shelphs Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 In order to compete with the new wireless providers of Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile, which launched in late 2009 and 2010, Rogers launched its third wireless network under Chatr also in 2010. Upon Rogers’ release of Chatr, it began an ad campaign to distinguish it from the others by claiming “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.” In response, Wind Mobile “filed a complaint with…[Canada’s Competition] bureau…over Rogers’ advertising campaign” in September 2010, stating “there is no way Rogers would have access to its technical network data”, which prompted the bureau to perform a two-month inquiry into the matter. The Competition Bureau “concluded there is no discernible difference in dropped call rates between Rogers’ Chatr service and new entrants.” Negotiations were attempted by the bureau to settle the dispute, but Rogers was unwilling to address Wind Mobile’s concerns. As a result, the bureau “began legal proceedings against Rogers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act.” The case is expected to begin in mid 2012. Facts of the case will not be dissected until the Competition Act’s constitutionality is debated, for Rogers argues that the penalty of $10 million for first offences and $15 million for subsequent transgressions for false or misleading claims is criminal in nature. That is, the penalty within the act is civil and not criminal, which resultantly denies those accused of “procedural and other safeguards of the criminal law process guaranteed by section 11 of the Charter.” The safeguards include: “presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence, and the privilege against testimonial compulsion.” Rogers also argues the Competition Act violates its freedom of expression under the Charter by requiring “a company to have ‘adequate and proper’ tests of a product's performance before advertising claims about the product” can be made, which is to say, Rogers wants “to put all the risk that they are wrong on the consumer rather than them”, says Michael Janigan, a consumer advocate of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. The Charter disallows companies from knowingly making false and misleading claims, but Rogers wants protection from making statements that are not known or cannot be known to be false; that innocence should be presumed regardless of claims made on data to which they do not have access. For example, information on Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile’s dropped call data. The law needs to protect consumers by ensuring they are provided accurate and fair information to make informed decisions in the marketplace. Proclamations of service performance are presented as facts and should, therefore, be based on it as well. It’s a matter of educating VS convincing, misleading. Consumers have the right to choose products based on empirically supported claims. i. theglobeandmail.com Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010 Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/misleading-wireless-ads-put-rogers-in-hot-water/article1806112/ ii. cbc.ca Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/19/consumer-chatr-rogers-competition-bureau.html iii. theglobeandmail.com Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010 Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/misleading-wireless-ads-put-rogers-in-hot-water/article1806112/ iv. cbc.ca Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/19/consumer-chatr-rogers-competition-bureau.html v. cbc.ca Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/19/consumer-chatr-rogers-competition-bureau.html vi. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html vii. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html viii. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html ix. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 My neighbour's son is with Rogers and he had more customer service problems with them. One person will tell the problems is fixed and then he gets his bill has doubled. He's gone to see WIN, they told him when they expand to his area this year, it was cost him $30 per month and not the $110, he's paying on Rogers and he doesn't have to pay for the phone, after costing $3000.00, mostly in interest, he's leaving Rogers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I have Rogers for cell phone, internet and cable. Never had any billing problems at all. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I have Rogers for cell phone, internet and cable. Never had any billing problems at all. Ever. That's good but maybe its because you have cable, cell and internet with them and they would lose a good paying customer. Win told the guy, they have more former Roger's customers then any other name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.