90

Rogers reports Q4 results, says slow growth was caused by new 2-year contracts and the CRTC’s Wireless Code

rogersstore

Rogers announced their Q4 and 2013 year-end results today. This is the first time we’ve heard from new President and CEO Guy Laurence, who stepped into the role when Nadir Mohamed departed on December 2nd.

Laurence stated on his first month that “While I’ve only been on the job a short while I believe we have a unique opportunity to move the business forward in ways that will be very rewarding for our customers, our shareholders and our employees. The foundation of the company is strong and we continue to generate healthy margins and cash flow, but our rate of growth has slowed. Currently, I’m criss-crossing the country listening to all of our key stakeholders to hear their feedback and to develop a detailed plan that will build on our legacy and grow shareholder value for many years to come. I know we can do better and this is a key focus for me and the management team.”

As for Q4 specific wireless results, Rogers reported a 4% decline in wireless revenue ($1,851b) and this was directly caused by “lower priced roaming plans and pricing changes associated with our new simplified plans.” For the year 2013 wireless revenues topped $7,270b. Rogers subscriber base is now sitting at 9,503,000 — 8,074,000 postpaid and 1,429,000 prepaid — which a slight increase of 5,000 subs from last quarter. Rogers says the the reason for the slow in subscribers was blamed on the industry transition from 3-year to 2-year plans and the recent adoption of the CRTC Wireless Code.

Blended ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) was $58.59. Data ARPU was $28.95, up $3.23 over last year. Voice ARPU was $29.64 and saw a massive drop of $5.12. 75% total postpaid subscribers now have a smartphone.

Source: CNW

  • pngface

    Good. Hope this is just the start of many bad quarters

    • Izzkid

      You’re right, the first thing they need to do is outsource all call center’s to Taiwan. They want jobs and will use this as a career. Thus, making sure Customer Service a top priority. Who cares about Canadian jobs, I want cheaper MSF. It would be the same of any Foreign company comes to Canada as well.

    • It’s Me

      They could keep the jobs in Canada, they might just have to cut wages. Realistically, these are people that would otherwise be qualified to be digging ditches or flipping burgers or folding sweaters. There is no need for us to subsidize them into “white collar” jobs.

    • Jesse Laurin

      you ever worked in a call center bud? it’s hardly worth the $14-$15 to begin with, cut the wages and the call centers would be empty building, the turn over rate at the call centers is massive even with current wages

    • It’s Me

      I actually have while in high school and university. Like I said, most of the staff would otherwise be digging ditches or flipping burgers. No need to pay the more than that. You say they’d be empty. I say where else are they going to go.

    • J-Ro

      So when your having technical difficulties with your service, you would like to fix it yourself? Call centers are absolutely needed and the pay they get should be more for what they deal with.

    • It’s Me

      In the vast majority of times that people call, the problem that needs fixing is a matter of pushing some buttons to correct a mistake on their end. That doesn’t take a rocket scientist. For issues that are more technical, it certainly is not that CSR that is doing any fixing. In fact you are lucky if they escalate it to the right dept.

      Call centres are needed. So are ditch diggers and burger flippers. Have you ever done those jobs? Why shouldn’t they be paid more? Shouldn’t everyone get paid more?

      CSR is a completely unskilled position. I am simply saying they should probably be paid as such.

    • J-Ro

      I agree. It doesn’t take much, which is why they cut back on CSR. But it is still needed. The ones that can’t figure out how to work their products are the ones constantly calling. Imagine how hard it is to tell someone that has no idea what you are saying over the phone a “technical” solution. Which is why you hire a “burger flipper” to relate to a “burger flipper” that can’t get it right. The ones that are paid more, do more intense work.

      People aren’t trending in a smarter path so CRS, will be a mandatory thing if we want all these cool bells and whistles.

    • Eric Rabell

      I used to work at a TELUS dealership and I’d say 90% of all problems were one Google search away. I avoided call centres all-together because of long waits and dumb solutions, such as “have you tried turning it off and on again”. It’s a waste of time for clients. What needs to happen is people need to be further educated on trouble-shooting rather than “don’t bother trying, just call somebody”. That saves people time and effort because a lot of people drive to their dealers for help, wait in like an average of 20 minutes and get resolved in 3 seconds.

    • J-Ro

      I worked at a Bell dealership and got the same thing. People would travel to speak with their rep because they see their phone issue as critical as a car issue. Most customers don’t know to call into CS until the rep tells them to. That still doesn’t mean CSR’s aren’t needed.

      I think they should stop out sourcing CSR’s so everyone calling in gets the same experience. I seen some call centers get contracts for big telco companies and give terrible service. Because they aren’t a part of the company culture and philosophy, they tend to care less and it projects through poor knowledge and a lack of willingness to help.

      Wish could make a person ultimately want to go back to the storefront to avoid that ONE bad call they had.

    • Eric Rabell

      And you’re right! Everyone always talked about having to call in and how it would take them 2 hours to get a hold of someone and they did not even speak english. That’s a very common excuse I received when dealing with clients. Not to mention I always fixed the issues with people’s phones simply because I loved my job. But it really is one Google away. Call centers are definitely needed. But for crucial things (such as a network reset from the back-end or to remove a texting block on an account). But there are so many unnecessary calls that they need to hire more personnel and it is cheaper labour overseas. I have absolutely no problem with foreigners since I am one myself, but I did get tired of people complaining about the call centres when they call in to simply get their phone hooked up to their car… Not to mention that it creates inconsistency with clients since many times a TELUS CS rep would offer all these magical things to a client all the way from South America, then leaves no notes on the account and I was the jerk who would tell them that the client got lied to.

    • Thomas Milne

      Rogers uses 3rd party call centres like Sykes.
      They pay minimum wage.

    • J-Ro

      And thats the real problem. They are doing the same or more work as some but getting paid a lot less. No one would care to do anything remotely close to a “good job” if that was the case.

    • stent00

      why not? id rather have them being payed more as a customer to actually understand their companies own policies and procedures, than be passed onto numerous buffoons who do not even know what they are talking about… or speak english properly for that matter… Of course Rogers would just like to pay the cheaper price and claim “We have customer service” even though it might not be effective.

    • It’s Me

      Do you think paying them more will magically make them more compotent? Like I said, most of them aren’t qualified to do much else.

      If their pay was cut, where else are they going to go?

    • Davidyyz

      If they cut pay, then turnover will be higher then it already is and people will do something that is much easier for the same pay.

      If you pay more, you can afford to hire AND retain better quality employees with more work experience and higher educational backgrounds. This is one step towards offering better customer service.

    • It’s Me

      Higher turnover implies they have somewhere else to go….

      Paying them more doesn’t make them better quality when they are hiring from the bottom of the barrel already.

      I’ll ask again, if they were paid less, where else are they going to go? Answer that and I _might_ buy into your assertion of it causing higher turnover. Are they all going to quit and start flipping burgers or digging ditches? Because for most of them, those are viable alternatives. Except by staying, they would get to keep working indoors and at a desk.

    • Davidyyz

      I didn’t say paying them more will magically make the existing employees better. I said that if you pay more, you can increase the minimum qualifications and hire better people. In addition, management can demand better quality work from existing employees. If existing employees can’t meet that standard they can simply be fired for substandard performance and newer, better employees can be hired.

      If you cut wages, then those that are left will work somewhere else. I don’t think you’ve ever worked in a telco call centre before but the stress level is high. Customers are often irate, and systems and policies can be very difficult to navigate. If you cut wages down to minimum wage why would someone stress themselves out working at a telco call centre when they can wait tables or make coffee for the same amount of money? The value of working indoors and at a desk diminishes very quickly if the pay is low and the stress is high.

      Also, I don’t know where you go this impression that these call centre employees have no where to go. Turnover is already ridiculously high even at current wages, so clearly they have somewhere to go. There are thousands of corporations that operate call centres and many pay higher wages than what Rogers and its competitors pay.

    • It’s Me

      Then let the raise the qualifications. Raising wages does not improve them. Lower wages won’t make them worse. Having higher standards and hiring higher calibre people will help and that will mean higher wages, but higher wages does not mean better people. Given they seem happy with the staff they have, then there is no reason to pay them any more than a ditch digger or burger because they are no more qualified than a ditch digger or burger flipper.

      And you keep saying they will go elsewhere. Where else will they go? For the same money, would they prefer to flip burgers? For the same money, would they prefer to work outside?

      And indeed I have worked in call centres. And yes, it sucks. So does mopping floors and cleaning toilets for a living, but that doesn’t mean you get paid more because you aren’t qualified for more than a crappy job.

      Those call centres that pay more will generally have higher standards and required qualifications.

    • Davidyyz

      I guess you’ve never been in a position to hire people. You cannot simply increase your hiring standards without offering anything in return.

      And yes, people definitely have somewhere else to go. Who are you to say they wouldn’t flip burgers or dig ditches for the same wage? Not everyone places equal value on a desk and an indoor work environment. Many would be much happier digging ditches then dealing with screaming customers, if the pay was exactly the same. These individuals OBVIOUSLY have somewhere to go, because the turnover is already out of control. Not sure where you get this idea that these people have nowhere to go.

    • It’s Me

      You have guessed wrong. And when hiring, I pay commensurate to the job and their qualifications, abilities and the market conditions.

      Turnover may be high, as it is in any low qualification job. You’ll see similarly high turnover rates in burger joints and other jobs of a similar level. You don’t see high turn over in positions that require a specific skillset, training or ability.

      One thing throwing more money out does not do, on it’s own, is improve staffing. Only if requirements go up do requirements go up. You may have to raise wages to attract people with better qualifications. But if, as it is with carriers, they have bare minimum qualifications, that is who they will attract and that is what they should pay. I am not interested in subsidizing someone with a GED so they don’t have to work outdoors.

      So, for the nth time, where else would they go? I know people that work at carriers right now, and they wouldn’t think of going to flip burgers or digging a ditch if their call centre pay was the same. All things being equal, they like the comfort of a “white collar” job that has no more stress than dealing with customers anywhere. As a kid I worked at McDs too..and customers were horrible there too.

    • Davidyyz

      Lmao, clearly you are not reading the comments correctly. I said if you want to hire better people, you need to offer better pay, which is exactly the same as paying commensurate to the job and their qualifications.

      If you look at Telus they’ve done a much better job. Their call centres pay much higher, and thus they’ve attracted better quality employees who actually stay. It also shows in their financials and their customer service rankings. Bell and Rogers are the only ones who are stuck in this old school mindset.

      And you pointed out exactly where they would go. They can go dig ditches and flip burgers. Not everyone finds value in sitting in an office for low pay. Many will find it more enjoyable and less stressful to do those aforementioned jobs.

    • It’s Me

      The discussion you replied to was whether to cut their pay. You said that would lead to higher turnover. I disagree because they have few options and low qualification. You say they might in order to find a better quality of life. That’s a big maybe, but the hiring qualification are known. They hire bottom of the barrel. All things being equal, some might opt to flip burgers or dig ditches. I propose that not many would and if they did, there are thousands of other under-skilled people that would take the job. High turnover is already a fact of life with them.

      So, yes, they can either raise the qualifications and maybe raise pay for that, or they can keep the current requirements. If the latter, then there is little reason not to also lower pay since they can’t do much worse than what they already have and lower wages won’t attract lessor candidates because they don’t exist.

    • Mister T

      I’m not sure how you equate Call Centre workers as having the overall value of ‘Burger Flippers’ and ‘Ditch Diggers’.

      We simply can’t paint one sector of employment with the same brush. It comes as flippant and quite ignorant; specifically when you began delving into your experience as a ‘Hiring Manager’.

      If you want the appropriate talent, you must pay adequately to keep and furthermore, retain it. Stating that they have no other options is ridiculous simply because we do not know what their qualifications are/were prior to taking on said position.

    • It’s Me

      Ever looked at a job posting? They are not advertising for rocket scientists. These are unskilled positions.

    • Matt Welke

      I used to work at a call centre and earned just above minimum wage and a position off the phones. That was as high as I could climb. Now I’ve left them, am going to school, and maybe someday they’ll be using software I create. Higher wages = Better employees and more retained employees, it’s simple economics.

      Also, you’d have to pay me twice as much as you would flipping burgers for me to work on the phones again. I could handle it, but it doesn’t mean I’d want to.

    • It’s Me

      Nope, higher wages never automatically means better employees. All it means is higher paid employees.

      To get better employees means hiring better employees. That may or may not mean paying more, but paying more certainly does not equate to better employees.

      Good for you for improving your position. Call centres are great for unskilled labour and students. But they aren’t a career, so you’ve done well for yourself by moving on.

    • ScooterinAB

      A 4% decline in profits in one quarter isn’t the Rapture. It’s just a 4% decline in one quarter. I’m pretty sure every wireless carrier, no matter what they charge or how long they’ve been operating, saw sales decline last quarter.

    • It’s Me

      If I were a Rogers shareholder, I would be very concerned if mgmt really thinks the 2 year terms and other rules are the cause of the slowed growth. It shows a complete misunderstanding of their own business.

      Here’s a clue…the 2 year terms could have been used as a catalyst to substantially grow their business by using the shorter terms to attract new business and renewals..instead they decided to be pigs at the trough and are paying for it.

    • pngface

      I found another excuse via The Star:

      Rogers said a two-week break in the NHL schedule to accommodate the February Sochi games meant higher costs as it shouldered more broadcasts compared to the previous year.
      I was actually contemplating getting some Rogers shares for the long term post earnings, but I will probably stay away now

    • Eric Rabell

      Through the math it should be the same thing though. Everyone had a minimum 50$ a month for a smartphone in 3 years. With the new 2 year contracts the minimum is $70 a month and their plans mostly start at 75$ which equates to the same amount paid by the consumer anyways. Rogers has been losing clientele due to their customer service and their inability to retain clients.

    • It’s Me

      A couple problems with the math. (A) that $70 may not get you what the $50 used to (B) people that would otherwise have been 2 year or no term should have seen no change under the new rules but instead their also went up similarly.

    • Eric Rabell

      Somewhat true, 55 dollars used to get you 1GB data, 200 minutes and 10 favouite numbers; 63$ if you wanted caller ID and voicemail, and unlimited text. Now with the $75 they had a promotion for 1GB of data and unlimited calling Canada-wide. Normal consumers never used more than 100 minutes and people were smart about their 10 favourites, so in a way we used to get more. the only difference is that you’re paying for the unlimited calling that most people don’t necessarily use. The 20$ increase is to pay for the subsidy that one gets with their phone. The only thing we really gained was the unlimited calling and when prices are normal, it is 85$ for 1GB of data. The fact is that the consumer IS getting screwed regardless if it is a 2 year or a 3 year plan – we’re paying the same amount either way. If it was a 1 year plan then we would have to pay 90$ a month, that’s how their math works.

      Everyone who is on a 3 year plan before July 2nd of last year remains paying the same amount but there was talk of changing their contract into two years. TELUS anyways is telling people that they cannot keep their plan if they switch into a two year and they promote their Share+ Plans, but unfortunately it’s still about 70$ per phone outside of double data promotions.

      What the consumer pays goes mostly towards the subsidy of the phone which equates differently per phone, usually about 20-25$ a month now, while before it was about 10-15$. What we need to do is understand that we did not gain anything from the new code except unlocking our phones sooner and cheaper than some third-party store and we should really push towards something that benefits us more

    • It’s Me

      Actually, the difference in subsidy repayment between 2 years and 3 should mean about a $7 increase per month for the very highest end phones. Yet, the increase is closer to $20. On top of that, those that would otherwise have had their subsidy repaid over a 2 year term with a smaller subsidy or had no subsidy at all also had a similar increase in rates.

      In otherwords, the new 2 year term should have impacted only a portion of customers and for much less that actually happened and the impact was directed at all customers instead of just those that would have taken a 3 year term.

      The new rules do not explain the massive price hikes. At all.

    • Eric Rabell

      That’s what I’m trying to say. Prices increased to make up for the 12 months that consumers don’t pay anymore. We did not gain anything from the change in the Code at all, that’s the point I’m trying to make. When it was 3 year contracts we paid less than we do now.

    • It’s Me

      We do pay more. But it has almost nothing to do with the new code. That’s just an excuse.

    • Eric Rabell

      That’s exactly what I’m saying. The Code has affected nothing.

  • Wufai

    I tend to gauge myself when the Big3 posts results. I’m happy to report I’m 33.4% below Roger’s Blended ARPU.

  • Andrew Goldenberg

    Come on Rogers! It has nothing to do with 2 year terms. Maybe if your pricing was less ridiculous then people would stay.

    Customers are jumping ship because they are tired of having to get a second mortgage to deal with your pricing.

    • D Kup

      Exactly…. Moving away from Rogers was the best decision I have every made! I save over $900 a year!

    • bembol

      It can’t be always about they money (saved), I’m just happy I’m no longer with them!

      I even got some of my family & friends to cancel & switch.

    • Andrew Goldenberg

      Most of my family are on their way out as well. All so tired of being hammered by insane charges for wireless.

  • D Kup

    Thanks to the soaring costs of a monthly plan with 2 year terms, any decent plans with good amount of data will cost consumers north of $100 after tax. Not too many people can afford this kind of luxury…. There is really not point to sign any contracts when you have a plan from a few years ago. 6GB of data and a few hundred minutes of air time, unlimited evening and weekends only costs $60. Some of my friends with Rogers just choose to buy their own unlocked device and forget about the upgrades.

    I had enough with you Rogers and I move my whole family and all my business lines away from them since Oct 2011. For personal use, Wind is the best choice for my family. For business purposes, I have 10 lines with Koodo.

    So, Rogers, keep jacking up your ridiculous prices and you will suffer in the long run.

  • graze81

    Despite them being in trouble and their murky future, in order to save money and get more for less, I’m ditching Rogers and going to Wind in April.

    • gmaninvan

      Honestly, the only thing really murky is the fact that it will be very difficult for them to get LTE. Their user base will continue to grow due to their far superior pricing. If Wind can weather the storm, they might be solid as a cheaper option for years to come.

  • ToniCipriani

    Or they spent way too much money on that Fair for Canada thing.

  • Tim3Tripp3r

    Dear Rogers: Ditch your ad company who is responsible for those God awful spots – like those two dumb a$$ kids on the ski lift. That’s a stink aroo commercial if I ever saw one.
    Quit gouging the crap out of people and maybe your churn rate will go down.

    • abc123

      “oh… phew!”
      “what?”
      “I just had a Rogers LTE moment”

      LOL! Yeah, ditch those i****s… If Rogers LTE made me daydream like that, I would not want to use their service. Judging by the amount of daydreaming that kid experienced on the ski lift, he probably blew through 1 GB of data before he snapped out of it.

  • Jonah Emery

    $70 + smartphone plans with measly data will do that.

  • must

    ROGERS= ROBERS

    • ToniCipriani

      And when you’re on Rogers, you get Rogered.

      (hint: Google Images search for Rogered)

    • It’s Me

      yup, bend over and prepare to be Rogered, i.e. welcome to our new plans

    • Dave

      LOL

  • canuck07

    Oh good, the regulations are working, at least to some degree.

  • Samuel Gomez Recuero

    They are yet to realize that making less money per customer is better than makling more cause lower prices will bring you a lot more customers. And that goes for all of them

    • ToniCipriani

      No you spelt it wrong. They KNOW you want data, that’s why they are gouging.

    • Wufai

      FYI for comparison, in 2013 you can get a 600MB data plan for $39, $5/250MB overage nationwide from Fido, some provinces offer as low as $29 for same plan.

  • Tpickles

    Next up Bell and Telus blame the government for slow to no growth over the last quarter too.

    • Matt Dickerson

      I guess you missed Bell’s results? And now knowing Bell and Rogers, we know Telus’ in terms of how many customers they added. there is only so much pie to go around.

  • Jackie

    Law of supply and demand. Demand is low for your too high price levels, Rogers. New 2 year contract prices went too high!

    • Jackie

      The 2 year plan reason is not even logical. This was only implemented in the Fall and it hasn’t been long enough for consumers to leave. I think now they may be blaming 2 year contracts because they were “forced” to raise prices to cover the subsidy. But then consumers are refusing the high prices.

    • It’s Me

      The two year pricing is too high but was only part of their massive price hikes.
      1) They hiked prices for people that would otherwise have been on 3 year terms and hiked them much more than recouping the subsidy a little quicker justified. Around $7/month increase for these customers would have made them completely whole. They instead went up $20-$50.

      2) For people that would otherwise have been on a two year term without the new rules (i.e. lower subsidy phones) they also hiked rates when the new rules would not have impacted these terms at all.

      3) For people that would otherwise be no term, they hiked rates and obviously these would not have impacted at all by the new rules.

      So, they used the rules and term limits as an excuse to massively inflate pricing, which slowed growth. But they want to blame the rules and term limits, which is completely ignoring reality.

  • Izzkid

    LOL – Obviously I was trolling, As I have received 4 positive hits shows you that people feel that way. It’s also interesting to note with last year’s threat of Verizon coming to Canada, a lot of people did not care about the possibility of Jobs going overseas

    • It’s Me

      Except that a foreign company has no more and no less incentive to ship jobs overseas. Do you honestly think Rogers keeps jobs here because they love Canadians? No. They do so because it works out better for them. Bell tries overseas call centres and they were a flop. If they could do so without the downsides, they all would cut every job in Canada.

  • rob

    Maybe they over spent on the NHL deal , now they can rip us off for hockey packages. … lol

  • It’s Me

    Exactly. The new rules and limits didn’t slow growth. That they used these as an excuse to spike prices across the board, even for those that would not be affected by the changes (those that would be on 2 year anyway or no term) is what slowed growth. People might have noticed prices went up a huge amount for no reason.

  • Mike Scott

    Always an excuse!

  • gmaninvan

    I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is also largely because most Canadians hate you and your price gouging

    • FlageJan1

      HOW DARE YOU TAKE LIMBS, SIR!!

    • ToniCipriani

      When you’re on Rogers, you don’t have any limbs. They took them already because it costs an arm and leg. Next thing they want is your newborn.

  • Collin dubya

    Boo hoo! Its about time they took a hit as we have been taking up the you know what from them for far too long..

  • Kenny G

    Just the beginning……more of this will be happening to the big 3.

  • Bri Bru

    They will think of this as another “Fair for Canada” issue.

  • AW Sudo

    What a ridiculous accussation… 2 yr contracts and CRTC?! Bulls**t! Your customers just decided that after bending over for 3 yrs, the company is not worth dealing with anymore and switched. Having native English speakers that aren’t following scripts would be helpful too since no one likes to wait an hour and then be forced to hear phrases similar to “I can’t do anything for you. You got the best deal for us…”

  • Dave

    They already pay the lowest they can, and already fired all the unnecessary employees or shifted to third world countries.

    Get your facts, or perhaps, you getting paid from rogers for writing those comments.

  • HelloCDN

    Nice try, Rogers, but no.

  • Ranger

    Yeh the 70 dollar plans were not to blame at all.. or that the fact to get anything decent plan wise u need to shell out 100 bucks a month

  • Stephen K

    If you jack up the price by a ridiculous amount, what the hell do you think is going to happen?

  • Rob D

    Rogers can’t expect to continue growth at these insane $100+ a month plans when companies like Wind are offering $40 – $50 for unlimited everything. No one wants to pay that much for a bloody cell phone. Get a clue Rogers. It’s called competition, usually companies pay attention while they are undercutting one another. Ignorance, self entitlement and just all around sour grapes are just turning into the big 3′s rep. The CRTC isn’t in it for you guys to continue to gouge, they don’t have to be your friends if you wont play nice, blaming them just shows a lack of responsibility. The cash cow is winding down, at least in the mobile sector. All companies peak and decline at some point. Learn to cut and adjust prices to lure consumers back in or watch the loses continue.

  • Ulysses Grant

    Government Recovery Fee will go up from 2.95 to 6.95.

  • j378d

    Rogers is full of crap. The 2 year contracts and Wireless Code didn’t decrease subscriber growth. First of, these rules are the same for everyone. Second, Rogers take responsibility or your crazy pricing instead of trying to blame the government for dong something that should have been done long ago.

  • Peter

    Everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize the implications. If the big three start bleeding money a number of things happen that impact everyone.
    1) pension plans are heavily invested in Telcos because they are quite profitable, if the telcos fall so do your pensions
    2) Fewer revenues means fewer dollars to invest in new networks, which means everyone will complain about the poor network.
    3) jobs lost, when your neighbor loses his job guess what happens? you lose your job because he stops buying from your company. Perhaps every industry that we all work for should be the subject of such vitriol. See how everyone would appreciate that!
    If things were so bad before why were 100,000+ people signing up with the telcos every quarter? and now that things are “better” after government intervention 5,000 are signing up.
    Ridiculous mentality of consumers if you ask me.

    • AlphaEdge

      The rates in Canada are outrageous! Driven by an oligopoly of three companies that dominate the market. I checked pricing a number of times, and they are within a dollar or two each other. They refuse to compete with each other, so they can make excessively huge profits.

      You’re arguments are a smoke screen to the blatant greed of an oligopoly at work.

    • Davan Mills

      Your argument is replete with logical inconsistencies and errors.
      1. You imply that every pension plan lives and dies off telecommunications companies’ performance. This is absurd. While one company (Rogers) loses, another (WIND, Videotron, etc.) gains. Business in this sector remains contained in Canada. It’s not like we’re all leaving for AT&T or Vodafone or something that’s functionally impossible.
      2. If everyone complains about the “poor network,” then they will jump ship and cause such a company to post further losses. To offer decent service is essentially the only responsibility of telcos. If they fail to do so, they themselves stand to fail (look at Mobilicity). Apparently enough competitors offer decent enough service for customers to switch.
      3. When my neighbour loses his job, I feel sorry for him. All business sectors respond to supply and demand, some better than others. It just happens that the big telcos have done a poor job responding to our needs (like more data and less voice) so we choose to call for change. I’m pretty sure you’re not pleased with gas prices nowadays. You see?

    • abc123

      I would to add to Davan’s post and say this:

      Pension investment strategies are not set in stone. Managers can and will diversify the portfolio and offload poorly performing companies to minimize losses.

    • It’s Me

      1) they can and do invest elsewhere
      2) they make more than enough to reinvest into their network. If they opt to funnel profits to massive executive compensation and shareholders, that is their choice. But please don’t be so ridiculous as to claim poverty on their behalf.
      3) Job losses are their choice. See above.

      Why were so many people signing up? Because of the strangle hold the big 3 hold/held, there was little choice but sign up with them. Rogers growth has been slowing for at least 4 years now, which corresponds to the new entrants.

      Every one of you points assumes that Canadians want to subsidize Rogers. We don’t. If they want our business, let them compete.

  • Davan Mills

    Premise: Consumers do not like rip-offs.
    Deduction: Consumers want to avoid rip-offs.
    Statement of fact: What has Rogers (and Bell and Telus) been up to these days? Ripping people off.
    Logical conclusion: People hate Rogers and leave.
    Result: Rogers experiences slow growth.

    Second graders can even understand such simple business logic.

    • Wufai

      The only fault in your logic is that Rogers with all the rip-offs you mentioned, still experiences growth, meaning there is still more new customers joining Rogers then people leaving Rogers.

  • midnightdoom

    Yeah blame it on the 2 year plans, maybe if you offered fair prices people wouldn’t be jumping to Wind as soon as they can. Ohh rogers lost 4% but are still a multi billion dollar company, boo hoo, raise my bill some more already why don’t you

    • Andrew Goldenberg

      That’s pretty much what happens. Rogers costs go up, consumer costs go up. Why lower profits when we have new people joining and feeding the fire?

Trending News

Other Articles