
So @Tom, why if I didn’t get a subsidized phone do I have to sign a contract and pay ETF on it even when it is the Telco that change the terms of the contract?
The ETF should NO exceed the cost of the unsubsidized device and should be ZERO at two years since that’s their term for renewal. In short they rip you off.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Must be an election coming up. oh… yeah, Oct 2011.
Like or Dislike:
33 
2
If a customer wants to unlock their device before their commitment period is over I don’t see a problem with a small fee (maybe around the $10 range, not $50). However, if they wait until their contract is over, then I feel like it should be done for free. Also, I like Quebec’s ECF law – it makes sense and Ontario and the rest of the country should look at something similar!
Like or Dislike:
28 
1
Bell charges $75 to unlock a phone that you have paid for totally burns me.
Corporate greed…when can it end…when will it stop being ripoff?
Like or Dislike:
37 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
7 
24
I directly own Bell shares, so I am directly “benefiting” from this greed. However, I would gladly see Bell profit take a hit by having the current unfairness of its (and Rogers) ECF policies changed. And, I bet most other folks who directly or indirectly “benefit” would as well.
Like or Dislike:
18 
2
Maybe manufactures should be allow to sell their unlocked phones directly to consumer instead of just through service providers.
Like or Dislike:
38 
2
What’s stopping manufacturers from by-passing carriers? Tigerdirect.ca, PureMobile.ca, NewayCI.com all sell unlocked mobile phones directly to consumers.
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
Anti-consumer exclusivity deals between the carriers and the manufactures are what stop TigerDirect, etc from selling these phones. A truly competitive phone market cannot exist while such exclusivity deals are allowed.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
The 32GB iPhone is available from the Apple Store for $779.00. With all the debate about 3yr contracts as soon as my Rogers contact is finished I plan on switching to a monthly plan and purchase my iPhone directly from Apple. I figure that I should save about $1080 over 3yr if I get the iPhone from Apple vice $269 iPhone from Rogers. Initial difference $510 more – savings after 3yr $570 plus unlocked iPhone.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
hell yea im tired of dishing out cash at every turn…what if I wanna buy a phone without a contract, cuz I like the phone but am not with the company?…im forced 90 days with them ON TOP OF paying 50$ to unlock it…unfair practices?…I think this should be down right illegal… already that their mark up is of almost 2000% of what they actually pay… why not make a little less profit, and let us enjoy our phones, without worrying about pricing and how much more we gotta dish out for this and that…
…stupid wireless companies…havent any of you gone to business school before opening major canadian and international companies?.. Less profit = more clients… its just basic knowledge
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
“I agree with the other two, but why reduce cancellation fees? How high are they now?”
I only got a $95 subsidy off my last phone with Rogers… well $65 if you consider the BS $35 “activation fee”… and I was told to cancel the remainder of my contract (2 year) I would have to pay $400.
Like or Dislike:
18 
1
depending on the province you live in Bill 60 is different. here in quebec its simple. the subsidy times the number of months remaining divided by the number of months on your term(in all) so ex. 95$ x 32 months(3 years minus 4 months) = 3040/36 months(complete term) =85$…. you shouldnt be paying more then 100$ for the cancelation of your product.
Also the Quebec Bill 60 states that a company who cancels/suspends your account can NOT make you pay the 30$ reactivation(it is PROHIBITED), or can not force you to pay off the rest of your contract if they canceled the contract, and vice versa. if you are not happy with the services you are offered, you can call them, give them a 60 day verbal warning that you are canceling because they did not honor their end of the contract, and they can not charge you the cancelation fees. if they do then you can sue them. but thats quebec. make sure its the same in your part of canada. you can google Bill 60 with the name of your province and read up on what your province is doing to prevent you, the consumer, from being screwed.
Good luck
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
oh but they cry out when you complain! then at the end of the financial year, the CEO (with loads o cash falling out is pocket and smiling broadly) announces huge profits.
how did fred and wilma flintstone make out? i say we imitate them for a year!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
The Flintstones had HSPA – High Speed Parrot Access! It was more reliable than the HSPA we have (except during hunting season).
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
So they downgraded from Pterodactyl access??
Guess the Pre-Christ-mas bonus wasn’t what it was expected to be!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Just look at all the big tel co’s profits, nothing but up. The sky is the limit for them, as we all go broke paying for basic service locked in on contract and with phone!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@schoo
Your argument would be valid if it weren’t for the simple fact that 90% of Canada’s population is located about 160km away from the US border. It’s not like they’re throwing 30 towers across the Yukon. That argument has always been misused by the incumbents to justify their constant gouging. Try again.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
And you’re right, with the vast majority of users, they are in the urban areas just north of the border. but what about the other 10% of the population? the carriers have been putting up more towers to service these areas with a much reduced incentive to do so (financially)
On top of this, many users expect their devices to work wherever they are more and more these days, when getting away from these population centres.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
go WIND go!!!
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Why has Wind garnered so many fanboys, but not Mobilicity? Mobilicity’s didn’t need to change the rules, their marketing is better and their prices are better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The problem with bill 133 is that the unlocking provision apparently only applies after the contract period has completed. There is absolutely no justification for not unlocking an on-contract phone. The contract binds the person and the phone to the carrier, so keeping the phone locked is 100% unnecessary.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Good Luck to the MPP. The carriers have a big lobby.
I think there will be a bill in Ontario, like Quebec.
Someone made a comment regarding Canada has the 2nd largest land mass, I was not aware that the carrier build their networks based on size on land mass, seems to me they build their networks near populated areas!!
I believe the carrier want their cake and eat it too.
Almost all of the carriers see shrinking landline sales and want their profits to stay fat.
Why not move the landline assets to a separate company and keep fast growing markets, this way they are not subsidizing the landline business.
The bean counters and Bay Street want annual profits from these companies.
I think the mobile industry has become the industry of greed, the folks at Rogers, bell, Telus and the others see their dominance as a means to charge like the wild west.
Text Messaging – almost free cost, huge profits for carriers
LD – same cost for LD call as local, terminates on carriers network
Data – we pay a huge premium for those on/off ramps for data, once data hits the tower, rides on same network as your ISP
I believe carrier need to make a profit, I disagree with gouging!!!
How many people would be willing to purchase a $99 plan that includes the following:
Text unlimited
Data unlimited with acceptable use
Voice 1000 min
Long Distance Canada included
Voice Mail included
call Display included
Incoming calls included
No Roaming fee if call starts and terminates on same network
I am sure there are other items to add.
Would the carrier’s make money at $99, hell yeh
How many people would increase their ARPU to $99, lots!!!
It gives consumer a a constant bill.
Unlock phones for people who purchase phone outright at time of purchase.
Unlock phones for people traveling outside Canada, if they cancel their contract, carrier have fee recovery anyway.
Stop Playing Games!!
I believe if this continues, government would need to involve themselves in the carrier’s business, tariffs would be used to provide a pricing model, since we have an almost monopoly of cell carrier, if the carrier’s can not become consumer friendly, tariff them, make them justify their costs and profits to CRTC!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
I have friends who work at wireless companies such as bell,telus,and rogers…40$ a month, they get EVERYTHING unlimited… no joke… so why would we pay 99$…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
how do you justify selling me a locked phone if i pay for it in full ??? the phone is mine outright not subsidized.
on top of that when i shop for a plan it’s the same price as the guy who is locked into a contract. where is my discount you know that percentage that pays off the phone?
there nothing but thieves and we allow them to just keep stealing.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I have been a Telus client for over a decade and have reached a boiling point. I’ve had multiple instances of customer service personel removing bonus features without my knowledge and adding paid ones in place, unauthorized rate plan changes, etc.. Had I not been so vigilent with monitoring my account, I would have paiud the price! In a span of less than a year, my phone which was purchased at full price, has crapped out on me twice and each time the warranty process has taken over a month to have it repair. Granted, device defects are beyonfd the control of the carrier, what is however within their control is the ability to offer good service. I paid to have my device unlocked separately at a cost of 3 dollars on ebay and while this amount is negligible, what really irks me is the fact that when I received the device back from repair, on both occasions I had to pay again to unlock the device as the had re-locked it! Now they are offering to unlock phones for 50 dollars? are you kidding me? This is a real slap in the face to consumers! What is even more offensive was the response to my complaint by a Telus manager at the Vaughan Mills store…her response “Call client care and complain…not our problem….want to go to the competitors…its your choice”…(All of this said with the most elevated of tones) You’re right Telus manager, it is our choice to go to the competitors…some of us have been quietly testing out your competitors for some time now through the use of basic phones and data sticks…think about that next time you tell someone to beat it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
The reason Telus has the 90 days restrictions etc is to protect themselves and customers against massive theft. They don’t want criminals getting phones (ie. bb torch, samsung fascinate) to be gotten on a subsidy and then the criminals don’t pay theor bill and now have a $600 phone for next to nothing which they sell overseas. They are still much better than Rogers which will not let clients do it until their contract is complete.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
Except for the fact that unlock codes for most phones (including most $600 smart phones) can be purchased for $5 to $30 via ebay or some other third party, so a 90 day waiting period provides no real disincentive to these alleged hordes of criminals.
And let’s not forget the credit checks that the telcos do on prospective customers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I think that what Canadians really want is transparency. I have no problem with a contract. Just tell me what I am paying for my phones subsidy and what I am paying for my service. Force the big three to tell you this like wind has done with windtab. Service and hardware should be separate, I believe this is law in Australia. You are a telecom provider, you should not force consumers to buy subsidized phones from you by not offering plans that do not include handsets. When I hook up my internet at home I didn’t buy my computer from shaw for f’s sake. The way it is set up now is all people hear is $0 phones. Believe me, you are paying for that phone, probably three times over.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@schoo
“the carriers have been putting up more towers to service these areas with a much reduced incentive to do so (financially)”
Hmmm. I’m not sure that I buy that to tell you the truth. I’d need to see some proof. Here’s why. The providers aren’t charities and very rarely do they bend to the will of the consumer unless they stand to profit tenfold. I’m not trying to be a smart a*s…really I’m not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Lets mention that you need to give the carrier min 30 days notice you are cancelling otherwise you need to pay for the next billing cycle regardless.
Yet it takes sometimes less than 20 mins to port your number to another carrier?
Shady as hell!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Why on earth should an iPhone or some of the others listed be excluded from being unlocked anyway?
I know – because then they can screw with customers even more.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
This man is great, let’s hope he actually does something to ruin their dumb $50 unlock fee.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I dunno who this guy is but I think I may like him already. The more he does to bring us inline with the resr of the worlds proces the better.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Totally agree I would love to leave rogers because thier prices are just astramonical, but I’d have to pay another 500 to do so. Its a loose loose situation. Rogers truly sucks and I think is the top gouger in the big three.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I am really enjoying reading all the passion on this issue. Obviously it is crystal clear Ontario mobile consumers are aware they are being gouged and are close to the boiling point. This has the potential to be a real hot button political issue. I sincerely hope all of these comments are being read by those in Queens Park in advance of considering this bill. It is time to remove these artificial barriers to competition and allow the best carriers, with the best price and service offering to win.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I’m not sure what the timeline is for this thing to have a chance to be passed, but let’s hope there’s a real shot.
When Quebec introduced Bill 60, all we hear from “insiders” and the talking heads of the Big 3 was that this would only result in higher prices and lower subsidies. In fact, the opposite has happened. Quebec is probably the most competitive wireless market in Canada with even the incumbents offering unlimited plans.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
When a device is fully paid for, the ownership is now transferred to the buyer and therefore, the buyer should be able to a device anyway he/she wants. The big three locked the device first and now we have to pay them to undo their wrong doing even it is fully paid for? This is like when you are buying a TV, you are allowed to watch only channel 1 and you have to pay to unlock all other channels! What kind of non-sense is this?
I agree that when a device is being subsidized, the user should complete their term of contract before the device can be unlocked. Once the term is over, the device should unlocked for free upon the request of from the user.
I agree that when a carrier subsidize and equipment and at the point of cancellation, the user should only pay for the remaining subsidized amount for the contract + an interest rate (say the prime rate). This is pure economics as the carrier should be compensation for a risk free rate as they lose an opportunity here. However, the current cancellation fees are just simply unjust!
Also, with the big three, I don’t understand why I need to go into a contract with them for simply joining their promotion plan even I am not getting any device from them? Rogers makes you renewing your contract for every little stupid incentive they give you.
Manufacturer should be encourage to sell devices to users directly, just like Apple. In Europe and Asia, this is a very common thing. It is not a new concept at all. If Apple can do it, then how come HTC, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Acer, RIM, Dell and other folks can’t do it?
Last but not least, the 30 days cancellation notice should be illegal because it takes the big three a minute to activate my line but a month for them to cancel it? How does anyone justify this logic here?
The government better keeps Wind going after the next 40 days. We need some serious competition here. Win has a very good potential to eat into the big 3′s lunch. Mobi, while they are still good, should expand their network so that they are starting to be a threat to the incumbents. Since the newbies has better technology than the big three does, their costs at the same time are lower, a lot lower than Rogers. With this advantage in hand, I so hope the newbies can have meaningful coverage in the next three years.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
> a device that has been paid for in full should automatically be accessible to the owner at no additional cost.
Makes perfect sense.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The fact that he is concerned that ‘owners of older cell phone models will not be eligible to have their devices unlocked’ shows he knows little about the telecommunications industry.
Let’s see him force Telus to unlock those CDMA phones.
Prior to politics, he was a teacher in Sault Ste Marie. Doesn’t McGuinty have any tech-savvy MPP?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1