Wireless code of Conduct

[Topaz]

Soon, both, consumers and the wireless industry will know what the new rules are for having a cell phone. To many consumers have very good reason for complaints against this industry. Rogers, itself, just announced profits of 1 billion. This industry has too many fees, penalties, etc. Hopefully, when this is all done consumers won't be getting bills of 500.00 and up! http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/01/28/tech-wireless-code-of-conduct-draft-crtc.html?cmp=rss

[jbg]

The industry has certain profit and revenue needs. They will find ways to make up the difference.

[Topaz]

I can't believe what some cellphone owners have to pay vs land phones but hopefully the new codes will help bring down the expenses. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/01/29/cellphone-contract-wireless-code-5-things.html

[cybercoma]

The industry has certain profit and revenue needs. They will find ways to make up the difference.

Yeah. Their needs: make as much f'ing money as possible.

[Topaz]

Here's the update and I see they want to make contracts two years not three and and stop companies from locking the cell phones. I also, think their workers should take a refresher course in what the rules are because so many times they tell one thing and it turns out to be the opposite. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cellphone-contract-crackdown-sought-competition-bureau-133003228--finance.html

[Boges]

So the changes the Feds forced the Telacoms to make kind of suck.

2 year contracts sound good on the surface but previously you can keep your bill relatively down while still subsidizing a good phone.

In the past you were locked into a cycle of 3 year contracts even though most phones don't last 3 years but after 2 years you can just re-up and get a knew phone. You were locked with a provider in a cycle of contracts but you could still get a phone at a good price and a contract at a good price because the provider knows they have you for 3 years.

If you call in any of your big 3 Telacom's now they require you to take a $85/month deal if you want to a subsidized phone. That's a lot more than I pay now.

This new deal actually helps the Telecoms because forcing them to offer only 2 year contracts it makes more sense to just buy your own unlocked phone. That's what I'm doing.

Ultimately these changes have ended up costing the consumer more not less.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

It actually doesn't make sense to buy your own phone, unless you already have a plan that they can't change on you. If you buy your phone outright and start new plan, it comes out in the wash unless it's an iPhone. The iPhone is actually more expensive to buy outright.

[overthere]

So the changes the Feds forced the Telacoms to make kind of suck.

2 year contracts sound good on the surface but previously you can keep your bill relatively down while still subsidizing a good phone.

In the past you were locked into a cycle of 3 year contracts even though most phones don't last 3 years but after 2 years you can just re-up and get a knew phone. You were locked with a provider in a cycle of contracts but you could still get a phone at a good price and a contract at a good price because the provider knows they have you for 3 years.

If you call in any of your big 3 Telacom's now they require you to take a $85/month deal if you want to a subsidized phone. That's a lot more than I pay now.

This new deal actually helps the Telecoms because forcing them to offer only 2 year contracts it makes more sense to just buy your own unlocked phone. That's what I'm doing.

Ultimately these changes have ended up costing the consumer more not less.

The phone companies just shrug off annoyances like having to amortize the cost of a phone over 2 years rather than 3. Doesn't cost them a dime either way.

What really puckers their sphincters is the thought of actually having competition for customers. That has faded with the death of some of those conpanies who hoped to compete.

We'll continue to pay far too much for slow services.

[Boges]

It actually doesn't make sense to buy your own phone, unless you already have a plan that they can't change on you. If you buy your phone outright and start new plan, it comes out in the wash unless it's an iPhone. The iPhone is actually more expensive to buy outright.

I needed a new phone and they told me, because of these new rules, that they'd have to give me a new plan that was a lot higher than my current plan. A plan that I sort of leveraged out their retentions department last time my contract was up.

They told me the increased price of the new plan was due to only being able to offer 2 year contracts.

This is from Rogers. The plan you can get if you bring your own phone is $65. The minimum plan you can get from them if you do get a subsidized phone from them is $85.

$20 over 24 months = 480

They'll still charge you from $0-$250 upfront for the phone you get. The new Galaxy S5 is comparable to the price of the iPhone 5S: around $700-$800. You can get good unlocked smartphone Android, Windows or older iPhones for under $500.

So it's a wash either way. But with an unlocked phone you're not tied to the contract and you can take your phone to the US without buying an inflated package from your carrier. Just buy a sim card and pop it in. Buying mobile data on a locked phone from Rogers is offensively expensive.

If you can afford the upfront cost of buying a phone outright you'll have to budget much much less for a mobile plan. Having these internet enabled phones has really added to the cost of having a cell.

Before, you sort of didn't care what phone you had, as long as it made calls and looked kinda nice. Now you have to consider what OS you want the phone to run and the specs to consider. Phones age very quickly nowadays.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Boges

[Boges]

The phone companies just shrug off annoyances like having to amortize the cost of a phone over 2 years rather than 3. Doesn't cost them a dime either way.

What really puckers their sphincters is the thought of actually having competition for customers. That has faded with the death of some of those conpanies who hoped to compete.

We'll continue to pay far too much for slow services.

I actually had a customer service rep tell me that her company was actually starting to lose money with the 3 year contracts.

In all my years of having a phone, I've never had a phone last more than 2 years. When the phone conks out I call them up saying the phone is broken, I expect the phone to last 3 years if that's the contract I sign. They always gave me a knew phone as long as I re-uped my contract.

I guess now that the retail prices of these smartphones are more than many laptop computers, the game has changed a bit.

[jbg]

The iPhone is actually more expensive to buy outright.

I have a really dumb question for everyone; if you buy a phone outright how do you purchase call and data service?

[Boges]

I have a really dumb question for everyone; if you buy a phone outright how do you purchase call and data service?

Same way you always do. All you need is a SIM card. But with an unlocked phone you won't be tied to a contract as you won't be paying off a subsidized phone.

You can do a month to month plan an it will most certainly be cheaper.

[jbg]

You can do a month to month plan an it will most certainly be cheaper.

Who offers those?

[Boges]

Who offers those?

All carriers do. A Telecom would be more than happy to offer a plan without having to shell out hardware.

[cybercoma]

I have a really dumb question for everyone; if you buy a phone outright how do you purchase call and data service?

yes, but you get a discounted rate.

[overthere]

yes, but you get a discounted rate.

Discounted?

If you buy a plan that incudes a 'free' phone, the cost of the phone is amortized over the term of the contract. You also pay for the data/call services.

If you buy a plan that does not include a phone, you pay much the same amount for the data/call services.

Nothing is discounted.

But we have been trained to look at the wrong things with phone service, and the carriers have distracted us for a decade with the hardware and software.

Where we are getting royally screwed is on the cost of the services, and the locking in with a single carrier..

[cybercoma]

If you buy a plan that does not include a phone, you pay much the same amount for the data/call services.

Nothing is discounted.

There's a discount with the Big 3 providers if you bring your own phone to them.

Telus: 10% off any monthly individual plan

Rogers: Save up to $10/month when you activate your own phone on select Share Everything plans.

Bell: Bring your own phone plans start at $45/mo, while plans with LTE phones start at $50/mo.

[Boges]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-s-wireless-cancellation-policy-boosts-costs-for-basic-plans-study-1.2706027

Regulators brought in the change as of December 2013, putting an effective end to three-year contracts and aiming to stimulate competition by letting people switch carriers. But for the bottom end, this means higher prices.

The government-commissioned Wall Report showed the monthly charge for basic mobile wireless service rose to $36 in 2014 from $31 in 2013, and $34 in 2010. High-volume users saw their prices decline to $80 from $94 in 2013, and from $110 in 2010.

"The reduction of contract terms placed upward pressure on service plan prices given there is now a shorter period available to recover the handset subsidies," said the report, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.

New discounts available

However, it said the main phone companies now introduced alternative no-term "BYOD" or bring-your-own-device plans which can yield a discount of $10 to $20 a month.

See. The CRTC policy is actually costing people money. The telecoms no longer want to give you a free phone and get you to subsidize it over a few years. Your contract comes due and you think you can get that latest iPhone or Galaxy S5, think again unless you want to drop an extra $30/month.

Buying the phone outright seems like an option more people will opt for. Which is why Google is brilliant for selling their Nexus 5 phone direct on the Google Play site for half of what you'd pay for a new Samsung or iPhone.

[cybercoma]

Of course it costs us more money, the demand for cellphones is inelastic. There is no competition in the market. So people are forced to pay whatever prices the big 3 collude upon.

[cybercoma]

Frankly, I think telecommunications and internet should be public utilities. Maintained through taxes and owned by the people.

[Boges]

Of course it costs us more money, the demand for cellphones is inelastic. There is no competition in the market. So people are forced to pay whatever prices the big 3 collude upon.

But that's not the reason for the hike. The telecoms are just responding to rules the CRTC forced them to comply to.

It's still a cartel like system but I don't imagine that would change much if it was controlled by the government, then there's no competition.

[cybercoma]

If demand was elastic, people would stop buying cellphone plans after the hike. You want to bet the prices would be lower then? Look at the difference in price where there's public providers. The Big 3 doesn't just close up shop. They simply charge less and still make huge profit

[Michael Hardner]

Frankly, I think telecommunications and internet should be public utilities. Maintained through taxes and owned by the people.

There's a weird dichotomy at play here, and not just with you. We want Canadian workers to be able to charge more than market for their services so that we can maintain a strong middle class, but we don't want that for Canadian companies like Bell, Rogers or the banks even though they would do the same thing.

I haven't thought about this parallel too deeply, let me know your thoughts on it.

[TimG]

Frankly, I think telecommunications and internet should be public utilities. Maintained through taxes and owned by the people.

Regulated oligopolies provide better service at a lower cost than any government run institution. I also don't see why using a captive market to extract outrageous benefits/pay packets for government unions is better than private corporations making a profit. At least with the private corporations the average person can benefit from dividends. Edited July 15, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

We want Canadian workers to be able to charge more than market for their services so that we can maintain a strong middle class, but we don't want that for Canadian companies like Bell, Rogers or the banks even though they would do the same thing.

Good observation. It is nonsensical hypocrisy. Companies making profits are good things (especially for banks) and most people don't have any ability to determine what qualifies as an "excessive" profit. Edited July 15, 2014 by TimG