Wherefore art thou, lower phone rates?
Thursday, January 24, 2008 | 03:21 PM ET
By Peter Nowak, CBCNews.ca
When the government deregulated the local phone market last spring it did so on the premise that consumers would benefit. With Rogers raising phone rates in the country's largest market - Toronto - as of March 1, for example, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that then Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier's promise is having a positive effect on consumers. Moreover, there are a number of things about the price increases by Rogers - which is powering ahead by every financial measure - that are sure to rankle customers.
Let's begin with the Rogers increases itself. The company is boosting home phone prices via an increase in its "system access fee," to $5.95 from $4.50. The system access fee is native to the cellphone world and is a uniquely Canadian marketing trick, critics say, used by phone companies to make consumers think they're paying less than they actually are - there's the advertised price of the service, then there's the extra tacked-on fee. The service provider can raise this fee and bring in more revenue, all the while maintaining the illusion that their rates are lower than they actually are. It's an especially handy trick when you want to compare prices with those in another country - omitting hidden fees makes the Canadian provider look better.
The cellphone companies have also gotten themselves in some doo-doo by telling customers the fee has been mandated by the government, giving rise to a massive ongoing class-action lawsuit.
Exactly why is there a system access fee on Rogers' home phone? The company says it's there to cover the cost of building out its network, which is the same rationale used in the cellphone world. Yet just about every other phone company in the world - whether it's landline or wireless - considers network expenses as just another cost of doing business and does not break out the costs separately.
Rogers is also raising prices across the board, from television to internet access rates to cellphone voice mail fees, all in order to cover rising expenses, a customer service agent says. But according to Rogers' latest quarterly results, expenditures on wireless property, plant and equipment was up 2 per cent over a year ago. The same spending on its cable and telecom unit was down four per cent in the same period. Revenue and profit in both areas, meanwhile, was up significantly - wireless brought in 18 per cent more revenue and 22 per cent more profit, while cable and telecom revenue rose 12 per cent and profit was up 27 per cent. Clearly, a lot more money is coming in than going out, yet rates are going up nonetheless.
But back to home phone rates. A parliamentary committee, the CRTC and consumer groups screamed bloody murder when the government was pushing through deregulation last year, saying it would only lead to higher fees. Cable providers increasing their rates would be the first step, which would embolden phone companies to follow suit. So far, it seems they were exactly right.
What's ironic is that at the time, Bernier said about 60 per cent of Canadians would benefit from lower rates, which should have started hitting major markets last fall. Even more ironic is that cable firms have never had their phone services regulated by the CRTC and, as such, were the main opponents of Bernier's deregulation. They warned that it would only lead to higher prices. "We know that the CRTC's tried-and-true method [of regulating phone companies] works. It leads to more competition and lower prices," said Ken Engelhart, Rogers' regulatory vice-president, back in April. "What the government is doing here is an experiment that hasn't been tried anywhere else in the world. Time will tell if it works."
Clearly, Rogers is following some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - and customers have yet to see the benefits of deregulation. In the meantime, consumers upset with their rate increases can try to seek answers from the company and, if disatisfied with the answers, lodge a complaint with the newly established Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services. We'd love to hear about your experiences.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Tech Bytes »
Recent Posts
- Jesse Brown: Worldwide copyfight heats up down under
- Wednesday, February 25, 2009
- Alas, that’s not Atlantis, Google says
- Monday, February 23, 2009
- Jesse Brown: Government strangely closed about open source
- Thursday, February 19, 2009
- Is traffic management working?
- Thursday, February 19, 2009
- Jesse Brown: Last chance to chime in on Net Neutrality
- Wednesday, February 11, 2009
- Subscribe to Tech Bytes
Archives
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (12)
- December 2008 (10)
- November 2008 (10)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (4)
- August 2008 (4)
- July 2008 (16)
- June 2008 (9)
- May 2008 (12)
- April 2008 (15)
- March 2008 (13)
- February 2008 (13)
- January 2008 (47)
- December 2007 (12)
- November 2007 (12)
- October 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (17)
- July 2007 (27)
- June 2007 (18)
- May 2007 (28)
- April 2007 (25)
- March 2007 (28)
- February 2007 (25)
- January 2007 (35)
- December 2006 (25)
Comments
Marc
Ottawa
Should they wait until the lawsuit is settled to introduce an increase of the "system access fee," to $5.95 from $4.50.
Posted January 25, 2008 07:55 AM
Grammaticus
Calgary
I'd expect the CBC to know the difference between "wherefore" and "where".
Posted January 25, 2008 11:09 AM
Peter Nowak
Toronto
Marc - the lawsuit is strictly for the system access fee charged to cellphone customers. The increase by Rogers is only to a charge on home phone customers, so the two are unrelated. They are very similar, however, in that both are extra fees tacked on to the advertised price of the service. One can imagine there will probably be big changes to "system access fees" on all types of services if the cellphone providers lose the lawsuit.
Posted January 25, 2008 11:21 AM
Garet
Winnipeg
Ever heard of Shakespear, Grammaticus?
Posted January 25, 2008 12:31 PM
Deadplant
Ottawa
where·fore
–adverb
1. Archaic. for what? why?
2. for that cause or reason: Wherefore let us be grateful.
I've heard that it is the editors rather than the reporters writing the headlines... Peter Nowak probably isn't responsible for this rather embarrassing cock-up.
Posted January 25, 2008 05:58 PM
Peter Nowak
Toronto
Yes, editors generally do write the headlines but this one was all me. We do maintain that it's still okay, however. While "wherefore" does mean "why" and not actually "where," it still has relevancy to the subject matter of the post, which is questioning whether deregulation means lower phone rates or not. It's a bit of artistic license that is fine in a blog post, but probably wouldn't find its way into the headline of a news story since you wouldn't catch anybody using a word like "wherefore" these days anyway.
Posted January 25, 2008 06:26 PM
Jason
*cough* Thank you for the thoughtful... explanation
Posted January 28, 2008 02:46 PM
Gary
Well, I still use "wherefore" now and again, but it's a word that is gradually getting its meaning changed - much like "presently" is now used to mean "at the present time" instead of "in the immediate future".
Anyway, I've always found Rogers' service and customer support to be terrible so I would never be tempted by any perceived deals that they may flaunt my way.
Posted January 30, 2008 11:24 AM
claude
ottawa
please, o, please - can we end the days of the rogers-bell-telus oligopoly! this is worse than full on nationalization of the phone service AND worse than opening the door to all sorts of global competitors. what is the point of protecting canadian interests, if the interests being protected do nothing to add jobs, reduce costs to consumers, or even innovate better products and services.
Posted February 9, 2008 02:23 PM
Max
I am not sure if Rogers will ever offer a good service. What I am sure of though. If you sign a contract with Rogers you can always through that in thier face when having any bill problems.
3 year contract ... $60/month = $2160
Buy out of the contract Max $200
Demand a credit of $50 or threaten to cancel your service and buy out of contract. As long as the contract is worth more then $200 they will always give you a $50 credit, they have a board to answer to, they can't afford to lose customers.
Try it. It works for me!!!
Posted February 26, 2008 03:45 PM